“Cat’s Eye” Limited Edition Prints (pre-order)

in Latest News by

Check out the latest artwork available from Jodi’s gallery site @

The latest addition – “Cat’s Eye” – is a drawing Jodi did for me, and 100 Limited Edition Giclee prints will be available shortly @ $99. A portion of each sale will go to support no-kill animal shelters.

Here’s the info from the site –

"Cat's Eye" - Jodi Arias Limited Edition Giclee Print

By the way – and just in case you were wondering – I removed the “Occupy HLN” post & links from yesterday. That was due to Jason Weber and his ongoing accusation that me and the site admins were profiting from donations and t-shirts sales via our site. The fact is, we never see or handle any of those funds. It sounds very much like Jason Weber & Sandra Webber (@ “Inconvenient Truths”) are cut from the same BS cloth. Fuck them anyway if that’s all they have to offer.

Have an awesome Tuesday peeps!


Team Jodi

The new “Survivor” t-shirts are now available. 100% of the net profits generated from the sales will support other survivors of domestic violence, and go to Non-profit Domestic Violence organizations selected by Jodi.

If you would like to help Jodi by way of a financial donation via check or PayPal, click the Team Jodi link below for further details. All donations go directly to the Arias family…

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



      • Thank you so much for posting this link. It touches my life in so many ways as it did Jodi’s The powerful message says society is quick to blame the victim for staying in an abusive relationship. This TED talk gives great understanding as to why and how each abusive incident escalates to the point where there is a possibility someone will die. Remember Alyce’s testimony?! She was so right and I am sure will never know how many people she helped. I appreciated seeing this and will pass it on. Again, many thanks.

        • I found many similarities in the video compared to case. Jodi moved to be close to T.A., she falls for him because he was smart and funny, he idolized her, he confides his secrets in her, especially after the picture thing, he shows two faces, one for the public, one for her, he isolates her by making her play along with his secret, which was her, We know Jodi tried to let people know they were an item. If she really did even slash his tires, would anyone blame her? T.A. was clearly playing mind games and for that matter, knowing he was such a player, it could have been another woman or man, who slashed the tires,

          T.A.’s behaviors were very, very, controlling. I believe that T.A. knew Jodi was actually serious about moving on and he did not like it. Jodi was his puppet and his ego booster, no one would have an easy time letting that go, let alone a person with deep troubles. I also think Jodi was brainwashed by T.A. If you watch the interviews before Jodi admits to killing T.A. I feel Jodi is portraying a confident person because T.A. portrayed these qualities and everyone believed he was a good person, when in fact, he was leading a double life. Jodi even admits that she thought to herself, “what would Travis do” when she posed for the mug shut”. That should give you a glimpse of how much she put him on a pedastol, as well as how much she feared him.

          If you just put everything into context, it all makes sense. T.A. was a motivational speaker for crying out loud!!! In Jodi’s eyes he was very powerful and e dryine liked him. This why she went along with everything. You can even get a glimpse of his own personality in the videos Dr. Drew played to make Jodi look bad. Dr. Drew shiws a clip of T.A. soeaking at a prepaid legal event. T.A. actually plays a character Edin S.??? Some disgusting guy from L.A. Another video showing a clear glimpse of T.A.’s personality was when T.A. was sitting in a living room with a bunch of friends telling a story of an attemped robbery he survived. Well, Dr. Drew and firiends were discussing how Jodi was half asleep while T.A. told this story, claiming once more Jodi was disconnected. Then Dr.Drew has this French woman friend of T.A.’s on and she said T.A. told her the story previously at some prepaid legal event. MY point is, Jodi probably heard that story 100 times. This guy was an egocentric and he practiced speaking and ” winning” people over everywhere he went. He wanted Jodi to be down, he made sure she was viewed submissively, this is what made him feel good and it was what turned him on sexually. T.A. was a sexual and emotionally abusive, as well as physically. THIS was HIS disconnect. This is also why you see Jodi portraying him like such a great person. She was brainwashed!!!

          The whole thing is very sad because Jodi should not have gotten M1 for defending herself. T.A. Should not have died the way he did but how do you stop it? When your in the fight of your life, should you only have three stabs wounds? Only one fatal gun shot? There is no set pattern you have to follow to prove you feared for you life. There is a lot of evidence, hidden all over the place, that displays patterns of abuse that we do know is real. In hindsight, I think exposing all the little secrets may have saved Jodi, despite the pictures displayed by the prosecution.

          • Color puple, I couldn’t agree with you more. Everything you said is true. I thought that same thing about Jodi probably heard that story a hundred times!
            That’s what made me so mad and frustrated during the whole trial was they never ever considered her side. At all. So glad to have found this site. I don’t speak much but I always check in. I was at a flea market over the weekend and saw a box of old postcards. Made me think of sending one… 🙂 Hugs to you Jodi, if you hear of these posts.. <3

      • Exactly why I chose the name! What a testimony she gives. Wow, thanks for sharing that. I will also share it, as everyone should 😉 Spread the word!!

    • Couldn’t find my comment or any replies to it, so I’ll ask again. Any chance there is a retrial of the actual verdict? There are too many things that say while what Jodi did was awful, she didn’t deserve a M1 conviction.

      • raven,

        it’s later in the day and since apparently no one answered your questions i’ll have a crack at it


        sounds like you’re new here, and so haven’t been reading the posts or comments
        yes a retrial as to culpability ie guilt or not, is possible

        new here, and unfamiliar criminal trials ?
        now as to retrial as to culpability ?
        yes, following an appeal, which experienced criminal trial attornies have said should suceed, out of which a new trial aka trial de novo would be available to the prosecution

        now as to the remainder of your question
        i don’t want to be mean to you, but gist of your question arises frequently, even here, in different forms

        “There are too many things that say while what Jodi did was awful”

        what jodi did was NOT AWFUL
        it’s not awful and it’s not unlawful, to kill one’s attacker, when in fear for your life

        do you know that is the law ?

        have you any suggestions how you, or anyone, should kill their attacker in an unawful manner, when the attacker is intent on killing you ?

        do you feel that what she jodi did by killing the. mormon, man who attacked her, and who informed her that he was going to fucking kill her, was unlady like, or unbecoming a young lady, moreso to kill him with a knife ?

        would it have been ok if she had shot him with a gun, and he dropped dead immediately, without feeling any pain, as is portrayed on tv ,or television ?
        if one bullet was ineffective to halt his attack, would a second bullet be ok, and not considered unladylike ?

        do you know of any sanitized, or aesthetically pleasing, way to kill, or perhaps “dispose of” one’s attacker ?

        is it better to use a euphemism when mentioning using deadly force on an attacker ?

        have you had to ever kill anyone who attacked you, of whom you were in fear for your life ?

        is raven a woman’s name ?
        if you have been so attacked, tell us how you termiinated your attacker ?

        was it aesthetically not unsettling emotionally, as well as an appropriately ladylike method, and effective ?

        if you are a woman, perhaps you should let us know if you believe women should be allowed to use a knife in self defense, or is it better that they be killed themselves ?

        should the military be subject to the same rules of combat when attacked physically by the enemy ?
        would it make any difference if the soldier was a man ,or a woman ?
        should female soldiers be issued with combat knives, or is it better that they be killed than be indulge in unladylike behavior by using a knife to kill their attacker ?

        jodi in self defense killed her attacker, an affirmative defense, which negates ALL charges ie m1, m2, manslaughter

        • Wes, no disrespect meant, but there was never any proof that she was attacked, IE @ least witnesses who verified that in court. I do think something set her off. While the foreman did say he believes, Jodi was abused, nobody bothered to push that point very hard in court. IA do think she has serious mental issues, and as usual, the system failed to help someone in need.
          I’m not going to comment on a “sanitized, or aesthetically pleasing, way to kill, or perhaps “dispose of” one’s attacker”. You do what you need to defend yourself. The one thing that I keep questioning was why she kept buying cans of gas. I do think something/someone pushed her over the edge. I mean ZERO disrespect or hatred towards Jodi or anyone on this page.
          I am a male, but am disabled, and yes, I have been attacked before and yes, I would do whatever was needed to defend myself.
          Thankfully, I have never had to kill someone to defend myself. I don’t think you saw my post from Monday, but I stated at most, I believe this should have been manslaughter, not M1. I do think Jodi has a lot of talents and if given the help and hopefully the love she deserves, she has a copious amount of things to offer society. I LOVE her artwork! I hope I cleared up any misconceptions.

    • I ordered one the of cats eye print its beautiful and I am happy to see that some of the proceeds go to no kill shelters.

    • Yes. I agree. Actually, I read a comment where initially Jason Weber said that he was unaware anyone from this site was profiting from anything, and if they were, then he did not agree with it. Some haters were stirring up trouble, calling SJ a crook. Grrrrrr…. I was so angry! I bet they have everything to do with those ludicrous accusations.

      On a different note – the cat picture is beautiful! Considering ordering a print – looking into budget.

  1. wow I hope it can be sorted out. Occupy HLN has done some good for Jodi by exposing the scams going on with the TA funds….either way…haters gonna hate and stir up trouble.

    • Going to. buy one today it’s beautiful this kitty looks like my two cats Spankyham. and Curry it nice to see that about these helpless animals.

    • I have a great idea, I’m going to donate the money I would have spent on the print directly to an animal rescue organization. That way, the animals win AND there is still one more print that can be sold so someone that may not want to just donate will buy! So the animals win twice!!!

  2. SJ-
    Welcome back. Hope you had a good vaca. I am so confused about Jason because I have seen nothing on Occupy that he intimated anything negative about you or team Jodi. He has actually posted positive remarks when you featured his article on this site. I do know his site was hacked a few days ago and I’m wondering if that has anything to do with this. He has also mentioned that he is not affiliated with this site, as the haters always accuse him of being you. I will be soooo disappointed if this turns out to be true, because he and IT are both big supporters of Jodi and uncovering the corruption. Please let me know exactly what was said and when. I would actually like to message him about this an see what his response is. Thanks a bunch.

    • I hope it is not true about that site but you would know more than us SJ, I just liked it yesterday and posted a couple of times so that worries me now, it is not as safe as here though and it would be easy to go off on some people because of that but I try not to act like the people on the JforT sites, I came back over here last night and it felt better

    • Just signed it. Was going to put it on my FB page and recruit others, but FB has blocked me from posting for the next 12 hours because I posted that the Mormons are an evil cult and should be stamped out, apparently FB didn’t like that!

  3. What’s Giclee prints???? Iv been wanting to purchase a drawing but they are wayyyyyyy too expensive for me ($1500) is not in my budget. I wish it was, but no, its not. But $99 I can definitely do. Would this be a like a copy print?

  4. I may have to dip into my birthday fund to order the print. I love it!

    I like the info on both Sandra and Jason’s facebook sites but I feel safest here. Mostly because the haters are not tolerated here even for a second. I have no problem donating through the link provided by SJ and/or purchasing items that are offered.

  5. woooooohooooooooooo hi you guys!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and BTW, I need a little help in about an hour and 15 mins. I need some serious motivation to get up and clean this messy place up!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Welcome back, SJ! This drawing is beautiful (as is all Jodi’s work)! I actually just sent her a postcard with a cat motif last week 🙂

    • Rachel, lol help help help! Please help me motivate myself to get up and clean this nessy place up in an hour and eight mins!!!!!!!!!!! Gimme somethinnnnnnnnnnnnn good

      • Hey, cj! “Either you run the day or the day runs you” is a good one I always go by! I’m fixing to go to the bank here in a few so lets get it done!! 😀

        • cause in a hour and 8 mins it’ll be three here and that will give me time to do some stuff and get a place cleared off for the new tv iffffffff they have it and also I’ll have some time while am cooking burgers on the grill before husband gets home and i have to get supper on table for my father in law (who lives with us) by 6. Anyway, I’m fittin over it all but can’t seem to get motavated to do anything

          • Wouldn’t you rather get done with the “have-tos” so that you can do your “want-tos” for the rest of the afternoon/evening?!?!

            You had me cracking up with your “hour and 8 minutes”….LOL LOL LOL

            • I know it’s unreal but when I get hyped up I tend to be veryyyyyyyy down to the minute. Now I’m down to 45 mins BUT you are soooooooooooooooo RIGHT! I’m going to start with the have to’s and then come back and do more want to’s!!!!!!!!!!! I’m going to do that in just a very few mins, well, after smokin a cig. Then I’m gonna get up sooooooooo if you see me here whop my ass and say get UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • I got stopped for a tag that was OUT but wasn’t OUT and they guy was like whyyyyyyyyyy are you so nervous maam????? I was way hyped, and thennnnnnn he saw the beer on the back seat and said how many beers have you had today to which I replied NONEEEEEE! He was like OK, ok, calm down, I just saw it there. LOL and I’m gettin way hyped now.

  7. SJ,

    I was concerned as well re. Jason’s comment about our site’s access to funds. However, I am wondering if perhaps there was just a misunderstanding on Jason’s part. I’m sure he hears lots of lies from haters and it’s sometimes difficult to sort out who are the trolls. Perhaps communicating directly with Jason would help clear things up. Jason is a strong advocate for Jodi and I think his site and ours are on the same page. In my view, it would be a mistake to alienate ourselves from other sites who are working towards a positive outcome for Jodi. I think that we can help make a more profound difference to Jodi’s future appeals, if we join forces rather than alienate ourselves from other like-minded groups. Our two sites working together will have much more impact than working separately. Just my two cents worth.

    P.S. – Do we have “Lawyers on Strike” as a link? The discussions there are often insightful. Some of our members, such as AA , often contribute to the conversations on that site.
    Along the same vein, I would like to see Vladamir’s link back here as his comments are very “pro Jodi” as well.

    • If this trial, or the Casey Anthony trial should have taught anyone, it’s not to go around believing accusations that are not true.

      There was never any proof to back up those accusations, and he posted them anyway. Why? Why should he believe a single word the haters say? They’ve lied about everything else so far. The haters should have no credibility at this point, after they’ve repeated the same false narrative over and over again. There was no reason for this to be a “misunderstanding” at all.

      We will continue to work for a positive outcome – without the bullshit bandwagon jumpers. IMO it’s presumptive for you to come here and tell us to ignore these serious allegations and pretend that they mean nothing yet don’t bother to tell them (whoever they may be) to stop lying about us.

      FYI – Vlad wants nothing to do with our page.

      • ^5 MB…and not for nothing….but did you catch “…our site….”

        Mr. Davis….

        If you are a TRUE support of SJ’s SITE, you wouldn’t ask him to entertain acknowledging the bullshit that is being spewing. As well, I fail to see any up side for Jodi or SJ for that matter with having the person’s link you would like to see get airplay and attention on SJs site. He has made cruel and quite nasty comments about SJ and HIS SITE and all those who participate herein. I fail to see how having his link would BENEFIT JODI.

        • ^5 Janeen, I totally agree.

          Since when is attacking SJ upholding the Constitution? Or helping Jodi? Oh I forget, OccupyHLN, like Pitchforks, isn’t an innocence web site. Apparently innocence web sites are for lesser plebeians who cannot match the vast intellectual superiority of bloggers who couldn’t bear to condescend to say that “Jodi Arias is Innocent.” No, they’d rather spend their time being verbose or entertaining the allegations of haters in the spirit of “objectivity” when in fact they just don’t feel that Jodi Arias is worth fighting for. That is why they don’t believe we would do this all for free. They don’t believe that Jodi is worth volunteering for, spending time and effort for, without getting some form of compensation.

          That’s the difference between us and them – we believe Jodi is a person worth fighting for. We don’t need “a cut” of anything to do it either. More than that we want to attract legitimate supporters, not half hearted phonies that presume we should be so desperate to grab onto any schmuck that says they support Jodi without really contributing anything meaningful.

          I want to be clear that I don’t care if others read Vlad, Pitchforks, OccupyHLN, or any other blog that has eventually thrown us under the bus in pursuit of making a name for themselves; but if I hear one more “But they make statements that are sorta pro-Jodi, therefore are one of us” I am going to throw a sock at my wall. At the risk of sounding like an “orthodox clique” as a supremely condescending fence sitter accused me of, no they are not, and especially if they go to lengths to distance themselves from us.

          This site has a purpose. The purpose of this site is to support Jodi, the Arias the family, and to work towards her release. This isn’t a circle jerk where we all get to mentally masturbate to political or poetic warbling without actually DOING anything. We aren’t keyboard jockeys. We are going to do what we can, contribute what we can, and see this through till the end wherever that leads. That’s more than a lot of people can handle, and I can respect that. Maybe they can return the favor by NOT repeating the bullshit accusations from the Travis Taliban, who have never been honest about anything in this entire case.

          • MB….

            I ♥ YOU “ROBIN”!!! LOL

            You are magnificent!

            We mustn’t forget: (((((((((((((((((((((((hugs MB))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 😉

            Oh…and of course…MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE: Screenshot THAT asshole!

          • Hope I didn’t offend anyone with my post earlier. I no longer listen to VG or see his tweets, as he threw this site under the bus. My question was more one of concern that I have somehow missed something on the Occupy site. I am and will continue to be a diehard Jodi supporter and fully believe in her complete innocence. Sorry if I have offended any of you who are also die hard supporters.

            • No, you didn’t offend me at all!

              I’m not even sure what post you are talking about. So no worries. 🙂

              • Thanks MB. I posted about Occupy saying bad things about this site, as I have followed them and IT for a long time and I thought everyone was on the same mission for Jodi, and I never saw anything negative on those sites about SJ or Team Jodi.

                • I could post a link to the previous version of the page cached by Google, but there’s a longstanding rule not to post links to hater bullshit so I’ll keep that to myself.

                  Suffice to say, things were said, things were removed, and at the end of the day, Jason believes that the haters have valid points. And that’s on the current version of his page too.

                • No need to post MB, I believe you. I know he is much more tolerant of hater’s postings than I am. That is how I got kicked out of FB for the first time, by responding to a real scumbag! I just hate that all the sites aren’t working together, because I believe Jodi’s appeals Attornies will need all the help they can get. So many smart people uncovering all the corruption, I wish some authority would take it all now and set her free immediately. Wishful thinking I suppose.

                • TR, I wish that the sites could work together too.

                  But when they’re just riding the popularity of this site to get theirs up off the ground, they were never really in it to help Jodi at all.

                  I agree with Jason that HLN is anti constitutional. I agree that they should be stopped.

                  But I can’t look past him saying that the haters have valid points. This makes me believe that these other sites just use Jodi’s case to further their own agenda, they really don’t care how she’s sentenced or what it takes to overturn her conviction.

          • Love the Purpose and that we have work with a focus. My goal has always been to help Jodi. She needs every real advocate.

          • Wow I was gone for awhile because my puter broke down an I just
            got a new one finally. I wondered where some people went that I
            do not see on here anymore they were on here daily before though
            an I do see them on other places now but never asked. Now I see
            what happened I missed all that. I do agree though I am here for
            the long haul I want to see JODI out of there. Some how some way.

          • Excellent posts here MB.

            When the link to that OccupyHLN article was posted I was bothered by a part in the article re: this site and SJ. There was a lot of praise for the article and I guess I assumed that the link to it wouldn’t have been posted on this site if that particular part bothered SJ, so I didn’t say anything. I’m glad it has been removed now. =)

            I’m getting tired of these fence-sitting bloggers as well. And fuck those who think any money is being made off this site. There are no ads and SJ does not ask for donations. Extra bandwidth to keep the site running isn’t free, so considering he is paying for the running of the website plus donating all the time it takes to maintain the site, I would say it’s a very selfless thing SJ is doing.

            Love and thanks to all our admins and all our dedicated members. We love you Jodi!

    • I did click on that link when it was here – Jason’s HLN occupation, etc. It was, as he promised, very long and I didn’t finish reading it. I did see something in that particular piece, however, that amounted to an insinuation about how the donations here . It was not a straight-up accusation. In fact, it was vague and I couldn’t make anything out of it. That I could not is probably because Jason was only wondering. But I thought, WTF, that’s pretty sloppy; why would he want to distance himself from this site especially right after the hung jury? I chalk it up to people being touchy and easily upset right now.

      It sounds like a third party (or more) is handling the funds donated here and that would be pretty easy for Jason to ascertain. He didn’t “follow the money”, as it were, that is donated – it just wasn’t clear at all why he was questioning things here. What is clear is that it is obviously in his nature to question everything. I like that in a person and I hope SJ and he clear it up. (I’d been to occupy HLN about a month ago and hadn’t noticed that Jason said anything disparaging then about this site.)

      This is just my take on things. I haven’t done any “sleuthing” on my own, but I wanted to respond to TR’s query because SJ isn’t just imagining this, lol.


      I find the internet generally creepy and not a good place to hang out, so I am very very grateful for the time SJ and the Admins are giving to the maintenance and care of this site in support of Jodi. I am only posting here to be an advocate for her.


      I learned about the case from Nancy Grace, but she drove me away. I decided to start over in my assessment, to throw out the “obviously guilty” position that was being promoted in televised media, and start from zero. I watched the trial on a live feed without any accompanying commentary. I came to accept Jodi’s claim of self defense, not only based on her testimony, but based upon the crime scene evidence and the testimony from experts about why she lied in the first place.

      If you start with “obviously guilty of premeditation” and work your way backwards, seeing everything through a sinister lens, and you then manipulate how evidence is presented and try to destroy defense witnesses on the stand through abuse and intimidation, and if you twist psychological diagnoses around so that they “fit” your purpose to convict – if you take coincidences that could be interpreted as helpful to your guilty allegations that were actually happenstance for Jodi from May 26 to June 4, 2008 (gun theft, missing phone charger, license plate pranking) and you weave them all into evil intent, you have not proved your case. You are only able to produce the tortured and tortuous mess that we all saw in court.

      If you have multiple, possible versions of the scenario, you don’t have a case with any integrity. You will have changing stories, you’ll have to make ordinary organization seem extraordinary (gas cans) a gigantic “typo-graphical error” on the M.E,’s report will have to seem plausible, (although an injury to the brain would not be described as “a perforation” or “not” because the damage would have to be detailed) and gossip would be (“slashed tires” and “internet hacking”) sprayed around on television as if it were gospel – no – as if Jodi had already been tried and convicted of those things. Friends and people in the community would have made statements that they later backed away from on a dime.

      Everything Jodi does, according to HLN is “weird”. She is “odd”. The “Human Lie Detector” can tell!

      Has anyone noticed that HLN brought in the Thought Police, (see last sentence above) not only to police others’ thoughts, but to TELL EVERYBODY IN CREATION WHAT TO THINK? Does that actually BOTHER anybody besides the people posting here?

      You would be odd too if you spent the last FIVE years in jail on a trumped-up charge, experienced that degree of betrayal, and you saw law enforcement scrambling this way and that to make everything about you, including your very thoughts, and every coincidence in your life – even going back to fifth grade! – somehow part of an evil calculating plan to murder your lover – after he attacked you and you had initially only tried to deter him. You would be almost numb with terror.

      And that would be how you would feel BEFORE this corrupt trial even commenced. Can someone tell me why we should give an M.E. the benefit of the doubt but not the accused? The accused is FACING THE DEATH PENALTY!

      Have we, as a society, actually lost our courage, even our instinct to stand up for each others rights when they are being violated?

      • MB, I cannot imagine why my words were taken out. They were bracketed thus, to indicate approximate, but not verbatim quoting of Jason.

        The brackets were a summing up of what Jason said on his own occupyHLN site. TR had not seen it, so I was trying to let TR know my take on it. I then took great pains to explain that I couldn’t “make anything” out of the insinuations made by Jason. The words you took out were . I can see why they might be removed if I hadn’t bracketed them, but even then, editing that out would seem a bit much since those words indicate absolutely nothing about malfeasance in and of themselves. I also went on to say that I have done no sleuthing myself and thanked everyone here for their donated time.

        I’ve put in much time here advocating for Jodi and arguing against the death penalty, especially in the last few days. My thinking was that since the jury was hung, more “on the fence” people might begin to lurk here. I don’t post links. I am only a careful observer, but I think that is worth quite a bit to Jodi. I am only trying to keep the dialogue going and to put forth the notion that one should not be swayed by gossip, innuendo, and seat-of-the-pants allegations. That goes for Jodi, SJ, you, or any one of us. I embraced that notion very clearly in the very post that was subjected to prior restraint here.

        I would like to see your position on why my post was edited, and once again, I thank you for all that you do here.

        • MB, Is there some reason why this site doesn’t accept brackets anymore, even when there is nothing within them? The brackets and words were edited out again……..

          • Trialtoogoodawordforit ,

            SJ asked us all a few days ago to not repeat (post) what the Travis Taliban was saying about Jodi on other websites. SJ wanted us all to stay focused on Jodi’s innocence.

            NOTE: I was able to understand you believe Jodi is innocent without your bracketed quote’s from the Travis Taliban aka Mormon Media Blitz. I also applaud your level of written detail 🙂

            • Hi Willie,

              Thanks for jumping in to support what SJ said about visiting other sites. I don’t; I only occasionally click on links posted here. I don’t post links myself. The only direct quoting I have done of the bloodthirsty crowd is of the numbskulls on HLN. I had posted here to note that the use of the words: “love”, “hate”, and “our buddy” all occurred on the same day by broadcasters there. I also pointed out that HLN’s Human Lie Detector was wrong about one of her specific calls on Jodi, see above ^.

        • I have to go for a while, but I just wanted to let you know I didn’t edit the post so I’m not sure what to think. I don’t think I saw the post either, but I’ll check on it when I get back.

          Thanks for your patience! 🙂

          • Trialtoogoodawordforit,

            Is the post above what you were referring to? I don’t think I had a chance to read it.

            Willie is right, though, whatever is said by haters does not get a platform here. It’s a general rule not to link back or copy/paste what they are saying, especially since a lot of haters want to increase their own popularity by having their stuff put here. It’s been done.

            I know you didn’t intend to do this, so no worries. Thanks for understanding!

            • Hi MB! I get it ~ you didn’t do anything. Just as I figured after I tried to post the second time.

              Something went screwy with the brackets. It was no big deal, I just wondered why a couple of words were taken out but I guess it was just some technical malfunction. Even the brackets themselves were not posted the second time – even when there were no words in between them – so that was a clue.

              The words that were left out of my post were actually innocuous, and at the end of a sentence but they were my own words. I put them in brackets, not parentheses, to indicate that they were not a direct quote from Jason. (Used the greater than and less than symbols.) I wrote, “were being handled”, referring to the donations. No quotation marks yesterday, only the greater and less than symbols. That was all that was taken out along with the symbols. I don’t want to type those symbols now because they probably won’t post again, lol.

              Actually I noticed the same strange truncated sentences in others’ posts, today, when I started reading at the top of this page. What I see is an unfinished sentence but it still has a period after it. There is a slight space between the last letter of the sentence and then a period. I will go back and look again. It might be a sign that this site has a tech problem so when I locate such a thing i will let you know, MB.

              Thank you!

      • Trialtoogood………..You are truly an unbelievably talented writer. Just about EVERY WORD you write seems to me to be “stealing” my own thoughts throughout this trial…..but said in a way I could never articulate as well as you. (and I have been considered all my life….age 69, college educated… excellent writer). Your insights are so spot on it is as if no other words need to be spoken to EXPLAIN what has really gone on here in this trial and in the public view.

        Unless I missed it….i did ask you what you do for a living and if you are male or female but I have not seen an answer from you. I would really love to hear your thoughts and insights on the upcoming trial of George Zimmerman.

        I think you should… fact I beg you to start up your own blog.

        • Hi Trialwatcher,

          Thank you again for your feedback. So many excellent writers to read here, including yourself! I wish Jodi could read it all. I hope her family has time to visit this site and share it with her.

          The internet is not a comfortable place for me in terms of a social experience, but I do look forward to writing and interacting here. It’s mainly about reading others’ posts in order to better understand the case. The minute I start writing, I have to re-read and make cuts; it takes time away from learning so I often refrain from jumping in.

          Friends have also suggested that I start a blog but that will not happen anytime soon if ever! Thank you for that – I take it as a huge compliment!

  8. SJ,
    Why would Sandra Webber even say anything to even insinuate that you’re touching any of the money being donated for Jodi?
    I know that you aren’t but where did she come up with that nonsense?

    I follow her on Twitter and saw the Tweet where she asks if you give ‘her’ (Jodi) at least some of the money and asked her that question. I’m waiting for her reply.

    I didn’t have any idea that OccupyHLN thought this too. I like that site. That’s disappointing to hear.

  9. Hi All,

    I am so glad SJ posted that the link was removed. I was reading the comments and kept going back to the post to see what link everyone was talking about! I did find it and read it and was concerned about what the author said about funds/donations of this site. Apparently, there are two links/videos where someone ‘claims’ to be uncovering where the funds for Jodi Arias go and the author said something like; there may be some validity to his argument. (?!) I did not watch those videos as I have learned the haters make me physically ill.

    I have a question regarding appeals for any legal eagles; yesterday Willie posted a link of Nurmi’s appeal on the basis that the ME and Flores lied (which, from what I saw they clearly did). BUT that link was from February and to my understanding, it has already been ‘shot down.’ (Forgive my lack of legal-eze.)

    So my question is – how can this be? Are the lies of the ME and Flores not recognized by the courts? I cannot see why that would be considering JM’s absurd arguments about how he sees witnesses for the defense lying (when they are not), but he can twist that and manipulate their words and get away with it? This just does not make sense and I’m trying to have a sense of what is happening to help restore any faith I have left of our judicial system.

      • Halfway down the page of the link occupyhln con artists exposed, (link now removed from this site) , in item #6 it reads; “He makes the case that the domain owner [I supposed meaning SJ] is involve in internet scams in his videos on YouTube. His Video 1 and Video 2 on YouTube are compelling and perhaps he makes some valid points.” This author is referencing this site and ” The “Video 1” and “Video 2” are links but I choose not to post them. I’m not sure if this is what SJ was referring to, and I guess it does not ‘directly’ state anything regarding funds/donations, but the insinuation of ‘internet scams’ and this site being linked pissed me off.

    • cindy, your judicial system is now at circus level, no one can have faith in that, its gone – if it was ever there in the first place. The US have to drag themselves out of the Middle Ages.

  10. Welcome back SJ! 😀

    I find this bullshit about fraud and this site so fucking irritating and redundant.

    I mean, really?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

    I have been posting here for almost 6 months now, and I have NEVER, EVER, EVER lost one fucking penny using this site. It is FREE.

    Does anyone see any fucking ads here ❓ ❗ ❓

    This site: Free

    TA Taliban and J4T Scam site: Has indeed cost me money, I sent money to Tanisha LONG ago… and unliked their page when I got tired of being begged for money, and saw someone wanted to give the Alexanders 60,000 dollars a month….when Sam talks about her 4 Mexican maids. Fuck them. Fuck them BIG TIME>

    I had only “liked” their page to keep tabs on the violent, sadistic Travisites… but could not stomach being referred to as one of the 50K strong bullshit, I was NOT there to support Travis, and I imagine, other than about 100 regular delusional posters, most are also not there for anything other than trial info or morbid curiosity.

    I am saddened to hear about Jason and or Sandra. That sucks.

  11. The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial
    8 hours ago
    A statement by Harold Sorenson, METHFACE’s husband:

    I will make a comment ! These are my words only. This is not from any of the Alexander family or even from my wife Tanisha.
    They are all emotionally drained. At the same time they are overwhelmingly grateful – to the court, to Judge Stephens, to the jurors all of them, especially to Juan Martinez, to the Attorney General of Arizona, who they will be meeting with very shortly to prepare themselves emotionally, mentally, for the re-trial of the third phase, the penalty phase. This will be even harder on them then what they’ve experienced during the past phases of this trial.
    If ever they needed the world’s love and support of the overwhelming majority that have been there for them, it would be this re trial of the penalty phase.
    Please keep the family continually in your hearts, in your prayers as the fight for justice is not just for Travis alone, but for the past and future victims of the world that the DP can be respected and upheld when it truly is warranted.
    Let goodness prevail over evil.
    We love you, and deeply respect the overwhelming support. God bless true victims and justice for Travis Alexander.
    Thank you,
    Harold Sorenson.”

    This is what I wrote:

    Translation: “Please reach in your pockets and donate, donate, donate to our funds and family because we will be sitting our asses in court day after day doing absolutely NOTHING with our lives until the Mormon Gods anoint our dear departed love one as the Mormon (Moron) Messiah…with your donations we can erect the saintly statute of the Messiah in the middle of the SHITZONA desert for all of you to worship…by the way if you possibly can send DOUBLE the amount you would usually send we will be able to have Samantha’s eyes surgically repaired so she can actually cry tears, my wife will have cheek implants and desperately needed dentistry, and I will be able to go to Hair Club for Men. Thank you from the bottom of our bank accounts. Have a good day.”

    They are UNBELIEVABLE….

    • Mary, I have read this before and it was very informative and to the point. This is why Jose Bias said that you need to look at the blood evidence when he was on HLN. Nobody in this trial did that.

    • This is a very good article and to the point. It explains everything that happened during the knife fight on June 4 2008 and shows Jodi is innocent.

  12. Seeking truth and justice for all is priceless. There is no monetary profit to be gained from this site. WE THE PEOPLE who are willing to fight for what is right instead of what is popular.

  13. BTW SJ you’re right forget anyone accusing you. I believe I have read that this is the only site authorized by the Arias family to donate to Jodi.

  14. Ouch Janeen, It is not about Mormonism. I wish everyone could see that. Other than that its kind of a funny take on his comments, which everyone is entitled to have.

        • I don’t mean to insult you Bella, you are a loved and valued poster here, and I recognize that you are Mormon. That being said; there is no way, no how to discuss this case and not look into the darker side of your religion.

            • I am sorry that I have to agree. As in every/any other religion, it is up to those that believe in it to stand up to the ones using the religion for evil doings. This is truly one of those cases. The mormon/ppl clique that Jodi got caught up in is abhorrent, TA used Jodi because of his religious beliefs, TA is a proven liar and sex abuser – but the church and/or followers still choose to ignore what he did all the time ‘hiding’ it from everyone, TA was an elder in the church yet not one mormon is addressing his lies, his abuses and calling it out to be wrong, it is mainly those in the mormon religion who are acting as judge, jury and executioner while spewing hate and the death of an abused woman. At the same time, from what I understand, if one who is a mormon DOES stand up to wrongdoings – you may be admonished by your church. I am just adding this to let you know that this is how I (a non-mormon) view what is happening in this trial.

              • Perfectly stated.

                To have Mormons say “stop blaming us” without addressing the fact that Travis was an elder AND abused his “place” in this “church” to abuse women is not conductive to understanding a very weird religion that came into being when a guy named Joe saw an angel in the woods in 1820.

                Why are the other elders not screaming, “Travis’ behavior was unacceptable??”

                • Out of all of this, that is one thing I was hoping for.

                  I was hoping for other elders to come forward and say “No, that behavior is not acceptable.”

                  They don’t have to take a position of Jodi’s guilt or innocence, all they have to do is make it clear that fake religiosity and woman hating bullshit is not tolerated in the Mormon church, and especially not from their elders.

                  But the silence has been deafening, has it not? Not ONE elder has stepped off their pedestal to set the record straight about their own religion.

                • An “Elder” is the title given to male holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The title is used for members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the First Quorum of the Seventy and for full time missionaries. It denotes a gender, and tenure more than any other thing. I know of several people who have done exactly as many are stating,that his behavior was deplorable. None will do so in a public manner. No one will step forward and make a public record. It is not needed.

                • Why isn’t it needed? And since when do Mormons decide what non-Mormons need to hear or not?

                • “No one will step forward and make a public record. It is not needed.” Unfortunately, it IS needed to stop the continuing abuse of women in and out of the church. To stay silent about abuse is to turn a blind eye, which is not better than watching someone get beheaded while watching silently. No one can speak for TA’s actions, but his words in texts and emails speak loudly; and we know that many many incriminating emails were deleted. The church could, and should, denounce this behavior. At the same time, many of their members certainly are judging Jodi in public, on the media, and even lying on the stand. The isolationist viewpoint of saying “I speak only for myself” does not insulate you, nor anyone, from taking responsibility for what you (or the church you represent) teaches. By staying silent you make it as if you condone abusive behavior. And nobody is asking the church to explain TA’s actions, but to stand up and be more vocal about abuse and this type of behavior towards women.

              • ” I know of several people who have done exactly as many are stating,that his behavior was deplorable. None will do so in a public manner. No one will step forward and make a public record. It is not needed.”

                Bella,so if they think that,then why would they NOT come forth???
                Why is it NOT needed?
                What do you mean?

                • I cannot speak for anyone; other members of the church cannot speak for me nor any other member. I speak for myself only. It is not my place or any other members to attempt to do so. Each person is responsible for their own. Would anyone here want someone (church affiliated or anyone otherwise) to try to speak for them or on their behalf? Only Travis could explain his actions, and as he is not here I, nor any other person in this world is qualified to speak on his behalf.

          • Exactly! This case is so intertwined with the Mormon religion that not referring to it is impossible.
            My personal opinion is that dear Mr Alexander made everything in his power while he was alive to make a mockery out of his religion that when posters like myself(who have never heard of it before the trial)may make a bit fun of its rules&regulations we should be forgiven 😉

          • Renee’ (no insult taken, I don’t get insulted by opinions as all are entitled, just as I am)

            You can’t really argue for or against religion without assuming that another person’s perspective is superior. I am not taking any stand that states superiority, (I abstain from the “Holier than Thou” mentality as I find it absurd), so again I say Mormonism is not on Trial. It strikes me that there are similarities between Jodi and Travis besides Mormonism, both were human, should all humans be regarded as basis or material for the trial then? Both made mistakes, should any who have ever made a mistake be considered in material to this trial? I get that these are broad statements and might be seen as inflammatory but in the realm of using Mormonism as a barometer for this trial it holds the same degree.

            I was not taking umbrage with the tone, tenor or context of your post as I found it humorous and a correctly aimed sharp jab at a person who choose to make a public commentary and there for opened himself up to lampoons or being lambasted. But the references to Mormonism were inaccurate and openly hostile, I try not to defend it as I cannot possibly defend the religion, it stands (or falls on its own merits according to personal preference). I also understand that Janeen is completely entitled to her opinion and commentary, But I as a fellow poster, a Mormon, a person (entitled to my feeling and opinion) have the opportunity to voice dissension to her. I find her intelligent and funny, but the attack on Mormonism was inaccurate and the basis of my comment to her.

            All are entitled to their own expression; I voice mine she apologized for my hurt feelings, as I would to any I offend. It changes nothing she said in her post, but the interpretation on (my) the other side goes along way. This was kind of her to do. If it had not happened, it would matter not in the grand scheme of all things, but to her I matter (even if only in this forum, and only for a moment, which speaks of her character all the more to me) and that we can all benefit from. In this world of “jumping to conclusions” and not taking the time to be kind to one another; to consider how we make another feel with our comments leads us closer to being like the people I do not think we want to be like (ie. Haters). I get off topic but it is all relevant in my goofy mind! Mormonism is not the basis of the trial. Mormonism is not on trial.

            • ” Mormonism is not the basis of the trial. Mormonism is not on trial.”

              Bella,although I respect your views,I beg to differ.
              Mormonism is the spine of this trial.
              Plz,dont make me list all the reasons.You know only too well what Im talking about.

            • Mormonism is not on trial, per se. But Mormonism is part of this trial.

              I really like you, and missed your posts. But you HAD to know that coming back after months and getting all touchy about the Mormon posts were going to ruffle some feathers.

              I don’t fully understand your motives. Why is it not needed to have mormons speak out? Jodi might be sentenced to DEATH, Bella.

              Anything and everything related is important. She did NOT change until the Mormon’s started coming to her house constantly (sent by TA) and it is relevant.


              • Renee,

                I understand as well as any other person here and in some ways possibly more so the impact of what Jodi faces. I know her. I feel the loss for her as a sister, as a person and as a human being. I cannot defend her actions within Mormonism, just as i cannot defend anyone else. I am responsible for my opinion. I stand by it. I will not shrink nor evade as all others are wont to do. .

                • It wouldn’t say it was Mormonism per se that is on trial, only that a small group of professed Mormons are doing a railroad job on an individual in order to save face.

          • I whole heartedly agree Renee. If one is objective and looks at the entire picture, including those pimping for money, it is all about Mormonism.

          • I have to agree with Renee here, and Bella, i don’t have to tell you how much I enjoy your posts here.
            but the truth is, religion plays a big part in all of this, no denying that. It appears that Travis used your religion to for purposes that were less than disgusting, even you have to admit that. Now
            Hey, I’m catholic, and I love my religion, but I would never ever defend what the corrupt ones have done, or even some of the teachings of the Catholic faith. With that, I don’t get offended if people talk smack, I just say its their opinion.

    • Bella, last night I thought about how JM could have just taken Jodi’s M2 plea.

      If this trial had been mostly about protecting Mormonism, JM could have taken the plea and we would not even be engaging in a discussion of whether it is or is not by this time. I don’t know the local politics – the whys and wherefores of people’s careers in AZ since I don’t live there. Maybe some Mormons are angry that JM did not accept the M2 plea and just be done with it without painting any pictures of Mormon community life for young people.

      I think we are seeing a runaway mob mentality, tinged with religiosity and a commercialism of the worst sort. We are seeing someone being railroaded; the engineer, conductor, brakemen and switchers all have their own various agenda. I do not have the legal expertise to be commenting on the upcoming possible plea offers by the prosecutor, if any could be forthcoming. As far as I am concerned, Jodi fought in self defense and in self defense only without malice aforethought. She should be set free now.

      • I also agree with Renee that Jodi did not change until the Mormons “started coming to her house constantly (sent by TA) and it is relevant”.

        To me, It is only relevant to her innocence insofar as it goes to her personality and character. It is not an indictment of the Mormon church that Jodi changed after she joined it. Lots of people change after becoming born again Christians or Orthodox Jews, Muslim, (just pick a religion). It is not rare at all for others to find their new personae objectionable. That is beside the point if you are trying to prove or disprove premeditation. The state of Arizona, i.e. its general conservatism and the purported resentment of Hispanics there, as well as the culture of PPL were also apparently not a good fit for Jodi.

        The only point to be taken from how Mormonism and the other things I just mentioned above affected Jodi is that JM wants a jury to believe she was ALWAYS as emotional as she became after she met Travis and so drastically changed her life to fit into his.

        Once you establish that she was NOT, you can leave arguments about the merits of this or that belief or organization or culture alone. You would not be assisting Jodi’s defense by magnifying the influence of one or the other of these aforementioned elements in the case since they can be swept aside by the prosecution as proof that a tractionless defense is “reaching”.

        To property defend Jodi, the focus has to be on what occurred at Travis’s house on June 4, 2008,IN DETAIL in a professional manner. The witnesses who knew Jodi before MUST be allowed to speak, and licensed professionals who can explain why she lied in the first place must not be intimidated and stifled. The televised media and both social and anti-social networks obviously played a part in preventing the trial from proceeding that way, the way it should have, but I just described was, of course what the defense tried to do. Was that media blitz orchestrated by the Mormons? There is enough greed and sucking up after fame for the mindlessness and prejudice against Jodi to have occurred outside of a particular creed. But bias was evident INSIDE the courtroom in the judge’s rulings. It was evident in the atmosphere she perpetuated there – even to the last moment when she allowed the chain of communication to break down resulting in the Arias family not being present for the penalty verdict. That was HER CALL in going forward without the Arias family. It demonstrated extreme bias that she shrugged off the error and proceeded. It was downright cruel.

        The lawyers for Jodi were stifled at every turn – and not by Mormon priests in robes. It seems there is enough political ambition and sadism in Maricopa County alone to throw dozens of trials. To focus too much on ideology is to be hijacked and subverted by the very thing that one might be objecting to.

        To show how Travis’s abuse of Jodi affected her is one thing. To blame Mormonism for Travis’s behavior is unfair because he could have become the womanizing manipulator he was without being “manipulated” into that scurrilous behavior by any religion. To demonstrate that point, I refer anyone to the eloquent posters who have survived abuse and written of its horror on this site.

        I have stated in other posts here that once Jodi is not tried in “whoredom” – yes, that is Mormon verbiage, but it is also a reference to the Puritan mindset that propelled the Salem Witch Trials – that she could have a chance for true justice. Whoredom is the place that uppity women are traditionally cast into when they stand up for themselves – or when they err. You see, of course, that either one works for misogynists! There is plenty of discrimination, prejudice and unfair judgement directed against women today – even by other women – that has nothing to do with Mormonism. That prejudice slithers around easily enough without greasing any particular wheel on its train ride to whoredom.

        When the facts in this case are freely examined such that a clear and definitive determination can be made about the injuries that caused Travis’s demise, and there is no precious time granted for repeated, compound questions by the prosecution, bullying, badgering, insulting rhetorical analysis of fairy tales, and those various and sundry postulated timelines are carefully studied, Jodi could get a fair trial, even with HLN minions and “hair on fire groupies'” (thanks to kitty) over-cooked attempts to frame the arguments. They would be doing so in vain, or – to put it more accurately, in an insular irrelevant whoredom of their own creation.

        • correction in 5th paragraph:

          ….. the way it should have, but what I just described was, of course what the defense tried to do.

    • Hi Bella, no Mormonism isn’t on trial in this case. But I don’t believe you can say that a great deal of this trial was NOT about Mormonism. If Jodi and Travis hadn’t been Mormons, if Travis hadn’t been an elder who was able to baptize Jodi, if John hadn’t been a recent convert to Mormonism, if Mormonism didn’t emphasize family values, and if Mormonism didn’t have a vow of chastity before marriage, there really wouldn’t have been any testimony about their sex life at all and Jodi might never have converted.

      If, for example, Travis was a Jew, determined only to marry a Jew, before a rabbi would have even entertained allowing her to convert, Travis would have had to propose, or Jodi would have had to have shown serious other reasons why she wanted to convert.

      See what I mean?

      • Ok, Mormonism is not on trial, wasn’t on trial, but we all know that in the state of Arizona Mormons have a lot of power and they are well known politically. I just read the comment that Janeen posted were she copied and pasted from the hater’s site, Tanisha’s husband said that they were going to meet with the Governor. Now, can someone please tell me, what are the chances for Jodi to get a fair trial on the sentencing face. The only way things can change, maybe, is if many of the Mormon faith leaders come forward and speak out in favor of Jodi. Eventhought, at this point I think is already too late. But, if Jodi gets the DP, ( I pray for that not to happen) many of these people who didn’t came forward will have blood on their hands and one day they will have to face God’s judgment.

          • Audrey, I can see why you slipped and wrote “Governor” in error. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer abused her office when she said, “I don’t have all the information, but I think she’s guilty.”

            Quote is from KSWT, CBS News, Phoenix, May 7th.

          • Yes AA, and if they say that they have the bible, they should know that. They should know better. I’m not generalizing here, I’m pretty sure there many genuine Mormons, but we are talking about the ones on this case, and a very serious case. We are talking about life and death. A human life in the middle. Jodi’s life is in the middle. I guess some people don’t know the gravity of the situation yet.

  15. Wow! I Love “Cat’s eye”

    SJ, I am even more impressed w you knowing you’re a cat lover. Jodi created a lovely tribute to you.

    Go Team Jodi <3

    Thanks for clarifying up the Jason issue.

  16. I think I read somewhere (please correct me if I’m wrong) that the jury was under the impression that if they couldn’t arrive at a decision then the judge would impose life. So that means that those DPers who might have otherwise given in to life, in order to save face with the mobs, hung on to their DP vote, thinking it would automatically default to life anyway?

    • So you mean to tell me that this jury was too stupid to understand the most basic of deliberation instructions? I wish I was surprised but given all that’s went on in this trial it’s par for the course. Can a jury be fired? I know it’s after the fact but I wouldn’t trust one of these jurors to take my Mcdonalds order. Much less put someone’s life in their hands!!

      • Between the jury misunderstanding the implications of rendering a non-verdict and the moronic statement by Juror 17 that Martinez can retry the penalty phase as many times as the family wants, it’s clear that we aren’t dealing with a group of Phi Beta Kappas here.

      • There was nothing in the instructions about a second jury. So, they didn’t misunderstand a thing. They simply weren’t aware and the judge didn’t make them aware.

        • Tet could have looked up the law in Arizona upon becoming a death-qualified jury. We all knew enough to do so.

          • Actually, the jurors were NOT allowed to look up the law while on the jury. Doing so would have been juror misconduct, and there have been multiple cases deciding that.

            This second jury thing is relatively new in AZ. There is no way they should have been expected to know. They were instructed to depend on jury instructions. And they did ask the judge what would happen if they were deadlocked the day before.

              • Or did she just tell them that she couldn’t give her the death penalty if they were undecided (thus implying, without mentioning the second jury, that she would have to give her life)?

                • I don’t recall the judge telling them anything about the second jury. She just declared a mistrial. I think they first found out about the second jury after they were released from jury duty.

        • Maybe the Maricopa County DA’s Office will take that into account when they consider spending MY tax money to retry the penalty phase. That 8-to-4 vote is not an accurate data point.

          • But, just for the record, I don’t mind paying for a retrial if it means Jodi holding on to her appellate rights.

      • I think it was a mindset and nothing and no one, not even the judge was going to stop them from doing what they wanted.. worse than stupidity, they were just being toddlers.

    • That is my understanding of what the foreman said in a televised interview. He said that they thought that the Judge would impose Life or LWOP if they could not decide unanimously.

      Their understanding was that the judge could not impose death if they could not make a unanimous decision. They did not know about a second jury being asked to decide – and that the judge would decide then and only then if the second jury could not.

      I saw the same implications as you, RB.

  17. JODI’s artwork is absolutely fantastic! BTW, I accidently posted on the wrong page a website about a trial here in Indiana—-where I live—–about a death penalty case here…and how the judge is handling it (the website is —and the article is in the Evansville [IN] Tuesday May 28th paper on the front page— if anyone is interested) And, if anyone can send it to judge sucks-dicks I would truly appreciate it (also send it to the DT so that they can tell “judge” how royally biased and fucked up she is as well as how to properly handle a DP case) GO TEAM JODI!!!!!!!!

  18. Sirlips,

    This is a response to your post from the last page. So maybe I was a little lose in saying “add up to M1” but you know that I know it has to be proof to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The problem that exists is as follows, and some of this has to do with the circumstantial evidence rule, which in AZ is considered as good as direct evidence – and I’ll come back to that in a minute.

    So the story the state tells is as follows (and bear with me till we reach the end because there is an end to this garbage I’m about to lay out):

    1. At some stage Jodi decided she was going to off TA, and she set in motion this long drawn out plan.
    2. First she recorded TA in a phone sex conversation she lured him into.
    3. She set up a meeting with Ryan Burns so she’d have an excuse to leave Yreka.
    4. She staged a burglary to steal grandpa’s gun.
    5. She rented a car in a town away from her hometown to hide the fact that she was renting the car.
    6. When she went to rent the car she had blonde hair, much as she did when she lived in AZ.
    7. She then borrowed gas cans from Darryl Brewer and told her she was headed to AZ.
    8. Somewhere between renting the car and going to Walmart, where she bought a 3rd gas can she dyed her hair brown.
    9. She filled 3 gas cans and her car in Pasadena.
    10. She turned off her phone before she got into AZ.
    11. She was definitely at TAs house on the 4th of June.
    12. She was in the bathroom at some stage when there was TAs blood and hers to allow for both her bloody handprint and both people’s DNA to be collected.
    13. She erased the pictures on the camera and put it in the washer.
    14. She then left the area and had a liaison with Ryan Burns.
    15. She denied being in Mesa, till Flores showed her the pictures, at which point she told a different story about intruders.

    Add to this the innuendo about stalking, tire slashing jealous emails etc and you have a pretty damning picture. Until Jodi took the stand the one thing JM didn’t have was who actually did the killing, but that was provided by Jodi’s testimony, and the sequence was allegedly negated by Horn and Flores’ lying their asses off. Now of course we know that there are explanations for each part of this trail of BS, and this is all circumstantial crap in any case. However, here’s where problems start arising.

    Firstly, when you have circumstantial evidence, different states look at it differently. Some states (like CA and others) have what is called a two-inference rule. That says that if there is an explanation that points to the defendants innocence, then that is the explanation you have to accept. Other states, such as AZ say that this circumstantial BS is just as good as direct evidence, and so the defense must also treat it as such.

    Secondly, someone must show why this crap doesn’t add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That someone can be a sharp juror or jurors who can do it on their own, or a judge who can deliver a summary judgement or the defense team, who must show why all this crap doesn’t add up to the required proof.

    Relying on a group of unknown folks to be able to act intelligently is a fools game in the best of circumstances. You literally have to feed people the answers, and particularly when you have no clue of their levels of intelligence. (And this jury, as proven by their interviews, definitely seems to have people lacking in the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time). So it becomes incumbent on the defense team to say that all this crap does not add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and here’s why it doesn’t. Furthermore, remember that reasonable doubt is measured as reasonable in the minds of some person on the jury, and who knows what they define that level as.

    Also, this was a death qualified jury, which every lawyer should know is more likely to vote for guilty than your average jury (I knew that factoid before this case, so I’m sure defense attorneys are aware of that).

    Given all of these reasons, I believe that the defense should have gone after each one of these pieces of “evidence” with a hatchet. The fact is that they actually could have, but instead, in some cases they raised a subtle point on cross examination of the state’s witness, and in other cases they missed it completely.

    Now, would it have made a damn of a difference? Who knows, given the media circus and the rest of the mob pressure, maybe it would have had no impact whatsoever. But then again, maybe it would have. I don’t know.

    Also, I believe, and again this is just my belief, that putting Jodi on the stand was a fatal error to their case. The fact of the matter is that it opens up too many opportunities for JM to twist her words around, for the jury to twist her words around, for them to heap other BS on her that they felt was warranted by something she did or did not do on the stand, etc. In fact once you are on trial, the deck is stacked against you in any case, and once you take the stand in your own defense, it gets even more so because the prosecution takes every little inconsistency, or memory lapse and converts it into a lie, portraying the defendant as a unrepentant liar. In this particular case that was further exacerbated by the fact that Jodi was changing her story from what she originally told the police and TV interviewers.

    So that is what I was trying to say.

    • I know my last paragraph goes straight to your argument of convicting her for lying – but I think theer’s another explanation too. You take all the circumstantial evidence, and based on AZ law, you say that’s all as good as direct evidence. Now the argument against it comes from the defense, who relied to some extent on Jodi’s words. If you don’t believe her you throw those explanations away. And I can see how some people would say, if we have no counter explanations, then we take the state’s arguments as true, and the circumstantial evidence as valid as direct evidence and voila here’s the mess you have. Of course in that argument, the one thing they believed was Jodi saying she killed TA, just not the why and how, because without that the jury has no proof of who did the killing.

      But I for one have no explanation of how this bunch of folks did anything. Remember, the state had two possible cases – premeditated or IN THE ALTERNATIVE felony murder, and 7 of these bozos bought both, which was something JM wasn’t even arguing – so go figure.

      • Well written Al, as usual! And thank you for reminding us about AZ’s evidence rules.

        The problem in not having Jodi testify is that after lying about not being there, and lying once again about two intruders, the only remedy was to try to humanize herself as an earnest person with a story to tell.

        The defense could have brought in Barry Scheck et al, bored everyone to death with a detailed analysis of every shred of evidence and non-evidence at the scene and gone on for years about how coincidence does not prove culpability, but the jury would have nonetheless come to the same conclusion if Judge Stephens had presided over the same fraudulent atmosphere of abuse, slander and juggled evidence.

        Given the tenuousness of Jodi’s claim, the courtroom bias and emotionalism was tipping the scales too much in favor of the prosecution. The atmosphere even intimidated the defense team at times. The jury must have felt that the defense was not one hundred per cent convinced themselves. They went with the prevailing winds, and the state of AZ’s laws about circumstantial evidence being as valid as direct evidence pointed them inexorably toward conviction.

        Jodi’s waiving of the Fifth was to be the end-all and be-all of her case. She did it because she felt she had no other choice if she were facing the death penalty. She would make every effort to show herself to be candid and resolute. I believe that her position was that if she had her say in court she could accept a conviction, if that were decided, with much greater dignity.

        I felt she came across as honest. I could see consistency where it would have been difficult for someone who is lying to have been that clear. Some one who was lying would not have offered so much detail without becoming flustered at times. But she showed that she was unafraid to testify through her calm. At times this posture came across as arrogant, and some thought it unbelievable, but it was the final version in the tale. Her attitude after five years was: Take it or leave it.

        When she talks about the mistakes she has made she probably means – above all, lying about Travis’s death.

        I wrote another post above about how I can see that a shorter time allowed for next trial could be helpful to Jodi’s case. Stephens stepping down on this one should be required for the reason I stated in this post alone. But Stephens demonstrated such cruelty in allowing the penalty verdict to be delivered to Jodi without the presence of her family that she left no quarter for anyone to argue that she is not biased and should not recuse herself, IMHO.

        • Trialtoogoodawordforit (and that’s a mouthful)

          See you say

          “is that after lying about not being there, and lying once again about two intruders”

          and I’m not sure I buy that. Go over this whole thing carefully and keep an oen mind. Listen to what some of the folks here have said in the past. That second part “and lying once again about two intruders” may not be true.

          I didn’t believe it either, but I’m starting to wonder. Just look at stuff AA and others have posted, and listen to that Flores interview very carefully, and look at the physical evidence. You might reconsider that statement.

          • Al, In formulating my response to this statement in your 12:55pm comment:

            “Also, I believe, and again this is just my belief, that putting Jodi on the stand was a fatal error to their case.” –

            – I only considered the theory of Jodi’s innocence that the defense mounted in court. Additionally, I only addressed the specific content in your comment to Sirlips.

            Jodi stated in court that her previous two assertions were untrue. She said at one point, “I could not keep track of all the lies (or stories) I told..” or words to that effect. Therefore, Al, I did not take pains to craft my sentence this way:

            “The problem in not having Jodi testify is that after (she said she was) lying about not being there, and (maintained that she was) lying once again about two intruders the only remedy was to try to humanize herself as an earnest person with a story to tell.”

            Testifying in her own defense did leave her open for “trial by media”, and for impeachment, but in the long run it might have been the right tack. I have not followed what the jurors might be saying now about how they viewed her. We shall see. There were two things that initially drew me to this case: 1) that it was a death penalty case, and 2) that this daring woman was waiving the Fifth to testify in her own defense.

            I would not have formed an interest in Jodi’s case if I hadn’t tuned into HLN in the first weeks of testimony. I wouldn’t have followed it, listening to snippets of testimony in the car day after day, because I didn’t know about the other platforms. (I would only be checking into the case now.) But since there was that live feed from HLN, I heard Jodi’s voice. After a while, something seemed very off about how this case was being prosecuted and how it was being portrayed by the broadcast media. That is probably how many of Jodi’s supporters came here – first through television. The media had found Jodi’s case significant for the same fundamental reasons many of us have been drawn to it.

            So while it was obviously a calculated risk for Jodi to be her own witness, I think the decision did humanize her while it also shined a light on the prejudice and corruption in Maricopa County. Once they came up with those previously deleted photographs, the dragging photograph cried out for a narrative, but the crime scene reports do not provide a cohesive chain of events within a consistent timeline, even with the time stamp in evidence from Travis’s camera.

            The crime scene photographs, together with the inadvertent shots taken by Travis’s camera, convicted her more than did any flaws in her own testimony. Imagine a silently weeping Jodi beside the mitigator at defense counsel’s table below those projected images. To remain silent when it appeared to the jury that there was no doubt that she was the perpetrator was unacceptable. It left too much to everyone’s imagination.

            There was another image that begged an explanation and that was the image of the bathroom ceiling. That was the “something” that “went wrong” that day. Only Jodi could have explained it the way that she has. She is the only living witness to “what went wrong”.

            How Travis would have reacted to the camera’s flight; the chaos and violence that ensued, could only be considered in light of the entire relationship. If Jodi had remembered everything about that fight, the defense team could have pieced together a tale of abuse once Jodi’s telephone was found. But her memory lapse about the knife fight sounded too convenient. That is another reason why having only the lawyers make representations about what she did remember would likely have been seen as weak.

    • Al,

      I see where you’re going with this. And yes, it makes sense. As most of your posts do. All this argument leaves me with then is another question:

      If the jury knowing the law AND being smart, is the lynch pin of this whole system, then why do we even have a jury? After all, the jury doesn’t get to REALLY decide the evidence, they are TOLD the evidence, they don’t get to REALLY decide the law, they are TOLD the law, they don’t get to REALLY decide anything….

      It simply boils down to one question, “who did the jury believe more?” And it isn’t if they believe the witnesses…it’s if they believe the ATTORNEYS! One witness says the dog is black, another says the dog was white, the attorneys both argue for their side then they TELL the jury what the law is regarding what they just told them.

      Does the jury believe the state when they say “the law says you must find her guilty” or the defense that says “the law says you must find her innocent”. How in the fuck are the jurors supposed to know the law? Wouldn’t it be better to have a panel of “judges” that act as the jury. Similar to the supreme courts?

      I don’t know if I’m making sense.

      Simply put, the argument is that the jury decides everything. They are the finder of “fact”, but there are NO FACTS in AZ, per the law. There are “possibilities”. There are “situational evidences”. There are no facts. A fact would be Jodi killed TA, because it was filmed on camera. A fact would be “the dog was white” because they brought the dog into court. Instead, they allow speculation then let the lawyers bang out the details. In the end, we are still left with one question…. Does the jury believe what “Juan said” is the REAL law, or does the jury believe what “Nurmi said” is the REAL law.

      Maybe i have been too harsh on this jury of fucktards. I suppose i cant blame my Chef for crashing my plane, when he is not a pilot, yet that is what i instructed him to do.

      How do we expect a bunch of random people to sort through the bull shitery, then sort through the media crap (or try to ignore it, yah right), then somehow come up with a constitutional choice on the death or life of an American citizen?

      Dave was charged with stealing a ball.
      Joe is the jury.
      Al tells Joe that he knows Dave stole a ball.
      Lips tells Joe that he knows Dave didn’t steal the ball.
      Lips brings in an expert to show that it wasn’t even in a ball, it was a round pillow.(asks for the charges to be dropped)
      Al brings in his own expert to show how it really is a ball.
      Lips says Dave wasn’t even in town.
      Al Says Dave WAS in town, because he can’t prove he was anywhere else.
      Lips tell Joe that he CAN NOT find Dave guilty, per the law, because of XYZ.
      Al tells Joe he MUST find Dave guilty, per the law, because of ABC.

      The judge then tells Joe he doesn’t have to believe the experts, he doesn’t have to believe Lips or AL, and that Joe is the ultimate “finder of fact”. (Yet, the judge just basically told him that there are really NO true facts since Joe himself is the “finder of facts”. It’s a Fact if Joe says it is, regardless of Experts or AL/Lips)
      SO, what is Joe left with? He doesn’t really KNOW if Dave did it, but he also doesn’t really KNOW if Dave didn’t do it.

      SO, Joe says “I don’t believe Dave was 100% honest”, “ SO HE IS GUILTY!”

      BOOM, there goes “innocent until proven guilty”. And from this point on, the standard has been set, OUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

      Who is going to say anything against the system? Not the people that hate JOE, they don’t care, they are happy Joe was found guilty. Argo..they encourage the system, and it stays broken…in fact many would use this as an example of how the system WORKED! Not based on the system, but on the outcome.

      The Jodi Arias Trial is going to be used as an example of “how to prosecute” a trial. How to “cover a trail”. How our system “is working perfect”. Not because these things are actually working, but solely based on the outcome and that so many people wanted THIS outcome.

      • In a certain way you are right. In theory the trier of fact, based on the evidence is supposed to determine what the facts are. And right there you have your first dilemma, the facts are the facts and how the heck do you determine what the facts are, and can they be more than one thing.

        And you’re right – the way its turned out to be its now all about the attorneys and the defendant and the client. Take for example the fact that they dress the client up in civilian clothes – how does that change the facts?

        In fact one of my favorite authors who wrote books about a lawyer once has his character, the lawyer say something like “I don’t need or want to know the law. I’ve found that knowing the law normally gets in the way of winning the case.”

        So it all comes down to which side does a better sales job.

        And the sad thing is that our system is willing to kill people or put them away for life based on the sales abilities of their lawyers, or the way their “experts” look or some other such thing that has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

        The sadder thing is that our system was supposed to guard against that BS, but in the last 30 years the legislatures and the Supreme Court have been steadily chipping away at the safeguards – all in the name of enhanced security and putting the bad guys away. Reminds me of what Ben Franklin said

        ““They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

        And that’s where we’ve ended up.

  19. On another note…..

    I have ordered my “Cat’s Eye” which will be prominently displayed on my bedroom wall for me and my 8 meows to stare at and smile!!!! 🙂

    • Awww….So happy for you ((((sis)))) and your 8 felines-I have 6 cats myself.And some regular visitors who just come,eat and go about their other daily businesses,LOL!
      I’m literally broke and cant buy anything,just the t-shirt when my employers who owe me money will decide to finally give me my paycheque 🙂

      But Im so glad Jodi’s art goes to people who trully care about her and love her as much as you <3

      • I am right there with you, Maria. I am broke as a joke for the time being, because, well– that is how students roll…. broke as a joke.

        I would love to order some of her art at some time, I cannot even afford the Tee shirt yet, but when my circumstances change, I will.

        Also………….. I love my cats ♥

        • You know what the good thing is (((((((Renee))))) ? We wont’ forget about Jodi.We may now be unable to financially show our love and support but eventually we will.
          We may be broke but Jodi will always be our priority No 1.When I get money,her well being will be the first thing on my mind.
          I know I’m already doing it.For example,I used to say ”when I get some money I need to buy this and that”
          The other day my sister was sad because she feels like a burden to me and I told her”I dont need anything.As long as we have sth to eat and I can save up some money for Jodi,I am happy”.And I MEAN IT!!


          • ((((((((((((((((maria)))))))))))))))))

            correct!!!!! I was thinking about her this weekend; no matter how relaxed I was, I knew Sheriff Joe was torturing her with his bullshit 23/1 rule at the jail.


            we will NOT forget Jodi♥

          • Bless you, Maria. You have such a great heart filled with so much love! Give all your fur babies a head butt and chin rub. Don’t know if your sis would want a chin rub;>) I wish my kitty’s name was Jodi, but she was grown up when we got her from the rescue shelter and had a name already.

  20. In response to the haters calling SJ a scam artist-

    Umm… do you guys not think at all? If SJ really wanted to scam people, wouldn’t he create a “I hate Jodi” website in the name of the Alexander family like everyone else trying to profit off this case?

    I mean, I’m just saying – if you really want to scam people, why not go with the popular sheeple opinion? You’d make so much more money that way.

    ಠ_ಠ — I am not amused by all the bullying going on – people bullying anyone willing to stand up for the truth, question majority opinion. That happened years ago – I believe Stalin had a way of dealing with people willing to question his methods – look how well that turned out

    • Ohhh,good one NK!

      Greece suffers from the ongoing financial crisis,my sister is unemployed and I have to work to provide for all 3 of us.Do you think I should open up a haters’ site,asking people to donate to the fuckers(oooops sorry I meant the poor Alexander family)?
      Nahhhh…who wants to vomit 24/7 reading their disguting comments???
      I’m better off poor but a true Jodi supporter,LOL!!! 🙂

      • Maria,

        I have read about some of the stuff that was happening in Greece awhile back – with the riots, inflation, and unemployment rates. I am really sorry. I do hope everything gets better soon.

        This world … there are so many resources …. all controlled by the hands of few unfortunately. People who are selfish and want power. They do not understand the meaning of suffering. Children in Africa starving. People all over the world, homeless, or in war zones without access to healthcare, food, or safe shelter.

        Disgusting. (Ha, this probably should be on the rant page)!.

        All this stuff just frustrates me, and I feel like Jodi’s case is like the icing on the cake.

    • very well stated, Nk… Like anyone who wanted to make CA$H off this situation, why would one pick the side where you end up with death threats.

      FOLLOW THE $ SHEEPLE…. it will lead you directly to CASH, and J4T and the fraud Aussies who run that FB site… they are cleaning up.

      I hope the IRS is well aware of the Samantha, Tanisha, Cash, J4T and all the other scammers….

    • Yess!! So true, SJ would have so many more people and HLN on his side if he was into making money, THINK PEOPLE THINK! He would cuddle up to the Alexanders and get money that way so much easier and with so much less hate, this is for the “haters” :

      When you really know somebody you can’t hate them. Or maybe it’s just that you can’t really know them until you stop hating them

      No one really tried to know her and that is sad, hatred eats at your very soul or maybe this is what is wrong? This made me smile because I think this may be the case:

      The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.

      Oscar Wilde

    • lol Nk there’s that cute grumpy face again!

      I agree. If anyone’s going to scam everyone then why not take the path of least resistance and open up a “Travis Alexander Legacy Fund.” Or something like that. Why even bother drawing the ire of 99.9999% of the Internet by saying Jodi Arias is Innocent if maximum profit is the goal?

      The delusions these people entertain range from silly to downright stupid.

  21. I just found out today that Vinnie Politan is apparently only a year older than I am (38). Man, does he look TERRIBLE! I thought for sure that he had at least 10-15 years on me. All of that hate must be eating him up from the inside out.


      He has been scarred by his coverage of these cases, but he assures us all that he can continue his service to make sure the lowest common denominator has a target to direct their misplaced rage at.

    • OMG, Kira! I saw that just today, and was SHOCKED. 😯

      My hubby is 35 and looks 15 years younger than Vinnie. I am 44 and even I look 15 years younger than Vinnie.

      Just goes to show, hate really ages a person. Which is why Nasty Graceless and J. Vodka. M look so damn bad.

      • Yep,yep,yep…Hatred is also responsible for many (if not the most)psychosomatic ilnesses.
        Oh boy..Im gonna die young after watching this trial.And I have only the Alexanders,Kermit and his gang to blame…

      • This is what is going to happen to all those people holding on so hard to hate:

        Hate not only consumes a person… it affects their health… their sleep…their relationships and hurts the person. It does nothing to the one that is being hated. They are oblivious while the one hating is having bad nights dreaming of all the things they would like to see happen to the other person. The person being hated is sleeping and doesnt know that the hater is looking miserable and bitter. Is that a life anyone really wants?

        I wonder if those hating and carrying grudges think about how much power they are giving the other person over them. The one hating certainly is not affecting the one being hated. All the emotion is on the hater’s side. I do not believe in giving power to people by letting their actions keep me upset for days, weeks, months, years. That is a horrible state to live in. That kind of stress causes stomach distress, headaches, body aches and other issues.

        And yet some people are still intent on hating, holding grudges, name calling and in general….very poor behavior. Hate is a vampire type of emotion. It sucks the life from those hating someone. It drains them of energy and the ability to enjoy life. It sucks the very being from them. It is a thief that one allows into their head and robs one of time, of living a happy life and from being happy. And if one allows it to consume them to the point that it is all they think of and they can not even talk to another person or post on a blog or Facebook without saying hateful things which in turn will cause them to lose friends…then they need help dealing with this anger.

        I pray that 2013 is a time of people coming to terms with their anger and hate and accepting that what is…is what it is. Hate takes us back in time to the fifties and sixties. It does not move us in a forward direction which is where we should be moving. If we keep holding on to the negative and bringing it into our present and future, then that is exactly what we will have…days filled with anger and hatred and people wanting to avoid us. Set it free and take your life back up. Do not let hatred consume you and make you lose who you really are.

        • Oh, that is so well said.

          Hate is a vampire… and you are right, it sucks the life out of the hater, while the hatee sleeps soundly and gives no shits to the haters. I pray Jodi sleeps peacefully and gives the haters no rent space in her mind.

    • DAMN….he’s two years younger then my son!!!! I thought he was closer to my age….DAMN he looks old!!!!!

      • I’m 52 and have had a hard life in many respects and a perfect one in many others. Vinnie looks older than I do and I look my age.

    • Haven’t seen you post before, but I will say I echo your feelings about Jodi’s mom. I think she may have been a shitty mom at some point, but I am so grateful she came to court each day and sat there knowing what public opinion was of her. that took courage.

      • And even shitty Moms can turn around. Isn’t that the whole thing about humans. We are redeemable.

        That lady, knowing all that was going to be said, showed grace in the support of her daughter.

        And I never saw one nasty word about anyone attributed to her while the world flung mud at her, her husband, her daughter and anyone who came to their support.

        • No AL, Humans are to be put to death if they dont always do the right thing…especially if you get caught…gulp….lying!

          If you murder someone and tell the truth, you go to prison.
          If you murder someone and you are a liar, then you get killed.

          That means you get death for lying, doesnt it?

          • Well that’s what they’re trying to do here, and the jurors who have spoken so far have acknowledged it. They convicted Jodi not because they can point to any evidence of what she did but because her stories were contradictory, or she lied or they claim she was manipulative.

  22. Damn it.

    I was fine, and now Bella has me all upset.

    Bella, please tell me why the Mormons who feel Travis’ actions were deplorable is not relevant and important in a death penalty case?

    You are saying there are witnesses who are openly aware he was a perpetrator and deplorable…. you think maybe, just maybe that might explain the changes in Jodi?

    Who are you, and who are Mormons to tell “us” what is important or not? Maybe I am really touchy, but you popping on here after being MIA during the worst parts of this trial feels like a bit of a trouble maker.

    • He cannot be defended. “I am not saying there are witnesses who are openly aware he was a perpetrator and deplorable”. I am saying there is no defense as he cannot explain his actions. I cannot explain his interpretation of the Gospel, anymore than I can make you (or anyone) believe as I believe. It is impossible. Just as I cannot share my feelings on Jodi’s behalf in another forum and have it be understood.

      • But that’s not what we asked. We asked why Mormon elders did not come out and defend their own faith.

        They didn’t have to take a side in this or make any statements as per Jodi’s guilt or innocence. I don’t care about that.

        The only thing we expected them to do, was to say that Travis’ behavior was not condoned by the Mormon church.

        Then you said no statements were necessary. No, I think they are, if Mormons don’t want Mormonism on trial all they need to do is make it unequivocally clear that Travis’ abusing his position of power in the church is not condoned, typical, or expected of elders.

        • Exactly!
          We dont care about Travis,dont go there please.
          You wrote:” I know of several people who have done exactly as many are stating,that his behavior was deplorable. None will do so in a public manner. No one will step forward and make a public record. It is not needed.”

          This is what we need explained.

        • Your right. It doesnt make any sense to me. Why wouldn’t they have to come out in public to say that what TA did was WRONG, but its ok and so easy for them “some” to come out “in public” and say how wrong and soulless Jodi was. Afterall, they were BOTH Mormons, right.

          • If you ask me,Jodi was never welcomed in that cult of theirs.She wasnt born into it.Werent there enough people who said she only did it to be closer to him?A part of her master stalking plan.Puhleeeeeeze! She was an outcast.
            But of course imho 😉

              • Mormons put great stock in bloodlines. One of the best geneology data base is at the LDS in SaltLake City.

                Jodi was a convert, and a woman. TDoggs circle of brothers were all involved in money scams and TDog wanted to move up the Church Hierarchy. The circle blambed Jodi from the start, circulated rumours about slashed tires and stalking, actually inserted themselves right into Flores police investigation all to cover for TDogg and to cover their own tracks.

                You can bet money that their are plenty of Mormons stirring up shit on FB and Twitter.

                That doesn’t mean that ALL mormons are involved in this outrage! Saying that, IF someone knows anything pertaining to this trial, they in all good conscious as a human being, should come forward to save Jodi from Death!!!!!!!!!!

          • Isn’t Jodi STILL a Mormon?

            I tend to agree with Bella here. Mormonism was not the issue and it wasn’t on trial.

              • Okay, Renee, what exactly is the issue and why is it important? All I’ve seen that I feel is an issue and important could be more related to culture and abuse – not Mormonism.

                • Well, I’ve seen pastors come out publicly and criticize other pastors who are doing wrong. I’ve seen priests criticize other priests publicly. I’ve seen rabbis criticize other rabbis. I’ve seem imams criticize other imams publicly. Why can’t elders in Mormonism criticize another elder?

                • The point is you have this “great” Mormon, motivating speaking bussinessman…sticking his very busy penis into whatever hole he could get in to!!! Saying he was a virgin and plenty of folks knew he was not. Being put on a pedestal when he was no more then a bullchyting fraud. The fact that the elders, deacon or whatever the hell they call themselves….NEVER came forward to condemn Travis behavior……says a lot about the Mormon church to us non Mormon. What it say……say that behavior is happening all the time… what’s the problem!!!! Guess those Mormons won’t be going to Kolob!!!!

                  Anyway….I’ve said all I’m gonna say about that!!!!!

                • Excellent post, Moni. Even after hearing the sex tape, not one Mormon says anything other than that the man was a saint. Why?

                • Sam, do Mormons today still practice “Lying for the Lord” or is it just an urban legend?

                • Also Abused – I hope you don’t mind that I copy/paste your response above because I think it explains it perfectly:

                  Also Abused says:

                  May 28, 2013 at 3:47 pm • Edit

                  “Hi Bella, no Mormonism isn’t on trial in this case. But I don’t believe you can say that a great deal of this trial was NOT about Mormonism. If Jodi and Travis hadn’t been Mormons, if Travis hadn’t been an elder who was able to baptize Jodi, if Jodi hadn’t been a recent convert to Mormonism, if Mormonism didn’t emphasize family values, and if Mormonism didn’t have a vow of chastity before marriage, there really wouldn’t have been any testimony about their sex life at all and Jodi might never have converted.

                  If, for example, Travis was a Jew, determined only to marry a Jew, before a rabbi would have even entertained allowing her to convert, Travis would have had to propose, or Jodi would have had to have shown serious other reasons why she wanted to convert.

                  See what I mean?”

                  I agree. Whether we like it or not, Mormonism has a lot to do with this trial.

                  I’ve seen Muslims distance themselves from terrorists and condemn terrorist attacks in their religion’s name.

                  I’ve seen feminists distance themselves from man haters, and defend themselves against accusations of man hating.

                  I’ve seen Jehovah’s Witnesses excommunicate people who weren’t serious about adhering to the tenets of their faith.

                  I’ve seen Catholics stipulate that they are proud of their faith, but condemn the culture if silence with child molesting priests.

                  I’ve seen Wiccans educate people that their religion isn’t about worshipping evil, and I’ve seen Satanists do the same thing although the two religions are very different.

                  So why are Mormons above the expectation to set the record straight? What makes them so special that they don’t have to condescend to and make one simple statement to the masses – that hitting women and sexually abusing them is wrong. Is it that difficult to say? Is it that hard to make a stand against shitting on half the planet because they are female?

                  And like it or not, since Travis’ behavior has been normalized by the media, by NOT addressing that it appears to imply that Mormonism also believes it’s normal.

                  And I agree with other posters that talk about women being abused in that religion – if Mormonism is going to harbor abusers, then it’s a religious institution that should be criticized for it, the same way the Catholics are criticized for harboring child molesters.

                  IMO this is not up for debate. Either the Mormon church is interested in answering to the issues this case brought up, or it’s not. Remember, HLN and the other media outlets that followed suit were the ones who brought this into the limelight. Not us. We would just like for the Mormon church to condemn rape, abuse, and dehumanizing female people. That’s not a lot to ask.

                  The fact that we have abuse survivors that post here is also important. To tell them that a religious institution that protects abusers isn’t an issue worth addressing, well, that’s just wrong.

                • “And I agree with other posters that talk about women being abused in that religion – if Mormonism is going to harbor abusers, then it’s a religious institution that should be criticized for it, the same way the Catholics are criticized for harboring child molesters.”

                  OMG MB, soooo well said! Bravo!

            • No Jodi said in one interview she was spiritual but LDS or MORMON what ever they
              want you to call them their own BIBLE says Book of Mormon on it not Book of LDS?

              Anyway she said no LDS person comes there for services an they rarely ever visited
              her. An I say really ? that is strange so that Church that claims they are Christians do
              not follow through for those imprisoned because I know Catholics, Jewish an Christians do
              an that right there really makes me think that Church is not full of Christians.

              People want to say Jodi joined only for Travis but Travis was the one sending those
              recruiters to her home in Palm Desert. She was Baptized in that Church from what I
              read not in Mesa Arizona.

              I think still today it is weird he did that in another town? another Church other than his
              own. I would be thinking he was ashamed of me to not want to do that in the Church he
              attended regularly. He was a sneaky snake I think.

              An did he not say on that phone call that he thought the people in Palm Desert were soulless?? I can’t remember if he was talking about Legal Sheild /PPL people or the Church either way he was very strange seemed he thought everyone outside his little
              click in Mesa Arizona was soulless. When it was he who was in my eyes.

        • MB,

          Mormon Bishops tell the followers to just lie if you get caught sinning. Mormons believe you EARN your way to Kolob (heaven) – strange Cult if you study them.

          The Casinos, Nightclubs, Strip Clubs & Brothels in Wendover, NV are full of Mormons from Salt Lake City, UT on the weekends.

          Wendover,NV is on the UT/NV border. I only stop there to fuel up & eat at the Peppermill Casino on my way to Moab, UT to see my bfff. And my bfff is the one who told me about the Mormons in Wendover sinning.


  23. Oops, I didn’t realize there was a new page. Here’s a post from the old page that I should have posted here:

    Al, that’s kind of what I’ve been saying for a while (regarding the DeMarte cross). I don’t know if you recall (and I can’t even remember the day I posted it), but I was livid about DeMarte’s cross by JW. She got to a certain point, she was scoring, and she simply sat down. Joujoubaby vehemently disagreed with me and said “the first rule of cross, if you’re winning, sit down.” But JW wasn’t quite “winning” yet. She was scoring, for sure. But she hadn’t quite gotten to “winning”.

    I think the jury (just like the media) were frustrated with Jodi being on the stand for sooooo long while everyone waited for her to discuss her relationship with Travis and what led up to his death. When she finally got there, she didn’t remember. What an anti-climax. Have you ever been around someone with a rapt audience to whom they are telling a great, but lengthy joke, and yet, at the end, they forget the punchline? Nothing is so disappointing. The jury didn’t need all the details of Jodi’s life. A little history about her ex-boyfriends was all that was necessary to show that she could, indeed, have normal relationships. But what the jury really wanted to know was what happened with Travis.

    Martinez won points on cross in regards to the gas cans and especially, the magazines with the coded message. He never went back to it. It didn’t look like Jodi’s handwriting. He didn’t ask her if it was her handwriting at all. But he allowed an inference that she was tampering with witnesses. Did the defense address that? No! They appeared blindsided by that, and they were simply not able to recover from it, even though they had days to do so. Why?

    Samuels had one purpose and one purpose only: to explain why Jodi didn’t recall the events of that day. But he was on the stand for days on end talking about basically irrelevant information in detail. As a woman with PTSD, I loved listening to him. But during voir dire, the prosecution made sure to exclude anyone like me or anyone with a family member with PTSD. So, the jury didn’t care. 1-2 days of Samuels would have been plenty. Then, Martinez was able to completely frazzle the guy on cross. I’m truly sorry that happened to Samuels. I loved him to pieces. But wasn’t the defense aware of what Martinez would do to him on cross? They learned by the time they got to Geffner and brought out all the negative potential FIRST! But why weren’t they prepared for that to occur with Samuels? Hadn’t they studied Martinez’s tactics ahead of time? Any junior lawyer (even in law school) learns the golden rule: address the negative FIRST. If you don’t, your opponent certainly will.

    Then, ALV, despite all her wonderful anecdotes, was not THE best domestic violence expert, regardless of her experience, because she is not a psychologist. The defense was obviously severely handicapped when Karp backed out due to cancer, leaving them with little time to find a replacement. Geffner, as a Ph.D. would have been a much better alternative. Perhaps he was not available.

    I waited with baited breath for the one point Journee made above: why the overkill? Why the throat slash? Alyce never explained. Does anyone remember me asking and asking if they were saving that point for redirect? Even if they were, why? Why not bring it out right away? It was obviously the NO. 1 question everyone wanted to know. Even when the jurors asked a question that could have allowed for excellent follow up, the defense didn’t bother to go there.

    The defense didn’t raise the issue of dummy SKUs with the Wal-Mart witness. The jury did. And then, the defense, handed a golden opportunity, didn’t follow up. Good grief. They let the jury ask questions they should have.

    The same thing happened with Horn and his intact dura matter. His typo included not only the dura mater but the falx cerebri. If he meant to say the falx cerebri was intact but the dura mater wasn’t, he wouldn’t have dictated “The falx cerebri and dura matter appear intact” or however that was worded. Did JW ask that question? No, of course not.

    I don’t understand how you can say that the intruder story would have been more difficult to prove than self-defense. Self-defense is a hard sell to ANY jury without a witness. And most importantly, without her calling the cops immediately thereafter. Without the gun and knife, it made it even more difficult.

    But with a throat slash, self-defense was impossible to achieve acquittal. You knew that, I knew that, SJ knew that, and perhaps a few other realistic people here did also. It was obviously NOT the defense’s goal. Yes, there are some here who seem to think it was perfectly justifiable in a self-defense scenario, but the fact of the matter is, it wasn’t and anyone who thinks otherwise is really not living in reality. If the throat slash hadn’t been in the equation, this could have turned out differently.

    Even more importantly, the throat slash was NEVER justified or explained. No witness addressed how battered women who kill their abuser almost always “overkill”. So, if the throat slash was so easy to explain Tonysam, then why wasn’t it explained?

    Tonysam, you see this as classic self defense and you think Jodi was good on the stand. But the point is, she didn’t remember inflicting the actual wounds that caused Travis to die and they were NEVER explained. After weeks on the stand, she finally got to discuss the actual killing and then, she didn’t remember. Don’t you see WHY that caused the jury to see her as a liar? Don’t you see how the defense hurt the case by showing her perfect recall of every detail of her life except this one traumatic incident? Sure, there’s a valid explanation for that. But the problem is, don’t you see how Samuels’ testimony was not believed because he became so frazzled on cross and the defense did not rehabilitate him sufficiently?

    Then, there were the other credibility problems with Jodi: the gas cans (a stupid stupid stupid theory, but it worked) and the magazines. Did the defense work to restore Jodi’s credibility about those? No, they did not.

    Then, there are even people here who find Jodi difficult to relate to or weird and I don’t mean the trolls. She sassed back at JM, she objected to his questions, she laughed at times, and got angry at others. I don’t blame her entirely. He is extremely difficult to handle. But who do I blame? Her defense attorneys. If she was going to testify, she needed to appear meek and mild. Sure, many people excuse that as having spent 5 years incarcerated. But do you think the jury cared about that? And was that even explained? NO! She presented as meek and mild on direct, but defiant on cross. That’s not a good sell to a jury. Her attorneys should have prepared her better, and if they felt she would not make a good witness whose demeanour did not change between direct and cross (which should have been investigated LONG before she changed her plea), then, they should have kept her OFF the stand.

    You also completely fail to understand that this was a death penalty qualified jury selected, in part, because they had the ability to serve as a juror for a very lengthy trial. Because the trial was predicted to last until mid-April, that meant those jurors had to be able to walk away from their lives and careers for 3.5 months without it affecting their health or financial status irreparably. (It ended up taking a month longer than expected, I realize, but that’s beside the point.) So you end up with a potential jury panel (after all the potentials who can not serve for 3.5 months) who are either (a) unemployed, (b) retired, (c) stay-at-home parents, and/or (c) independently wealthy. For the most part, you end up with an older jury — as happened here. In a conservative county and state, a trial involving graphic sex, isn’t going to give you the best odds.

    But death penalty qualified juries are already NOT a jury of our peers. Look around here on an average day of posts. We have people who DO believe in the death penalty, and others who DON’T. Heck, even on the hater sites, there are people who say they don’t believe in the death penalty. Anyone who couldn’t sentence to the death penalty was excluded from the jury. That means that many of us here would have been excluded (even omitting those of us who were abused) from the available posters at this site, that still doesn’t constitute 50% of us.

    Death penalty qualified jurors are more pro-law enforcement than jurors who do not believe in the death penalty, or who are equivocal about the death penalty. Jurors on the whole assume that a prosecutor and law enforcement are more likely credible than a defendant and defense attorneys. That’s a fact. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Look at the jurors who are speaking out: a former 911 operator (pro-law enforcement), a former nurse (often pro-law enforcement and jaded by crime injuries), and a banker (generally very conservative — often pro-prosecution). Those are the ones we’ve heard from so far. They have also said (especially No. 6) that they felt a strong duty to serve as a juror. Most people who feel this way also are inclined to believe the prosecution. In other words, they feel they have a duty to convict.

    So, call the jury tainted all you want. But the real fact of the matter is the defense chose the wrong strategy, they missed the boat repeatedly with not “winning” points, they didn’t call a medical expert, they obviously missed critical points (such as the dura mater not being penetrated — which required a medical expert to notice or — laughably — the jury), they let the jury ask about some of the most important issues, they didn’t prepare witnesses to deal with someone like Martinez, or they didn’t realize what he was capable of or thought a death penalty qualified jury in a conservative area — who re-elects Sheriff Joe and Jan Brewer — would not like him, even though he wins the vast majority of his cases, and they presented without having a Plan B when the line of questioning from their Plan A went south.

    The only concession I will give the defense is that they faced a jury that was exclusively white for deliberation (with one Hispanic in the entire 18 possibles, who subsequently was excused for illness prior to deliberations), and not one African American. Therein lies an appellate issue, since they objected to the jury selection, and, it seems Martinez won their objections to peremptory challenges.

    That’s what actually happened here. Like it or not.

    • Jodi had to get on the stand, AA, because of the self defense claim.

      She was on the stand too long because of the cross, and the 250 juror questions.

      This jury was going to try to kill her regardless, they made up their minds during opening statements.

      This was the best experts they could get, people knew this trial would go down like this… experts getting threatened.

      • No sorry, Renee, she was on the stand for many days on direct. Cross wouldn’t have been as long if direct was shorter. And there would have been less juror questions.

        Some of the jury may have been going to kill her from opening statements onwards. I don’t doubt that. But if the defense strategy had NOT been self-defense, would you be saying that?

        They weren’t the best experts they could get. I’ve asked around and I know for a fact that certain nationally known experts would have been more than willing but weren’t approached. If there’s ever a retrial (which I doubt), I’ve asked if they would still have an interest, even after all this publicity, and I’ve been told they would.

        • WOW. You know more people than I do, then. Who were these nationally known experts?

          You seem real snarky at me, AA, and quite frankly, I have had enough of your know-it-all-ness, and the fact you think you know more than anyone else. A lot of us have been abused. Many of us know the law. I am a paralegal. Did you know that? I am allowed my opinion, yes, I am.

          I gotta walk away right now.


          • I’m not going to post the names of the nationally-known experts here so they can be harassed. But I am involved in many domestic violence groups where some experts participate.

            Yes, I do know that you’re a paralegal. You’ve said that many times. I’ve never said you don’t know the law. And I haven’t ever been snarky with you. But it seems you are the one being snarky at this point.

          • Renee, I like the opinions that you post because I can tell you are a compassionate person. I can tell you are lover of people and on this site that person is Jodi Arias. You and a lot of others don’t let us forget that.
            Thanks, Thanks for helping us not to forget what we are here for.
            Her name is Jodi Arias.

    • Well hell, if the other jurors thought like 17 did, then nothing the defense did would have made a bit of difference. She had Jodi convicted on opening statements.

      It’s true that the defense could have strategized more effectively in certain ways. But the fact that this jury was death-qualified, pro-law enforcement, and older/conservative/felt a strong duty to convict kind of shows that Nurmi/Wilmott were screwed from the outset, right?

      And it’s water under the bridge now.

    • And I think that more than “a few of us” knew that acquittal was a long, long shot due to the throat slash. That seemed to be the majority consensus here, not the opinion of just one or two individuals who were more realistic than the rest of us.

    • “I waited with baited breath for the one point Journee made above: why the overkill? Why the throat slash? Alyce never explained.”

      In fairness to Alyce, she did say – with a bit of a hitch in her voice, even – that when abused women finally fight back, “they often don’t know when to stop.” I even remember the look on Jodi’s face when she said it, like her heart was breaking.

      But, of course, Martinez shut her down practically before all the words were even out of her mouth. And the point was never re-visited.

    • AA,

      I agree with everything you’ve said and in spades. I was saying just about all of this while the trial was going on. At one stage I remember commenting on the fact that I would wish the defense would come to this site and read some of the comments. I even sent a link to Marshall Evan’s book and the NIH report on gunshots to the head to Willmott’s general office email.

      I don’t know if it was possible, but I believe they should have put Samuels on before Jodi. I think once the defense had made a proffer to the judge that they would have tied it all together, she would probably have allowed it. The way I look at it is that the attorneys are really sales people, and the product they are selling to their customer (the jury) is their side of the case. In any sales exercise there are two approaches you can take. The first one says, here’s my product and its the only one you need to consider because its the only one that meets the requirements. The second one, where you have a competing product requires you to tell the customer why your product is better and why the other product is deficient. The first sales guy to get to the customer always sets the bar, and a good sales person in that position always touts his positives and leaves the buyer convinced of the virtues of his product. The second person now needs to not only tout his own product but also show why it is superior to the other guys. And the decision making process is a sort of real time process, wherein the customer is subconsciously making sure that the second salesperson addresses the issues raised by the first. If you leave some issues unanswered, at a critical juncture, you may actually loose the customer’s interest and hence the sale. It is also really important to tell a cohesive story in a sequence that does not allow the customer to write you off before all is said and done.

      In normal jury trials the attorneys are somewhat blind, since there is no feedback from the jury till the end. In AZ, the fact that the jury asks questions actually lets the attorneys get some feedback and correct for any deficiencies that may have been left.

      I know that people say the defense doesn’t have to prove anything. I also know that technically this is true. But does this actually happen in court? I don’t think so. That is why you have people who get wrongly convicted, sometimes, when not only did they not do what they are accused of, but weren’t even there to start with. So the defense does have to fight. It must do everything it can to destroy the state’s case, whether it be through discrediting the state’s witnesses and evidence or putting on their own case. In this particular case I believe they failed on both counts. And this was after the state and sometimes the jury opened gates they could have driven the proverbial Mack truck through. They should have been ready to lay out the inconsistencies in the blood spatter evidence, and Horn’s testimony right at the onset. They should have stridently proven to the jury that the gun stolen from grandpa had hollow points and the bullet recovered from TA was not. They should have directly confronted the ballistics person with the effects of a 25 caliber gunshot. They should have confronted Horn with the various and sundry reports on the effects of a gunshot wound to the head. They should have carried out a demonstration about those back wounds while Horn was on the stand (much as they did with Jodi’s finger). They should have gone through each instance where Horn said something was consistent with JM’s theory and asked him whether it was also possible that it was not (Horn was very careful with how he worded those statements and could have been easily led down the path of saying they were consistent with something else). They never raised the issue that his autopsy report showed no puncture of the lungs or air passage to cause the blood spatter on the sink. In fact his autopsy report said that the lungs showed no areas of induration, consolidation, hemorrhage or gross scaring and the airways were patent and of normal caliber. This was sort of like the dura mater. Since they seemed to have missed it during the states case in chief I was of the opinion, and said so, that the defense should have called Horn to the stand as their witness and hit him over the head with his own autopsy report and all the other reports about gun shot wounds. And by the way the AZ rules that allow any relevant issue to be raised would have let them do all of this.

      After JM played Jodi’s interviews with Flores and the TV shows the defense knew that any story they put up through Jodi’s testimony would be looked at with utter skepticism by the jury. If that story differed in any way from the what she had already told, they had to make damn sure that the jury was ready to accept the story they were getting ready to tell. If this meant that they needed to put an expert up to explain fight or flight and the effects of acute stress they should have done it before they put Jodi up there. They didn’t even have to connect it to her in particular at that stage. I don’t know how the rules differ between federal district court on civil suits and AZ criminal cases, but we had a case in federal court about a government contract. Some of the clauses in such contracts are peculiar to government contracts and fly in the face of common logic as does the customary way of performing on such contracts. The judge let us put on an expert, before our side ever testified about the actual issues to just explain this stuff, with the a promise from our attorney that he would tie it all up later. And this expert had never looked at our case, he was merely testifying to things that could happen in a hypothetical situation. The same could have been done here, particularly because once the jury wrote off Jodi’s loss of memory as hogwash, there was probably no recovering from it. I think by the time Samuels came to the stand, that part of the game was over.

      While we’re on Samuels testimony, I just don’t understand how the defense allowed that sort of malarkey to go on. It’s like I tell my kids and employees – details matter. They go to you overall credibility. So the guy shows up without the bubble sheet. Send him back for it instead of writing it down on a sheet of paper. You know that’s going to become an issue. Didn’t anyone check his report for typos? Once the story changed to self defense, how the hell no one picked up on the fact that her PTSD test still said attack by strangers? This is just elementary stuff.

      The same things holds for the whole gas can fiasco. The elements of what made up JM’s case were clear to everyone, and in there was this issue of the gas receipts and gas cans. Particularly since he paraded the receipts and questioned Darryl about the gas cans before Jodi ever took the stand. Somehow, someone should have looked at those and had Jodi ready for them. At the end of the day, it is out of the normal to have multiple gas receipts from the same station within a matter of minutes. I don’t care what the reason is, but we all fill gas, and rarely do we have multiple receipts. The only time I can think of multiple transactions in my life is when I have gotten one grade of gas for my car and another for my lawn mower. So if its not normal question it and be ready with the answer. The same hold with the whole Walmart fiasco. You are so right, that they just blew it. They had ample opportunity to address this issue. There are only three possibilities to that fiasco – the misc SKU, or arbitrary refund as some have suggested, a return to a different Walmart in the same town, as geebee2 has suggested or a flat out lie as JM has suggested. The first two should have been handled by the defense when the Walmart folks were on the stand. The third one should have been addressed before Jodi ever left the stand. I was yelling and screaming when this happened, that if they didn’t have a candid talk with her and address the issue it would sink their case. I remember tonysam yelling about how I was from a different part of the country and didn’t understand people carried gas in the desert. That wasn’t my point, and should not have been the defense’s point. Once they put on the self defense case, I don’t care what the law says, you have to convince the jury that your client is truthful. No amount of appeals will overturn the jury’s verdict because they ruled due to not believing the defendant. The appeals courts will not revisit that issue. The jury pretty much has free run on that, and the defense lawyers know that.

      And then, as you say, a death qualified jury comes with a proclivity for findings of guilt. So if you want success you have to ram home your case with just so much more force. And you can’t wait till closing to do that. I suspect that most jurors have made up their minds by that stage, and trying to get a juror to change their minds in closing is like trying to get a judge to reconsider their ruling – good luck with that.

      So who knows where this chain of errors started – was it in the decision to put forth the self defense claim, though I understand the lesser included argument you made, or was it just abject incompetence, or a combination thereof?

      Be that as it may, this is where we now, and I don’t really know what happens in any appeals, or how long it takes to get there, but I do believe that this jury wrongly convicted a person of M1, where the state failed to make its case and a good defense team would have torn it to shreds.

      The result may have been the same due to media and public pressure and influence, but at least one could say that the defense did a great job – which sadly I can’t say today.

      • Al, you just pointed out another gaping hole and huge error. Why not put Samuels up once to explain why Jodi told different stories? Then, put him back up AFTER Jodi to explain her fugue?

        And while I’m at it, that whole testing to diagnose PTSD really irked me anyway. I’ve seen two psychiatrists, two psychologists and a licensed clinical social worker. None of them have ever given me a single test. Both psychiatrists and both psychologist have diagnoses me with PTSD, however. And Samuels’ tests came LONG before DeMarte’s, so that’s not the reason.

        I don’t agree with the defense calling Horn, and I’m not even sure they could have. But they certainly could have used some kind of medical expert (an M.D.) I mean to counter his testimony. I missed the part about the lungs. Thanks for pointing that out. That M.D. could have countered that. He/she could also have examined Jodi’s finger for crying out loud. Since it was an old injury, he/she couldn’t have gotten far, but *some* testimony would have been better than none.

        And if there were photos of bruises, as Jodi said, why the hell weren’t they used when she was on the stand?

        Sure, the defense doesn’t have to put on a case at all. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. But seriously, anyone who says that is nuts. The defense has to DISPROVE the state’s case. Otherwise, why wouldn’t a jury believe the prosecution? Jurors come with a preconceived notion that someone accused of a crime that gets all the way to trial is probably guilty. There actually have been cases where a fool decided to represent himself and did nothing. Guess what? The fool lost.

        I stand by my theory that Nurmi, a seasoned PD, assumed Martinez would accept his more than generous plea offer. When that didn’t happen, he scrambled to prepare a case for trial. Granted, the prosecution didn’t turn over evidence, and there were major problems with that. But it looks like he only started pushing for that late in the game.

        I also missed this one, and so did the defense, did you?

        “The blue SD card labeled exhibit #215, confirmed by the State by its two witnesses Heather Connor and Det Melendez to be the card where all deleted images were extracted.

        There’s just one problem with that. Well, maybe two. Connor stated it was located in the bottom of the washer along with the camera battery cover, which were separate from the camera itself. In fact, one can see the battery pack in the camera from the image taken into the washer.

        Melendez stated he found the card or memory stick inside the camera when he opened its cover door.

        How did it get there if he was the only one who handled it, and how does he account for the fact that it is definitely not compatible with Travis’s camera a Sony (insert model).

        Travis’s camera used a proprietary Sony duopro memory stick which is thinner and rectangular, and included notches for locking the data contained on it. The blue SD card cannot and does not fit inside the camera.


        How does one account for the fact that there is only one card located in exhibit #215 and it is indeed now a Sony duopro, and it is NOT the same card pictured in the envelope presented by Thomas through prosecutor Juan Martinez.

        While on the stand initially calling the duopro card a SIM card, Melendez stated that SIM cards are smaller and primarily used in phones. This is an incorrect explanation. The storage format Martinez was referring to as a SIM is actually Micro SD. However, no micro SD cards have been admitted into evidence at trial.

        In Flores’s interview, he expressly stated that the analysts DID NOT work with the original card or cards in the case that they only make a copy, a mirror copy and work with that. Again, incorrect as we heard Melendez testify that he could not read the card removed until he placed the card directly into his “forensic machine”. No copy was ever made and the images recovered consisted then of deleted and non-deleted items from the card Melendez testified he removed from Travis’s camera himself.”


        Look, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again … if Jodi had been convicted of manslaughter, I’m sure we’d all be praising the defense team right now. But she wasn’t.

        I strongly recommend that everyone read Jose Baez’s book. I don’t care if you like what he said about the verdict or not. Read it to learn about his strategy. He didn’t miss a damn trick in that trial and that’s why Casey was acquitted. He covered and uncovered everything he could, even flying out of the country when he had to, and begging people to help him.

        I don’t think Nurmi was hungry enough to do the same (and I don’t mean his appetite for food). He’s interested in defending sex crimes. He’s not interested in defending murders. He’s got 10 years of experience at the PD’s office which will bring him plenty of clients. The difference is Jose Baez was struggling in his law practice and he wanted and really really needed to win a big case. He also really cared about Casey. I don’t think Nurmi cared about Jodi, although Willmott did, or so it seemed. But Willmott wasn’t the boss. There were many times we saw her struggling with Nurmi to object and him deciding against it. But even Willmott has a nice little practice with her husband.

        • Jose was an absolute rock star, I agree. He was severely underestimated by the judge, prosecution, and media.

          • So true, Kira. No one saw him coming. As he said in his book, he had a LOT to prove and he was going to prove it.

            • I didn’t watch the whole trial, only clips in the major media, but the feeling I got was that JM came in loaded for bear and well-prepared.

              I felt that Nurmi was floundering and reacting instead of taking the lead. Wilmott seemed to have her wits about her but was subordinate to Nurmi.

              Jodi might have stood a better chance had Wilmott lead the defense.

        • As a psychiatrist, I can state that testing for criminal cases is the norm, not the exception. Is it needed? Probably not. Nothing can replace a good clinical interview. Unfortunately the court is an abusive system, and mental health professionals feel a strong need to use it in criminal cases.

          • Interesting, Rebecca. So, are you saying that if testing was not conducted, the prosecution would have at least attempted to dismiss the diagnosis?

            Have you ever seen a case where a psychiatrist/psychologist did NOT test?

            What is your opinion of Samuels not repeated the test after Jodi’s story changed from intruder to self-defense? Did you think that was necessary, or do you think that PTSD is PTSD, regardless of whether it’s a bear or a tiger that caused the trauma?

            Thanks for your insight.

            • In criminal cases you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. The issue becomes, not relying on testing exclusively I have seen mental health professionals testify without it, but that is usually questioned. Yes DR. Samuels should have re-administered the testing. I am surprised that he thought he could pull that off. He did not serve Jodi well. He should have used the current DSM. He played into Mr. Martinez’s hand.. If one has current testing, the goal becomes showing that the clinical interview is consistent with the testing.

              • By the way if the testing is not consistent with the clinical interview or interviews, it is important to be honest and say so. My experience tells me that the interviews are more relevant than the testing. Unfortunately, the court values testing and attorneys tend to like some sort of proof. What they tend to not understand, is that it is only one tool. You know attorney’s more than I do.

                • Thanks so much Rebecca. You have explained a LOT that I wondered about. I don’t remember a case where we have psychological testing, so I don’t know how the attorneys I worked with would have reacted to having testing vs. not having it.

                  I think the problem with experts in any field, is that you’ll always get another expert to contradict them. That happened in some medical malpractice cases firms I worked for handled especially.

              • DSM is current. It is not supposed to change until 2015. Martinez started with his smoke and mirrors bringing in the TR.

                • The psychologist Dr. Samuels used The dsm4 not the dsm 4 tr. THe DSm 4 should not have been used. I am we’ll aware of the Upcoming DSm 5.

                • The DSM 4 TR is current. DR. Samuels used the outdated DSM 4. One never goes to court siting an outdated diagnostic manual. It creates the look of incompetence on the part of the clinician. This issue allowed the prosecution to give him the appearance of sloppiness and incompetence. I am well aware that the DSM 5 is in publishing.

                • After watching several trials where experts have testified, especially
                  mental health experts that the system would benefit by having neutral
                  experts that are satisfactory to both sides testify.

        • AA,

          About the memory cards, I had raised this issue before, most recently yesterday. My question was unfortunately rather cryptic in that all I said was

          6. And what’s with the memory cards for the camera? (Notice the plural)

          I figured everyone else had caught the inconsistencies there. Teaches me for not being more specific.

          I just went and read the site you posted and while I agree with the facts, not necessarily with the conclusion.

          In my past posts about the pictures, the point was that something was possibly amiss. The biggest issue I had was the absence of the XIF data on some of the pictures, and Jodi’s comments in the Flores interviews and the fact that the various people were describing what sounded to me like two different memory cards. I remember remarking that some cameras when connected to a computer act like a simple hard drive and pictures can be transferred to them at will. Now almost all cameras (probably 99.99999%) will include the XIF data on the original picture. However, if you open the image with some photo editing software it allows you to get rid of the XIF data, and such pictures can still be moved from spot to spot. And in fact there was a jury question to that effect, whether the pictures could be from somewhere else, and also if the dates could be modified.

          However, as you pointed out the other day, once the defense came up with the self defense story the issue of whether these pictures came from some other place becomes moot, because Jodi’s story claims that the pictures were taken that day.

          Which then begs the question – with so much info floating around that shows something else, did the defense shoot itself in the foot with the self defense story?

          While we are on the story of pictures let’s talk about that whole enlarged picture of the eye thing. Remember how at one time there were these theories floating around about an image of the right eye showing two people floating around. I was extremely skeptical of that when I first read it. But I then listened to the photo experts testimony of what he did with the image of the left eye, and from a technical point of view it made complete sense. So if he’s to be believed then what, if anything was reflected in the other eye? The other issue is that the defense got a stipulation from JM that said that when that picture was taken it showed that Jodi had neither gun, nor knife in her hands. But other than that one statement by the judge, at the end of a long boring day the defense never brought it up again. What the heck was the point of going through all the work and that evidentiary hearing if you never intended to bring it up again. If you look at the timelines involved, the fact that they managed to show that Jodi was unarmed at that stage was huge, because, f the state’s theory was true, she would have had to go to some other room, get a knife , come back and stab TA, have the fight, drag his body back and then go get the gun and shoot him. The more activity you try and put into that short time frame, the less likely it becomes. But again, they just let it go.

          In as far as Nurmi not wanting to win this case, I’m a little surprised, but again it may have to do with his overall acumen. I don’t care if you want to defend sex crimes, or bank robberies, or white collar stuff – you win a trial of this magnitude and the publicity can be nothing but good for your career. It’s the kind of publicity you’d have to spend a billion dollars to buy, and you’re getting it for free. I know any publicity is good, but publicity with a big win is really, really good. So unless he’s just blind to what moves business one’s way he had to know that this trial could have put him at the top of the Phoenix area A list.

          In as far as the Plea deal goes, the original plea offer was made in October 2010. When they got no response they made another approach to the state in December 2010. That led nowhere, so 2 years before trial he knew they weren’t going for it. They had a settlement conference in July 2011, a year and a half before trial and they knew then the state wasn’t going for it. So I think he had a bunch of time to get ready.

          In fact Stephens had already granted a huge continuance due to Willmott coming, on stating

          “The Court finds that delay is indispensable to the interests of justice and that the
          following extraordinary circumstance(s) exist warranting the continuance:
          New counsel has been appointed and needs sufficient time to prepare for trial.”

          And this was some 7 months after the plea deal was rejected. AS a point of interst, during the settlement efforts Jodi was represented not just by Nurmi and Victoria Washington but also by the local Federal PD’s office (they were bringing in every gun they had).

          But I don’t think this was a time issue. Someone goes to the lower end law schools and someone graduates in the lower half of the class, but once admitted to the bar, they’re all lawyers. I remember, during a conversation about the blunders at Little Bighorn one of my friends pointed out that Custer was graduated last in his class, and only because in 1961 they were taking on anyone who was willing, and in fact he had been close to expulsion from West Point.

          I too don’t understand the whole PTSD test thing that Samuels did. He could have very well have done it through a clinical evaluation without a test. The Mayo clinic says

          “Post-traumatic stress disorder is diagnosed based on signs and symptoms and a thorough psychological evaluation. Your doctor or mental health professional will ask you to describe the signs and symptoms you’re experiencing — what they are, when they occur, how intense they are and how long they last. Your doctor also might ask you to describe the event that led up to your symptoms. ”

          Using tests seems an afterthought for these folks. They don’t even mention it. But be that as it may, DeMarte’s test also should clinically elevated levels for PTSD, and Willmott should have just honed in on that instead of going through all these other results that just were irrelevant to DeMarte’s alleged impeachment of Samuels. You have to know which battles to fight.

          The more I look at this stuff, the more I manage to convince myself, that something else happened that day. I don’t really know what it was because some of that evidence was never brought out, and probably never will be. I also know that the aspects of the self defense theory were related to JM as early as late 2010, because he mentions some of them in various court filings, so he was well prepared for that story.

          The problem as I see it lies in the fact that there are some things out there that just don’t match up with the self defense story, and in fact match up better with the intruder story. So even if you had a jury that was not influenced by any outside pressure, and had lived this case for 5 months, it is possible that someone there starts questioning some of this stuff. And when that happens you have a real issue on your hands. A case in point, something I have talked about before is that Jodi’s initial description of the events matches the blood evidence. Now the jury saw the same tape as I did, and heard the same blood spatter testimony. Now the defense comes back and says, she doesn’t remember anything much after the gun going off. So how did that completely fabricated intruder story match the physical evidence – was it just coincidence? Someone’s going to ask that, and PTSD or no PTSD, its just too much to pass over. So if the defense says that intruder thing never happened, and you are faced with the incongruity of the fog, do you as the jury then believe JM’s story?

          The issue with this case, in my opinion is and was the physical evidence. They could probably have argued this through on a reasonable doubt and lack of sufficient proof basis without the danger of all these contradictions and also the dager of putting Jodi on the stand.

          But of course we have the luxury of Monday morning quarter backing this and who knows how one would have acted in real time.

          I do still believe that the whole self defense issue was Nurmi’s idea and I believe that Samuels probably did a lot of damage to that claim when he said that Nurmi took him to visit Jodi to convince her to get off the intruder story. That just wasn’t kosher, and it made me go Whoa, WTF.

          • ( Samuels probably did a lot of damage to that claim when he said that Nurmi took him to visit Jodi to convince her to get off the intruder story. That just wasn’t kosher, and it made me go Whoa, WTF.)

            WOW AL that really upsets me ! I did not know they convinced her to change the story.

            That was stupid ! this was one reason everyone is so hateful for the story changes. That
            would have made a big difference I think. I kept saying that she remembers the shot an
            him falling on her on the tile but after that a FOG. Ok how do I know after 2 times being
            thrown on tile she was not unconscious an someone else was in that room ? I keep thinking
            that also but she can’t remember so she went with it? she did say in interrogation to Flores I guess I did they say I did. An on the stand she did say I guess an then I don’t know an then Yes to JM. Because she can’t remember the stabbings.

            I wish they would check the other EYE for shadows I think it has 3 people in it one kneeling
            an 2 behind that person (Jodi) I still will never believe Jodi would put the camera in the washer sounds like something a stupid roommate would do though to me. Smart an aware enough to take the gun the rope an knife but not the camera COME ON ! it does not add up.

          • I believe that the reason the image wasn’t brought up because the judge made a ruling that if the weasel would agree at JODI was unarmed then it –the photo— couldn’t be mentioned or brought into evidence. although I am not entirely sure that this is correct (please help me with this if anybody knows for sure about the image, etc.,) (NOTE: if what I stated is fact—then to me this is just another sign of JM and the state withholding factual evidence)

            • The stipulation they agreed to was that at the time that picture was taken,( and the judge gave them the exhibit number and put the picture up on the screen) Jodi was unarmed. Once a stipulation is made, that becomes a piece of evidence that neither side disputes and can be referred to by either side just as any other bit of evidence.

          • well the judge should have took a trip to the lab to see for herself the images that could have been seen through use of enhancing the pixels.

            And I know in my divorce case, my attorney actually had another attorney represent me and took the stand and the fall on having misrepresenting me so that the previous Judge’s order that was filled became null and void. I wonder if Nurmi could do this, by admitting he pressured his client into a defense that was untrue?

            • The judge would /could have made the trip to the lab—-with the jury too—-if she wasn’t as corrupt as the rest of the prosecutorial tem is……she knew that that image alone would have blown her little imp’s case clear out of the court—so she chose not to allow the image to be shown

    • Hate to disagree with you AA —but the DT did what they were supposed to do. Unfortunately the state was wholly corrupt—- from the prosecutors, and his witnesses, lies and the judge’s obvious bias towards JODI and her lawyers—-the only thing possible was to call attention to the absolute travesty of justice that occurred and make it possible for the entire “case” against JODI to be overturned and thrown—along with JM, the judge, the ME and EF—out completely.

      • Duke, if the judge was biased, then why do all the haters think she was biased in the other direction?

        And if the defense did exactly what they were supposed to, why are many lawyers saying otherwise? Are you a criminal defense lawyer?

        If you think this case will be “thrown out” in its entirety, I will suggest that you not hold your breath. It’s extremely difficult to overturn a jury verdict completely.

        • No AA I am NOT a defense attorney Nor am I any sort of attorney whatsoever: however, I am a person with not only a college degree but a person who looks at the whole picture and the picture before me tells me that this case —-once it reaches the court of appeals WILL be overturned—-so while I am holding my breath suggest that you have more faith in your instincts and all the true evidence as presented by the DT. Someone will see that this travesty of justice was wrong on every level—and though I agree that a jury decision is very difficult to overturn —- will over-turn the jury’s verdict.

        • The haters are fools with tunnel vision and see only what their hate allows them to see—-they feel that she was biased towards the state simply because they are far too ignorant to accept the truth—that JODI is innocent! And no AA I am in no way angry nor upset with you as we are all on the same team here—-seeking justice and freedom for JODI.

    • Could it be that the DT realized that they were fighting an uphill battle due to the judge’s obvious bias and knew that the were going to have to show enough judicial misconduct on the state’s part so as to put forth an appeal that is strong enough to overturn the verdict and set JODI free! Also, if there were intruders—as JODI stated—- and they attacked both her and douche-bag and she fought with them until they somehow incapacitated her long enough to plant “evidence” to make it seem as if JODI had killed the douche-bag…would not that have been self-defense on JODI’s part? (One of my cousins who thought that JODI was guilty until I talked to him about everything said it sounded to him like JODI may have been drugged by her attackers and when she came to thought that she had killed TA—which would/could explain her having no recollection of what happened. Didn’t she say tat THEY told me that I killed TA so I must have? HMMMMM)

    • AA, yours is an excellent analysis of this trial and this jury. I agree with most EVERYTHING you say….with exception of one thing: I think it was Jodi who insisted on testifying…..and the client over rules the defense lawyers in such a case. I wanted to scream throughout her testimony….”LESS IS MORE, LESS IS MORE”, but apparently both defense and prosecutor did not understand such a concept.

    • HI AA,

      A bit late to this post but I hope you see it.

      I agree that there was just not enough emphasis on the medical aspects of this case. I wanted a neurologist to testify about the amnesia – someone who could be convincing about shock, trauma and its chemical effects on the brain. To bring in a neuro-psychologist to do that – although I felt that Dr. S did a fine job until the last few moments when he was painted into a corner – was muddying the waters. As Dr. Samuels’ testimony continued, I was concerned about the way the amnesia was so conflated with her guilt or innocence, and other aspects of her personality. An M.D. would have been much more convincing and could have presented evidence we can’t even guess at. The field of neuroscience is just warming up.

      Instead of straight up chemistry, we ended with Dr. Samuels referring to Jodi as “the perpetrator” – over and over. My heart sank. It made her sound like “the initiator”. JW tried in vain through repeated questions to have him re-word it somehow, to re-state that point, but he kept on with the same verbiage. JM at one point even stopped yelling at Dr. S when he realized that he had gotten what he wanted out of him. Dr. Samuels had called Jodi “the perpetrator” repeatedly and JM knew to leave the jury with that.

      Over the course of the several days he was on the stand, Dr. Samuels had been gradually moved from the position of stating that “even a perpretrator” can experience PTSD to something much more damning. To me, that was without question the worst thing that happened in this trial for Jodi.

      In his closing, Nurmi asserted that the crime scene evidence showed that at some point, both of them had feared for their lives. But the defense should have had a careful strategy as they went along to remind the jury continually that just such a fight had occurred – one that could have had a deadly outcome for either of the parties. JM wanted the jury to believe that Travis just stood passively and accepted stabbing? He would not have stated it thus if the defense had laid their ground work for self defense more carefully. It would have been more of an uphill battle for JM in his closing to paint Travis as passive and not a perpetrator at all. The fight shows that he engaged as well; the aftermath of the struggle appears deadly, as if anyone in the entire house would have been at risk.

      JW struggled to get Dr. Samuels away from calling Jodi “the perpetrator”, but it seemed as if she did not know how the formulate the right question. This was at the very end of Dr. Samuels’ testimony and JW did not want to leave the jury with the impression that Dr. Samuels also was stating that Jodi had initiated the fight. If she had asked Dr. Samuels more questions about “surviving” a fight in her concluding questioning of Dr. Samuels, and how a “survivor” would experience PTSD even more if they had had to kill an intimate partner, it would have made JM’s job in closing much more difficult.

      The absence of a scientific approach in this case was very surprising to me and that includes the lack of specificity with respect to Travis’ injuries. The defense counsel should have been able to make a better case that the prosecution/L.E. had messed up.

  24. Putting JODI on the stand was not a mistake at all. The true mistake was the drone-judge allowing that little piece of shit prosecutor—as he so fondly refers to himself—constantly twist not only JODI’s words ,,,,but those of all of the defense witnesses as well as the evidence. People are still referring to the petrol cans—when in fact she did return a can to the Wal-Mart …..albeit a KEROSENE can —-which I have personally heard people that I know call a “gas” can in general terms as each is a type of fuel. So it could be easily explained as JODI simply saying she returned a gas can even though it was actually a kerosene can —-hence she was not lying about the can …..she was simply confused as to the type of can she turned.

    • the mormons owned stephens, as they did the prosecution and the police in the guise of jm, and flores, other state institutions, and the electronic media, etc

      scapegoating jodi was a mormon operation to divert attention away from them

      but even all their magic underwear will not hide the corruption from coming out, in due course, and jodi finally being acquitted of all charges

      • Go read ANY hater site and see what they think of the judge there. Then, come back and tell me she was biased from the get-go.

        • I don’t need to read any of the hater sights as I saw and heard the entire trial with my own eyes and ears–and everything about that joke-of-a-judge reeks of bias towards the defense and JODI

        • Hi Also Abused
          i came into the trial half way through
          i have never read any material from a hater site
          my opinion is independent of what they say about her or their views on her

          stephens became a judge via an election process, in which the political machinery pre-selected her
          therefore she’s a law and order judge as is sheriff joe arpaio
          she’s a political judge, in a state or mormon theocracy
          both beholden to the mormon power machine
          arizona’s judiciary if as represented by stephens is substandard as to competence
          it’s partial
          maybe she’s par for the region ?

          her evidentiary rulings allowed jm almost totally unfettered capacity to abuse the rules of evidence during the trial and hence to distort and infect the evidence presented to the jury


          jm was allowed to yell at defense witnesses, including jodi,
          badger witnesses
          cut of their answers,
          misquote their answers,
          conflate extended hypotheticals to experts with reality,
          mock and abuse witnesses,
          one habit was to cut off witnesses answers, entangle experts in hypotheticals and then abuse them when they sought clarification as having a poor memory
          the poor memory gambit was improper and almost continuous
          jm also almost continuously and improperly used yes-no uestions,of which he bellowed out to the witnesses demanding a yes no response
          when they protested he called on stephens to enforce a yes no answer witnesses protested such would distort their response to the question which they and the jury had heard
          ie the witness testimony in answer to the question was to be a distortion presented to the jury
          stephens ALWAYS obliged jm

          her improper behavior might be explained as ignorance [ her first murder trial ], allowing jm considerable leeway in conducting his cross, etc

          but the degree and nature of his improper behavior was so outrageous that these explanations fall away in face of the obvious, a bias, a law and order or police judge, who conducted an unfair trial

          instead of a judge being an impartial arbiter in a criminal trial, favoring neither one side nor the other, she allowed and favored the gross abuses of the evidentiary rules by the prosecutor
          i hope that helps explains my prior brief analysis and conclusions

          • >>>stephens became a judge via an election process, in which the political machinery pre-selected her

            Actually, judges are appointed in AZ, so it’s even worse … but they do have elections every few years thereafter.

            >>>she’s a political judge,

            Is there ANY other kind of judge?

            >>>but the degree and nature of his improper behavior was so outrageous that these explanations fall away in face of the obvious, a bias, a law and order or police judge, who conducted an unfair trial

            I really thought a lot of his behaviour was improper as well. But I’ve been asking around … first from the criminal defense lawyer on the Lawyers On Strike blog, and then, a few other lawyers/paralegals in criminal defense. I’m being told this is the “new prosecutor”. This is the way MANY of them act today.

            >>>instead of a judge being an impartial arbiter in a criminal trial, favoring neither one side nor the other, she allowed and favored the gross abuses of the evidentiary rules by the prosecutor

            I don’t see that, sorry. She gave the defense a LOT of leeway at certain times throughout the trial — leeway that another judge would not have given. As a result, she had to give the defense a lot of leeway. I think she tried to balance it out. Post-conviction, however, I will agree that she showed considerable bias towards the defense. Mostly, throughout the trial, she just didn’t control her courtroom well at all. And she had absolutely no concept of time management.

            I respect and appreciate your opinion, but I have to disagree with a lot of it.

            • AA,I wish there were some way to calculate…..other than painstakingly going through all the transcripts……how many times the judge denied defense objections and how many times she denied or accepted prosecution objections. It is my perception that she denied MANY MORE defense objections than prosecutorial objections. On balance, and off the top of your head, do you agree that it was terribly UNBALANCED?

              In my opinion and observation… became very obvious that this was her first murder trial. She was allowing just about anything to get “thrown against the wall’ and passing the buck to the jury to sort it out and “remember” what they remembered was the actual prior testimony.

            • appointments work ok, if the system, the process and the institutions, have a history of judicial independence and integrity

              as in many english common law jurisdictions, such as the uk, australia, canada, and new zealand, which don’t have such rabid political appointees to the bench

              whether or not arizona’s appeals courts have integrity time will tell
              the negate a very high ratio of such cases
              although i haven’t analysed them

              law has precedent and a long history
              accepting improper behavior is not ok, it’s never ok, even if that’s the way it’s done, in whatever jurisdiction

              even if some of your sources accept a new norm, it’s not the law, it’s not that abstract idea of justice
              The personification of justice balancing the scales of truth and fairness dates back to the Goddess Maat, and later Isis, of ancient Egypt.
              “If some god had been holding level the balance of Dike” is a surviving fragment of Bacchylides’s poetry.
              Lady Justice is most often depicted with a set of scales typically suspended from her right hand, upon which she measures the strengths of a case’s support and opposition. She is also often seen carrying a double-edged sword in her left hand, symbolizing the power of Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against any party.

              and a wikipedia entry on Justice

              the constitution require fairness, due process, etc
              DURING a trial, not one that’s able to be corrected afterwards

              what you’re accepting is not the law de jure, but law de facto, ie one of improper legal standards

              such is not a trivial peripheral matter
              i listed the improper behavior of the prosecutor, which stephens overwhelmingly allowed

              both the prosecutor and the judge were at fault, but the judge is the more culpable because of her function of judicial independence and controlling the integrity of the process

              the list i made was not exhaustive, and needed more time for Much better drafting :(, but it was not trivial

              her misbehavior, and incompetence, corrupted the entire process to the core, , the trial of jodi arias

              the leeway you said she granted to both sides was NOT equivalent
              she granted the defense leeway when on direct
              the defense did not abuse the process, MARTINEZ DID

              so massively as to be a qualitative difference

              whether or not an arizona’s appeals courts will sees it this way, which i believe they should time will tell
              it’s the way any court with integrity for fair trials etc should act

              it wasn’t a trivial matter, such as your comment about courtroom time management

              the above is not an opinion, it’s the law

              you may disagree, but you’re wrong
              respectfully 🙂

        • Why do u want people to go to the hater sites ? It’s very ugly and mean over there. I am so mad right now at that Tara juror saying old people voted for no death because they value life more because they are almost dead, how stupid is that and then j v m saying older people were shocked by the sex talk ! Please I am older and let me tell you we invented that stuff and what I could teach you! What Travis said though was not normal fun sex stuff he was sick and wrong at any freaking age

          • this makes me laugh. I am 69 years old….female, never married, and I was not “shocked” at all by the “sex talk”. I think older folks might look at it differently depending on how long they had remained single and dated before marrying and having a family. Most people think I “look” twenty years younger than my age…..but it is not just “looks”, but how one expresses themselves that makes people think they are younger than their real age.There is a lot of “street smarts” and “savvy” that older folks who have spent most of their lives raising children just never seem to acquire. One old friend contemplated that I “sounded younger” more than I “looked younger”. And I was born and raised in the inner city of New York……where one has a much more expanded view of the world than in other rural areas of the country, or even those in big cities like Phoenix. Had this case been tried in front of a New York jury…..I can almost say with certainty the outcome would have been a lot different.

    • I remember watching a news clip where the reporter had some guests(lawyers) and they all agreed it was a NECESSARY and BRILLIANT move on the Defense ‘s part to put Jodi on the stand,to humanize her in the eyes of the jurors they said,so that it would be hard for them to give her the DP.So,there you go.
      As to why she stayed on that stand for so long,I dont know.She told everything,absolutely everything-I think they tried to make the jury see that this was a woman with a normal,average life&experiences who went downhill after meeting him.When Martinez took over,he had everybody so confused Jodi had to asnwer 200+ questions.No wonder she was there for so long.

      • Maria, the only reason Jodi was on there so long was because of the little man trying to beat her down. Martinez was all over the place, he took 20 to 30 minutes about something that didn’t mean a damn just to humiliate Jodi. He got it right!

        • You do realize that Jodi was on the stand for 8 days on direct examination and 2 days on redirect, right? Or, did you forget that?

        • I’m awfully new here, but I don’t understand how Martinez was allowed to get away with badgering defense witnesses the way he did. I’m no attorney, but it sure looked like prosecutorial misconduct to me.

          The judge didn’t call him on it, not once. Something, a lot of things were very wrong with this trial.

      • kn asked her every conceivably relevant question to close off all openings of attack by the prosecution

        kn’s legal practice deals with sexual crimes ie in taboo areas of life which normally are not discussed and he questioned her on all those matters
        jodi was exceptionally well prepared for both the defense questions and the prosecution attack

        jodi totally obliterated jm’s usual methods
        and replied brilliantly before he could cut her off
        or when he attempted to mischaracterize her answers again she corrected him and cleaned his clock

        she had magnificent instanteous recall

        she was far and away the best, most proficient, defense witness

        far and away the best of samuels and laviolette etc

        jm couldn’t and didn’t lay a glove on her [boxing term]

        jodi was absolutely brilliant under such pressure from the charges

        far smarter than the inappropriately administered iq test
        far smarter than that dumbass dr demented

    • But Duke, you’re missing a very important point. You’re right that it COULD have been explained. The problem was, it WAS NOT explained.

      • AA were you speaking about the petrol and kerosene cans? Not sure which point I’m missing. (PS, not trying to be a smart-ass—just confused as to what you’re referring to 🙂 )

        • Sorry, these comments get confusing. Yes, I was talking about that. It could and should have been explained, but it wasn’t.

  25. I remember you wondering aloud “Why the overkill?” I thought it was important for them to get to overkill being something that happens in DV situations.

    I like how you broke down what jury selection must have been like.

    Though, In the past I have been pro prosecution this case felt all wrong from the moment I read about it. My dealings with the Mormon church made me question the picture that was being force fed to the public by the media…..the point being I was thinking there HAD to be more people on the jury that smelled that something stunk in AZ…..

    • Honestly, the “overkill” factor made me think that the jury would go for M2 over manslaughter. I was fully expecting M2. Knowing what we know about the jury now, it doesn’t surprise me that they were taken in by the M1 bullshit.

      • Yah. Seems seven of them were just going to go with whatever Martinez said.

        But I do think they could have hung in the guilt phase if SOMEONE had made the throat slash believable in the context of self defense.

    • One of the juror’s questions to ALV alluded to that. It was something along the lines of “Is it possible for person in that position to stop once they get started.”

      BTW, I think there was a juror who was buying the defense’s case who ended up on the alternates, which sort of sucked. This was probably the juror who asked this “stopping question” and the dura mater question, and the “bear and tiger question” and many other such questions. Those questions were literally tearing down the state’s case and were never really addressed by the state. Yet they came to this asinine decision in the time they did. The only thing I can think of is that the person asking those questions never really made it onto the jury. Wonder if we’ll ever find out.

        • Okay, no, who was on the jury vs. who was an alternate was chosen randomly. We watched that with our own eyes.

          • I saw the clerk pull bits of paper out of what looked like a tupperware dish and call out numbers. I didn’t see anyone else look at the slips of paper or record the numbers.

            • That’s true, but I don’t think a clerk would have fudged that, do you? And how would the clerk know which juror was leaning which way?

              • The clerk? No.

                But in Maricopa County, IF she just called out the numbers she’d been told to call out, it’s not like she’d be the only one going along to get along, would it?

              • As to how they would know which juror asked what. Probably impossible where questions were excessive, but the judge always made a point of saying that the questions were being asked in the order they were submitted. Flores was just sitting there for most of the trial, could have just been ‘doodling’ as he noted jurors putting questions in the basket.

                • Every time they showed Flores on camera sitting there with his legal pad pretending to write, all I could think of was doofus.

                • I’ll bet it is absolutely killing Flores to have to go and work for a change.

                  On the other hand, he probably took a month’s vacation.

    • didn’t Nurmi mention the ‘overkill/abuse victims” thing in closing? But he never presented any witness to talk about this. To me….THAT was his biggest mistake. The “overkill” is what hung up just about everyone tuned into this case from the very beginning…..and it NEEDED TO BE EXPLAINED. Especially because Jodi could not remember what happened.

  26. The biggest issue in this trial was this:

    Martinez constantly and deliberately twisted the words of the defense witnesses cut them off, and misrepresented their testimony all in attempt to confuse the jury

    AND the judge allowed him to do this with a freehand while simply telling Willmott and Nurmi “you can correct on redirect”

    • stephens is either corrupt or incompetent

      it’s improper to correct such on re-direct as the improper testimony has already been put before the jury

      can’t unring a bell

      it must be dealt with immediately

      it’s inconceivable that stephens level of incompetence could be so high

      the transparent and obvious explanation was that she was a mormon plant a mormon crook, who’s job was to FIX the trial by allowing jm to present improper testimony to the jury
      stephens as a member of the arizona judiciary, was part of the scapegoating FIX of jodi, initiated and orchestrated by the regional mormon theocracy, in collusion with all relevant regional institutional players

    • Nk, and the witnesses became testy and answered anyway. Here’s one good example of the top of my head: Martinez is twisting Darryl’s words about whether or not Jodi told him she was going to Mesa. He paused, confused, and then answered yes.

      Rules of witness preparation: If you do not understand the question, do NOT answer. Never volunteer a lengthy answer when you can answer yes or no. Always say “I do not understand” if you don’t. Continue to respond politely and sweetly: “I am sorry, but I do not understand the question.” Seek the assistance of the judge if need be. If the lawyer objects that you are being non-responsive, look at the judge and explain that you do not understand the question. Force the judge to require the lawyer to clarify the question before you answer. Do NOT lose your temper. Do NOT get testy. Do NOT react. Simply restate that you do not understand the question over and over until the lawyer is forced to clarify, or forced by the judge to move on. Cry if you have to. Act visibly stressed. Ask the judge if you can have a few moments because you’re unable to continue. If you ask for assistance from the judge and the judge refuses, the lawyers on the side for which you’re testifying will jump in. If the judge still won’t grant you time, something is seriously wrong. But do whatever it takes to regain your composure.

      That happened occasionally during this trial, but not often enough. Why? Because the witnesses were not prepared to face off with someone like Martinez? Why not? Why were they not prepared?

      I’ve been involved in witness preparation where we’ve had the witnesses in tears or ready to tear our throats out. We had witnesses who said “I can’t do this.” We’ve let them feel that way. We’ve let them calm down. We’ve pointed out that they absolutely can NOT react that way. And we’ve started over and started over and started over until our witnesses could take anything thrown at them and NOT react.

      If they knew Martinez’s style prior to putting their witnesses on the stand, then why didn’t they prep their witnesses accordingly?

    • But that’s standard practice with lawyers who have weak cases. Obfuscate, put out innuendo, testify through questions, ask yes or no questions, cut witnesses off, don’t follow through, bully and badger the witness, confuse the issue and all that sort of underhanded crap.

      He was just being a shyster without a case.

  27. SJ, I think you should be making money off this site! With the amount of traffic you get you could easily have some ads showing in order to generate a small income from this site. As it stands now, I think you are actually investing money? It’s absurd to accuse you of making money when you don’t have ads on the site.

    You people who’ve been monitoring comments and administrating this site deserve some compensation. It’s gotta be a really hard job. Throw up some ads or links to amazon books (like ALVs) and start making some money, I say. Anyone who criticizes you can go suck it.

  28. I was one of those who supported “Occupy HLN” until yesterday. I also received an invitation from a “friend” on Facebook to “like” this page called “Inconvenient Truths”. After viewing it, I noticed that they were mocking Jodi and very soon thereafter I deleted this person from my friends’ list on Facebook.

    I don’t know about you all, but I personally feel betrayed by “Occupy HLN”. Jodi even tweeted their website’s URL over the weekend. From my few conversations with SJ on here, I know that SJ is a decent person and all of the admins here do honorable work to help others. I’m proud to support you all and be a part of the team here.

  29. I truly believed they would come back with manslaughter or M2 also. I agree with AA especially re: Horn on the stand and why the defense did not pounce on him about the “typo”. You know jm would have been going nuts on Horn if it would have been beneficial to pros. This alone should have been enough for reasonable doubt. They should have had a ME testify- I’ve never seen a trial where the defense did not have this critical witness in a case like this.

    • I am of the belief that jury was just like the O.J. Simpson criminal trial jury: Their minds were made up long before the trial began. Nothing the defense would have done would have changed the outcome, especially when that jury wasn’t sequestered.

      • Heck the one juror said her mind was made up after JM’s opening, so there – she basically made your point tonysam.

        • Exactly, Al.

          This was the worst jury decision on a major trial since O.J. Well, maybe since Robert Blake.

        • Al, she was an alternate so she was not involved in deliberations. That may not have changed her mind, but it sometimes does.

          • I know, I’m just commenting on her comment. How do we know she didn’t have other likeminded bretheren on the jury?

            • We don’t. And of course, none of these reporters are asking — at least, not in the edited interviews we’re seeing anyway.

              • No they’re treating these guys like members of a Super Bowl team or something. No one’s asking them to talk about the evidence or the facts – which is their sole role in the trial.

      • “Their minds were made up long before the trial began”. Never were there truer words spoken tonysam. You hit the nail on the head, as they say.

  30. I would like to have that print, but it will be sold out before I can get the money together to order it.

    • I would like the print too.. but will get a Tshirt..this old pension plan I live on won;t stretch that far!

      But I plan on putting aside $20 a month for Jodis Appeal!

  31. Hi SJ,

    Welcome back! I just wondered if I could send Jodi postcards that I bought at the USPS that have the postage already on them–not a stamp that is stuck on, but an image of a stamp in the fabric of the card. Don’t know if that makes sense. Any clarification you can provide will be appreciated.


  32. I posted a pic of me wearing my Survivor shirt on twitter & the hate keeps pouring in. LOL Haters have nothing better to do. It’s sad, really. Instead of worrying about where my money is going, maybe they should worry about their own. All that money donated to the Alexander family is going toward maids and meth. LOL Who’s the sucker now? Idiots. I knew I would get a ton of hate by posting it, but I’m just not the kind of person to back down or hide out of fear. The Travis Taliban wants to intimidate us and scare us into submission, but that kind of shit doesn’t work on me. I can only laugh at their idiocy.

    • Britney good for you! It just confirms what type of people they are. If they really want to follow their master saint travis, then they have it all wrong. Oh maybe he was the saint of hate. Who knows, time will tell.

    • Good for you Britney you got a great big set of brass ones. I am like you I don’t intimidate easily I have not been afraid of anything or anybody in my adult life…..well once that was 11 sep 01 but that didn’t last long I got really pissed off after a couple of hours.

      Ray in Harrisonburg Va.

  33. Alternate juror, Carol Gosselink is on JVM. She says she and Jodi had a “stare down” during a side bar and after court that day another juror said to her “what was that about”?
    Thought they weren’t allowed to talk about what happened in court until deliberations???…

    And I call bull shit on her stare down story!!!

  34. I heard somewhere that in the next penalty retrial that Jodi will have to testify again. Is this true? Who else will testify? I don’t understand how this is going to happen again “briefly” for a new jury.

    • I think it is all speculation at this point. It’s unconstitutional for a second jury to be sworn in to sentence her and not hear the entire trial! It is Shitzona though and they don’t give a shit about the constitution or a fair trial!

      • Well, it hasn’t been declared unconstitutional YET, SET, but I think this could go all the way to SCOTUS at some point.

        • You’re right, AA! I knew that too, just forgot to put IMO. 😉 I hope some serious changes happen in AZ as a result of this farce of a trial! I won’t hold my breath though!

          • I think it’s coming SET. As far as I know, AZ is the ONLY state that does this second jury thing.

            I’ve seen some argument that if the jury is hung in the guilt phase, they declare a mistrial and have a do-over with a new trial, so why not in this phase? But it’s not quite the same thing to me. How can a second jury get a synopsis of everything that occurred during the trial, be instructed that the defendant is guilty of premeditated first degree murder AND extreme cruelty and decide on whether she gets life or death? What if, after they hear the synopsis of the evidence, they fundamentally disagree that she’s guilty of the charge?

            I can’t wrap my head around this.

              • Is it Stephen Douglas Reeves, Al? If so, looking at the AZ SC docket, it seems only the initial brief has been filed in that one. Tons of extensions so that could be a while!!!

              • Ok, the judge offered counseling to the the jury after having to watch that video?! Sounded pretty grotesque from the article. This was a guy that was robbing a 20 year old girl he didn’t know, and brutally, I mean BRUTALLY murdering her. Yet Jodi, a woman, who “murders” her lover, is a sick sick monster that humanity has never seen the likes of. Welp, glad I’m a man….(Sarcasm strictly stressed!).

            • First of all I hope that a comment I try to make on this site finally goes through. I’ll be the first to tell you that I truly believe Jodi is innocent, and the second story is the true story. That being said, how can they bring in a different group of peers, and expect them to have the same opinion as the previous jury, then hand out the death penalty?

              It would seem as if this would not only be unconstitutional, but totally against human nature. We all see things differently, so how can the courts postulate that they can bring in another set of people to judge on a verdict that another group of people found just? I may have seen the evidence differently from the last person that sat in my seat, but I’m supposed to just blindly agree with this? Justice is blind indeed.

              That’s not to mention the fact that they have to find unbiased jurors to rule on whether or not she could get the death penalty? Good luck with that. Sounds rather archaic to me. God, don’t ever let me find my way to Arizona!

    • No one seems to know exactly how this will be done yet, Vicky. I think almost ALL the witnesses will have to testify again, including the experts, because mitigation factors (for both sides) were presented during the guilt phase. But they can’t force the experts to testify again, and I seriously doubt that ALV will want to. So, they may have to find different experts.

      This is really a mess.

      • Further to what this second jury does from Arizona v Snelling (Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-08-0164-AP)

        A.R.S. § 13-752(K) (2010) (“The new jury
        shall not retry the issue of the defendant’s guilt or the issue
        regarding any of the aggravating circumstances that the first
        jury found by unanimous verdict to be proved or not proved.”).

        That’s another one of those second jury for penalty phase cases. Looks like AZ has a little cottage industry going on there.

  35. Oh My! this poor lady in Florida that shot her boyfriend or he shot himself, we don’t know. Nancy Disgrace is all over her. This got to stop!

  36. Later folks…. I am not going to sit here and beat a dead horse to death about what the defense should have/could have.

    Water over the fucking damn, folks, and it is time to move forward and look ahead.

    I cannot stick around here and watch comments about how Jodi is weird, and the defense sucks, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is wrong.

    I am not going to read any paragraph that begins with “what you need to understand…”

    Because I will understand what I want, and no one else is going to tell what that is. Calling Jodi sarcastic and mouthy towards Juan does NOTHING for our cause NOW.

    So……………. I will check in another time.

    • I do think bashing the defense is inappropriate. Be realistic, it was not the defense that lost the case. As I said before, God could have tried the case and the result would have been the same. We are all diasappointed. Blame the close minded jury. Jodi needs support, and bashing the defense is not supportive. Many believe that lawyers can penetrate ignorance and hard hearts. That is not true. have to agree with Renee.

    • So those of us who want to vent about what we feel the defense missed are wrong and that’s not allowed here? Because it’s not helping Jodi … But it’s okay for people to vent about the Alexanders, CASH, say the judge was biased, bash the jury, etc., and somehow, that *is* going to help Jodi? Apparently, it’s also okay for you to vent about those of us who feel the defense missed things because that’s going to help Jodi and even call me snarky because I expressed my opinion. But it’s not okay for me to express my opinion or have one if it differs from yours, apparently. How does that help Jodi?

      It’s all water over the dam, yes, but some people are still upset about one of the above, and need to get it out of their systems.

      I’ve never called Jodi weird, but I see posts here every day from people (regulars who are well-respected) saying that they think she is, or that she has a mental defect. I generally respond telling those people that I’m glad they’ve never met me in person because they’d think I was beyond weird.

      No one here ever told you that you have to understand anything you don’t want to. No one ever told me that either. And I’ve never started a paragraph with “what you need to understand …” Understand whatever you want. Read whatever you want. Disregard whatever you want. No one is forcing you to do anything.

      • AA,

        You’re a big supporter of Jodi’s innocence.

        SJ asked last week that we not repeat here what the Taliban was saying elsewhere. Discussing your opinion about Jodi’s innocence is perfectly fine.

      • I think it is okay to vent about the defense. I am not an attorney, so I do not know what you know. I think that some may believe that a different defense may have produced a different outcome. Maybe so. I am not convinced after listening to several of the jurors. I think Mr Martinez was beyond the pale, and I believe a number of jurors were so struck by his Wild West behavior that they did not believe polite attorney’s were entertaining enough for them. One thing I know is that many people want to be entertained and motivated. The same people who liked Martinez, liked Travis. THey are both grandiose, narcissistic, and manipulators. I would not be at all surprised to learn that Martinez interacted the same way Travis did with women.

        • Yep an would not be surprised JM had his own PHOTO looking
          at him on his night stand just like Travis did ! I don’t care but I
          think that is WEIRD !

          In the crime scene photos I noticed on one shot the picture is laid
          down the next it is sitting up. I blew it up as big as I could an it
          sure looked like Travis alone in the photo.

          Jose Baez would have shook up that court room !

      • The Alexanders, CASH, and the jurors doing interviews are still being assholes in real time. So they’re fair game IMO. When they shut up and stop riding the famewhore train, then we can stop talking about them.

        As for the judge, Kermit, and the defense, we’ll have to see if they remain relevant this summer. I hope that they don’t go ahead with the second jury because I don’t think they’ll find an unbiased one. My focus right now is hoping that the DP leaves the table entirely.

    • You are EXACTLY right Renee. Jodi needs help, not after the fact commentary. A car wreck is a car wreck. Got it. Don’t waste time telling the driver what they should have done. Get them to the damn hospital. What can we do to help is what I’ve been asking my self every since the verdict was announced. I want to be a part of real help. Not just chit-chat.

      • I agree.Us getting into arguments that lead nowhere wont help Jodi.Coz we gotta realize we are here for her and her only.The defense team did their job.Who’s to say that it could be done better or worse?We are not lawyers or at least most of us arent.And those who are legal experts or laywers(paralegals is the term,idk the exact term sorry) can enlighten us and indeed they have done so repeatedly.I for one am thankful because otherwise I wouldnt be able to follow a big part of the trial.
        Yet,now we cannot undo what’s been done.
        Please,as Edward said let’s just focus on what we can do to finally get justice for Jodi.

  37. Now people are also angry with juror #16 for saying that nobody should be angry with jurors for voting on their conscious. “Mitigating circumstances are very personal. It’s not something that has to be proven by the defendant. It’s something you feel based on your past, your conscience, your thought process and your heart that could warrant leniency and mercy.” Exactly. To show compassion and warrant mercy to another individual, no matter they did, is a great action. People are commenting saying that if jurors feel that way then they shouldn’t have taken a death penalty case in the first place. These people are just despicable!

    • OMG are you serious? This is waaaay out of control.

      I’m seeing so many haters criticize the foreman and even claim that he must have lied on his questionnaire and during voir dire when he said he could sentence a defendant to execution if he felt it was warranted. Then people are saying he didn’t do his job as foreman by forcing further deliberation. And he should have sent another juror question instead of a verdict form but he did so to further his own goals. He’s getting death threats. This is INSANITY!

      • They better not go so far as to hurt a juror! HLN should be held resposible for all the hate they are stirring up!! Facists!!

        • Sometimes, it really feels like HLN is out to destroy our judicial system. Maybe that’s an over-reaction on my part. But they’re going waaaay too far. Freedom of the press is wonderful. But they’re inciting a mob.

          • People defending HLN keep bringing up the first amendment. While that’s true, what happens when the first amendment steps on the sixth amendment? I believe that has happened in this case, mainly because the idiot judge chose not to sequester the jury. I know it has been said a million times already, but I’m still pissed off at that judge.

            • People defend HLN? Wow! I’ve even seen haters say they hate them. Now that’s telling, isn’t it?

              I don’t see many people on either side of the fence who think highly of the judge either. I just don’t think she made the sequestration decision on her own steam. I could be wrong about that …

              As for why she didn’t sequester for deliberations though .. that’s definitely on her.

              • AA,

                AZ hasn’t ever sequestered a jury. There are pro’s and con’s to sequestration.

                But these jurors talking to people about the case before they where dismissed is troubling.

                • Well they have sequestered juries for trials, Willie, just not in about 20 years. I totally agree there are pros and cons to sequestration. I need to check again, but I think they have sequestered deliberations more recently than that.

              • But really what good does it do to sequester them only for deliberations? All through the guilt faze they were running home and watching hln…..fucking liars…..

      • PYes it is insanity. Hard to believe. no juror should be tjhreatened. Does not matter what their position is, we can disagree, Stomp our feet, but not threaten.

    • And that is exactly what mitigation is all about. You look at everything about the person, and determine whether you individually feel they deserve to live. Remember, mitigation is the one area in which there has to be no unanimity and the just instructs them again and again, that you don’t need that. This juror nailed it just right, but those who want to see her put to death will never agree.

    • I hear you Britney. I keep asking WTF is wrong with these people, like I am ever going to get an answer.

      The haters don’t seem to understand that just because someone is ok with the death penalty does not mean that they are going to vote for it when the time comes. A person can believe the DP is applicable to certain cases but not all.

      In fact that’s what the law requires. The DP was not meant to be thrown at every convicted murderer, but only in cases that are ESPECIALLY CRUEL, like that poor Petit family where the father witnessed his daughters being raped then burned alive after the fact. Stuff like THAT is where the death penalty is supposed to be applied. Not in each and every homicide that occurs.

    • Mary, I am so sorry about that. I seriously think that someone on Facebook is reporting me and other users who support Jodi Arias. I’ve noticed that every time I’ve posted links to my blog or websites that tell the truth about Jodi that I am immediately logged off and have to log back on again. They keep putting a temporary block on my account for 30 days which basically does not let me do anything.

      I’m probably going to leave Facebook now, but I do have a Twitter account.

  38. Here is the reply I got from Sandra on Twitter:
    So why say anything at all?

    Joe @Joe_Yinzer 28 May
    @InconvenientTr1 What makes you think ANY of the money collected on JAII for Jodi goes to Simon? Do you know something I don’t?
    @Joe_Yinzer I have no firsthand knowledge of Simon. I suppose I was making an underhanded joke. Feeding the haters a bit! Simon’s fine w/me

    • Joe,

      I believe InconvenientTr1 when she says she was just making a joke. She has fought long and hard for Jodi. Check her history of tweets or her Facebook page. She’s a passionate supporter of Jodi. I expect Simon may even know her – or of her.

  39. Here’s my dumb question of the day: you guys aren’t going back to a previous day to respond to comments, are you? Cause once a new page comes up, I figure everybody’s posting on current day.

    Did anybody ever find Singles Ward Rebecca’s comment she claims she posted months before about witnessing TA’s abusive behavior to JA at a function?

      • Just found out that two Rebecca’s were here or we are being snowed buy a hater or Rebecca64 said that was not her on the Flores report detail page

        • I am becoming weary with the paranoia and speculation about two Rebecca’s on this site. I noticed a couple days ago that there was another Rebecca who had posted. Her post was concerning to some, and the question came up as to whether there were two Rebecca’s. I responded that there had to because I had never been to a ward function, or whatever it was. I then said i would change my name to Rebecca 64, which I did immediately. I personally have seen no posts from the other Rebecca, whoever she is since, although it is possible that I have missed them. I am sure this mystery person is enjoying this far more than I am, because I am not enjoying it at all.

          • Rebecca64, I can only speak for myself when I say that the issue of 2 Rebecca’s was resolved when you changed your name to R-64. I’ve learned from your posts that you are 64 and a psychiatrist, so I know who you are. My only interest in the other Rebecca, who I refer to as Singles Ward Rebecca, is in finding her earlier post she claimed she made. Since I’ve been coming here, I’ve noticed that people who used to post have dropped away. Some have returned, some haven’t. In the last day a long-time poster decided to take a break. Hopefully, she will return. I’d be sorry if this paranoia and speculation caused you to no longer come here because I look forward to your posts. I find them thoughtful and intelligent.

            • Thanks, but I am not certain it has been resolved. Currently when I try to post it goes to moderation, and so far two posts have not appeared. . Will see what happens. regardless I will support Jodi forever. I am trying to think of ways to help her .

            • Thanks, but I am not certain it has been resolved. Currently when I try to post it goes to moderation, and so far two posts have not appeared. . Will see what happens. regardless I will support Jodi forever. I am trying to think of ways to help her .Right now this is not posting, will see if it ever does, if not I will continue to think of you Jodi and pray for you.

          • I’m no techie, and intend to put no pressure on the site administrator, SJ, but I wonder if preventing duplicate user names wouldn’t go a long way …

  40. Well, mister whoever said that sj was profiting from this site, i have something to say to you.

    I have NO DOUBT that this is an HONEST WEB SITE. And furthermore, why would ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND take on an extremely unpopular subject for money with all the abuse flying around?

    Oh every time I let you slap me upside the head, i get a shiney new penny??? ~rolling my eyes~

    no sir, this is an honest site with respectability except they sometimes have potty mouths. 🙂 buttttt, potty mouth or no, they have good hearts trying to right wrongs. That generally invites persecution not prosperity ya nitwit.

  41. My sister in law is trying to get me to join prepaid legal or legal shield. I am not sure I can do it after who is associated with it from this case

        • U might just talk to some less experienced lawyers around town. They will prolly see you for free and then might take you pro bono or suggest someone that will…or they might take monthly payments…dont give up!!!

        • Annie, I was curious about PPL/Legal Shield when I first started paying attention to this trial. I Googled them and found a lot of bad reviews. Stuff like when you want to quit they keep taking money out of your account, how you can never get an attorney to do much for you, and the attorneys they tell you are contracted with them no longer work with PPL, cause they only signed on to get business initially, then drop out once they’ve got their business going.

    • It’s a Ponzi scheme. For 20 bucks a months they’ll refer an attorney. Heck you can get a reference with two phone calls.

      Don’t do it.

    • My SIL does it but it eats her time with her children away. You really have to dovote your life to it in order to make money.

  42. Good evening all.
    Just stopping in to see whats new and to say hello.
    I’ve been sicker then hell – havent been sick in a long time – so its possible that I’m being a bit of baby. 🙂

    I love the “Cats Eye” painting, its absolutely beautiful.
    I, like many others on here, am a huge cat lover (quite possibly half cat).
    Thanks for sharing SJ.
    I just cant get over how compassionate Jodi is, donating funds to many different causes.
    And a no kill shelter – that makes me so happy.
    So, thank you Jodi, for your kindess.

    Hope everyone is doing well.
    I will keep checking in.
    Very busy week at work for me and am totally drained by the time I get home because of my summer cold thing.

    I’ll be better soon.
    And sassier than ever I’m sure.

    Miss you all.

      • Thanks Janeen.
        Wish I could stay home and surf on here all day while snuggling with my babies (cats).
        But my damn work just doesnt get done when I’m not there. 🙁

        Hope you and your kitties are doing well!

        • Yes work/life needs to get the hell out of our way!!!! 🙂

          I wish I could stay home snuggling with my fur balls too!!!!

          We are all hanging in there – you get better and hurry back!!! 🙂

          • You are so sweet Janeen.
            I’ll stay updated and at least drop in to give you all a hard time.
            I’ll be back in ful force soon enough – be ready! 😀

      • HAHAHA Holly.
        I am so sorry! 😀

        Its the worst isnt it, summer colds?

        I hope you feel better soon too.
        Let me know if you find a quick cure!

    • Feel better M!!
      We miss you!!

      (I never forget your old comment to me,wayyy back when I used to refer to Martinez as M. just because I was bored to write his full name and you went like ”That’s my name,I dont like it to be associated with Martinez”or sth to that effect LOLOLOLOL!!

  43. please some who has jennifer willmott email her she needs to tell to wach after dark now juror 10 is talking it will help with the case they are saying things about jodi i belive it will help them so much with the case

  44. I have three cats. A momma and two daughters …they were ferel cats…these dumb college kids in auburn get them and dont take care of them and then leave for the summer and the cats roam around town with nothin and nobody. So we had this family of three fixed and brought them out to the country…Rascal is the mama and P.B. and Jay are the daughters. Molly is our dog. She came from the humane society and right now she is pestering a frog on the front porch. DROP IT MOLLY, frogs are people too!!!

    Aaah the zoo.

    • LOL LOL

      I have 8 cats (I had 9 but lost one last week)..that live with me. I take care of 15 feral ones. I certainly know what it is to have a zoo!

      Kudos to you for being an animal lover!!!! ((((((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))))))))))

      • And ((((((((((hugs)))))))))) for bein such a good cat mommy :)))) dont worry, i dont think my cold is catching anymore hehe

      • I’m a HUGE cat lover!!! <3 <3 <3 I have two cats. I would have more if I was allowed and if I could afford them. My oldest cat, Chloe, is a 12 year old (almost 13) Himalayan. My youngest, Cameron, who is practically attached at the hip, is a 3 year old Siamese. I definitely want another Siamese someday. They are very sweet cats. They require a lot of attention though, but that's okay because I spoil him. 😛

      • I am so very sorry for your loss. As a cat lover and mother of three beautiful babie kitties, I can relate so much to you. I recently lost all three of my kitties one right after the other to kidney failure and old age. All three of my cats lived to be very old. I raised them from the age of 6 weeks old and they all three lived to be 20 years old, and for pure bred Persians that is a very long time. I have been so devastated from the loss of my three precious babies, so I know just how you must be feeling. I again am truly sorry for your loss. Love you, Jessie xoxoxo meow

  45. just watched dr dumbass. Juror 6 and 17 were spewing their stupidity all over. 17 bragging about staring Jodi down…..this is just disgusting. Its very obvious they watched clips….6 said she didnt see any clip except one over the weekend…then she said she saw the interrogation clips with Jodis parents…such fucking liars!

    • and did you hear say that since they had convicted her that it both her that she showed the shirt. she couldn’t understand why she would do that. well dumbass juror, did you ever think she was telling you the truth??????????????????????? duh!

      • Boy those jurors have the mighty big head to think just cuz they said M1 that made it so!!! Like when God Himself said let there be light and there was light. Ughhh disgusting jurors.

        • I refuse to take any juror who goes on HLN seriously. Especially because they have the HLN talking points down and were probably watching the whole time.

          • ICAM about the HLN talking points. Juror #6 had them down pat. As soon as I heard her say “she never said she was sorry” I was like yup that’s straight out of the HLN Handbook. Then that smart ass Juror #17 Little Miss Twitter. So proud of her snotty questions, I guess we now know who asked that “skank” question when Jodi was on the stand and then bragging about her stare downs with Jodi. Also she said on Twitter that she knew she was guilty right after opening statements. OMG this who trial was such a farce. You cannot have a judicial system when a juror has already made a decision the defendant is guilty right after opening statements when not one stitch of evidence has been throughly presented yet.

            The other thing that made me sick was the never ending round of apolgies toward the Alexander family I don’t think they get that the are not there to be advocates for the family or that toad JM.

      • Show the shirt??
        YEP, they watched. How often, we don’t know. But, they were asked under oath, so
        someone was lying and it wasn’t Jodi.

        • ”someone was lying and it wasn’t Jodi.”
          That’s right girl!
          I’d add ”Someone’s STILL lying and it aint Jodi”

    • I can’t even turn on HLN anymore I was forced to get my updates from
      there an CNN an others for a long time due too my puter broke down
      when that drunk juror got pulled over an kicked off. I was going insane
      I have a old time phone so no updates that were fair.

      I can see why my sister believes all that crap she is in Arizona an only
      watches her regular news an maybe a little HLN but I could not get her
      to see anything other than what the News was saying so people that did
      not go an investigate some on their own on Travis’s social pages an his
      families did not ever see anything but a Good upstanding Mormon/LDS
      Inspirational speaker bla bla bla……..all BULL CRAP. If people would just
      go look for themselves an not listen to that BULL on TV they could
      maybe see something more than what was presented. But the normal
      every day worker does not have time I guess. An even my sister would
      not take my word for it. Makes me mad still right now.

  46. Those jurors were corrupt! No good. If you get in trouble with the law can you ask the judge to decide without a jury at all?

  47. Facebook is making a change “Facebook is changing its policy on “humorous” posts and images that make light of rape and violence against women, following pressure from activists and advertisers.”

  48. I have to say that nurmi and wilmott were the classiest lawyers i have ever seen. Maybe too classy. Sad to say that in this world we have now the one that plays the dirtiest wins. You hear that you corrupt lazy jurors!! Your itching ears wanted to hear lies and filth and you applauded the show martinez put on for ya. Well take that to your graves! Your hearts were so ugly you couldnt even recognize decency standing right in front of you. Hmph…i dont need no steenkin vent page. The truth is the truth. I hope it hurts.

  49. Hi… been in the mountains for the last week; no tv, no computer etc.,…trying to catch up on your postings. I haven’t seen all of the jury folks interviews; has anyone said what the third question was that the jury asked? The one that wasn’t read out loud? Al or AA do you know if we will ever know?

    • Wow! Welcome back to corruption of the human soul….i mean real life lol…i wish i could answer your question but i dont watch HLN on the grounds they deserve to be shot and my t.v. Is innocent!!!

    • Four Juror’s talked and not one of them talked about the evidence just about the DP and now one tonight said the ones that wanted life were older hint hint that should not have been told to the world they even talked about there safety but still said what they said about the ones that held out they may not have given names but they described them now that is sick. I have them all recorded and talking about Jodi’s mom and dad’s interview that was a low blow too

      • Thanks Holly and Hail Mary… too bad they outed the other jury members; not really fair…people should be allowed to make comments on their own; if they want to talk about it at all! I’ll wait and see what I can pick up on other news sites online…. Take care, stay safe!


    WOW this was a great blog to read not sure who it is even I just came
    by it by accident but I like how they think an explain things. Really puts
    what the hell was wrong with Travis into prospective. An his family too.

    I wish I had millions of dollars I would get Jodi out of there some how
    she does not deserve this an it makes me sad every day she is in there.

    Self Defense does not = murder one or Death she deserves to go home
    get away from the haters. The fakes the liars those that bare false witness
    those that threaten witnesses or her family. I keeping praying for something
    good to happen. Hope Faith an Love for Jodi Arias from Alabama♥

  51. i haven’t seen much at all of the jurors talking. but did catch the very end of hln aftr dark, and 1 was on.
    she said jodi’s testimony really didn’t change the jurors mind re:jodi. she said a couple times that jodi “is not a warm person”.
    what a maroon! it’s hard to be “warm” when being tried for murder, or most court proceedings.

    i just don’t get that some jurors can b so superficial.
    someone being “warm” (or not) is only their opinion and shouldn’t be a factor.
    it’s like she wasn’t paying close attention to the case…

  52. From what I can gather from the clips I have seen of the jurors who have come out and talked today about the trial is exactly what we all suspected. They were completely anti Jodi and biased and I can tell by the answers they gave to certain questions that they did indeed watch HLN. I could tell that the women were the ones that wanted Jodi dead. As a young lady, I was really disgusted that the women on the jury did not have ANY compassion for Jodi. My mom and I were really shocked. We thought that as women perhaps they would have some compassion for Jodi since most women at some point in their lives have been abused by a man. How wrong I was. It turns out from what I have seen that it was the older MEN on the jury that wanted to give Jodi life and not death. I am not a jealous girl and my mother is certainly not either, we are girls girls and are not haters of other women just because they happen to be young and beautiful. Well my mom is gorgeous so I guess like must speak to like, and I see a lot of myself in Jodi and I can really relate to her. Those women on the jury were just angry, jealous, bitter women, at least that is the way they came across to me!

  53. Rebecca says:
    March 15, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Rebecca64 is this you located on Flores report detailed breakdown or someone else

      • Then the other Rebecca that posted here about seeing the abuse has not posted anymore she is probable just sitting and looking at what is being said here good you changed you handle to rebecca64 and its good your not in Arizona glad i’m not either. in TX born in New Orleans

        • I didn’t think we’d hear from Singles Ward Rebecca after her brief post about knowing Travis and his behavior toward Jodi. Rebecca lobbed a small smoke bomb into this forum, then retreated. Her story could have made up or it could be genuine. At any rate, it’s too late now for this trial, and if she is genuine, I wonder what her point was to come to this site and post.