Jodi Arias defense calls for juror to be dismissed [ABC 15]

in Latest News by

From ABC15:

Jodi Arias’ attorneys have filed a motion asking for a mistrial because of juror misconduct.

In the 5-page filing, Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott said the juror misconduct was discovered in sealed proceedings that took place last Thursday.

[hdplay id=145 width=500 height=300]

The attorneys are asking Juror 5 be removed from the jury because “statements Juror 5 made in front of her fellow jurors amounts to misconduct that inserted partiality in what is supposed to be an impartial body.”

Arias’ attorney claim Juror 5 is neither fair or impartial at this point making “her removal from the jury essential” to ensure Arias’ rights.

The motion said on March 28, a meeting was held with jurors to discuss an issue involving prosecutor Juan Martinez posing for pictures and signing autographs outside the courthouse.

During that hearing, information came out that “Juror 5 engaged in misconduct that affected more than one juror.”

Details about what specifically happened are not known because the information is sealed.

The attorneys are asking for a mistrial or that Juror 5 be removed from the jury.

Currently, there are 18 jurors sitting in on the trial. Only 12 will be picked to deliberate once closing arguments are done.

The other six are considered alternates.

The trial is expected to resume at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.

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

Leave your comments below…

Team Jodi



  1. Wow, lets hear how HLEN spins this. I bet they say it was a juror that did it to get Jodi off. (Not that it gets her off anything)

    • Oh, and they will also blame her for the added expense added to the great taxpayers of AZ. Because in the end, we all know that is what is important here. $$$

      • They have six alternates. So now they’ll have five alternates. It’ll save them the $20 a day they pay jurors. LOL

        • The issue is did this woman juror influence the other jurors? It doesnt take much. Imagine that the jurors are sitting there, wonder what each other thinks, they can’t tell each other, so they listen harder, pay more attention, etc… NOW, they get a feeling for what other jurors are thinking:

          1) “Ah, yah, someone else feels the same way i do…I can stop worrying that i’m the only one.”
          2) “what? they think totally different about this than i do, maybe i should rethink my views”
          3) “I want to be impartial, but that girl is on the “guitly” side, so i will play devils advicate and change my stance”

          People are strange when you cut them off from the opinions of other people. Most in the world go along with the heard, not because they agree, but because it is easy, but mostly because it is safe. they dont want to look stupid.

          When teaching a training class on sales tech.’s i would start by asking one person to be held back while i started the class…i would then instruct the class, on my signal, to start clapping in union and then slip off their shoes, stand on their chairs and start staring at a spot i pointed out on the ceiling. Then, i would invite the last person in. It almost never failed. everytime, the person that had no idea what was going on, would start clapping, slip off the shoes and stand on the chair while looking at the spot everyone else was. In 8 years, only twice did the person not follow along, both were hired as managers and 1 of those 2 purchased my company from me 3 years later.

          My point is, there is no such thing as “a little” jury tampering/misconduct.

          What is this was the 1 juror that could have saved Jodi’s life?

          I will end with this: Judge, this is 100% your fault. this jury should have been put up in a hotel from the start, not politely asked to “be good little jurors”.

          • How would sequestering the jury have changed this? The alleged misconduct is, apparently, not related to someone being influenced by the media, etc.

            • I think it would have sent a major message to the jurors that this is very serious, and a daily reminder of the impact this will have on everyone. Did the judge really expect the juror to stay impartial and open minded, while being bombarded with media coverage? A sequestered jury would have a hard enough time keeping their head in the game, let alone a non sequestered jury for 2-3-4 months?

              Instead, the juror is sent home with the “cross your heart and hope to die, stick a needle in your eye” promise that they will not talk at all to anyone about the trial, read anything about the trial, talk to each other about the trial, watch coverage of the trial, etc.
              They can sit out on the steps of the court house eating ice cream while the prosecutor is playing “superman the savor” to the media and his “fans”.

              I think this was a chain reaction. from all the otgher events. The judge has lost control.

              Think about this:The system STILL didnt catch this juror.. If Smurfette hadnt been outside playing runway model for the cameras and signing autographs, we wouldnt even know that this juror had done anything wrong! It came out durring questioning on the prosecutor misconduct issue. If that doesnt lead you think that other jurors are talking too…then nothing will, and i have a bridge to sell you.

              • Good point about how this was found out. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

                (See, haters? This is how it’s done. When presented with facts, you admit you were wrong. It’s not that hard to do. And the world doesn’t end.)

                • LOL SO true. It’s actually freeing just to say i made a mistake. I know when I do that, what else can the person say? Yeah you did make a mistake! Yes I did. Yes YOU did. I know can we move on now?


              • The Judge NEVER had control of this trial and courtroom……sad state of affairs, IMO. I seriously doubt she would declare a mistrial no matter how serious this juror may have acted. She may remove the juror, but she will not go the mistrial route. Not enough backbone.

                • someone said on another comment that the judge and Juan go way back as friends…is that true?…if so, maybe that is one of the reason she lets him get by with so much misconduct…

              • WOW your so right ! I never even thought of it that way. Wonder what else will be found out then? I bet there is more to come !

          • That is funny ! I am one that would sit an watch an think the others were crazy. Wal-Mart Warehouse did something like this also. An I did move up the ranks fairly fast back when I was with Wal-Mart.

          • Your judgement of “most people” because they don’t want to look stupid is offensive at best! Perhaps you should learn more about your students. Judge, continue to be un-biased and eliminate the the potential for appeal!

    • Wow, thanks HLN – backfired big time.

      Breaking now… juror #5 – woman … made comment in front of other jurors…per hln the one with colored hair?

      • “Per HLN”.

        Hmmmm. They’ve been so responsible in their reporting so far, surely they couldn’t be wrong about this?

        (That was sarcasm.)

  2. If she’s talking about evidence and things before deliberations, and worse, prejudicing the jury, she’s breaking the rules and she has to go!!

    • An from what I just heard it is the woman with the pink or red hair under neath blonde hair ? which is the one that writes the most questions ? which is also the one that I have read that seems to connect the most with Jodi ? if that is true then this is a total railroad job to get her off the Jury in my opinion.

        • Then she must be against I would think ? but they were saying the other JURORS were telling on this Juror? guess we have to wait an see what was said to make sense of it.

          I just read another story about her being also against Jodi so totally confused now on this juror. Too many people are watching the jurors an guessing an this one stands out because of the hair it seems an shakes her head a lot an writes a lot of notes.

          • I think this means that the juror who told on #5 knew first that 5 was not suppose to be talking. Secondly, I think it could mean the jury is already divided. They always watch the jurors in trials whether its broadcast or not.

            • OH I so hope it is divided as I do worry about a non sequestered jury to be on the prosecutors side due to the publicity an I do think this proves that all jurors are not always telling the whole truth about not talking not watching etc. especially when some questions they asked lined up with HLN on a few an some were down right sarcastic too.

              • Agree. I’m not use to this whole jury question thing yet. Seems to put the juror in the role of prosecutor such as those sarcastic questions being asked. I didn’t like those at all.

                • Yes. I’m undecided about the jury being able to ask questions too. And I agree, some of the questions did seem sarcastic. I don’t think the judge should have allowed them. I had to read them over a few times trying to figure out if they were really meant sarcastically or not. Anyway, the judge allowed them.

                • I agree JC,
                  It’s almost like the public was bitching that they wish the prosecuter had done more, BUT then here’s their second chance, then jaun get’sto cross until hell freezes over.

                  Also on TV they have had a Jodi Trial merathon today for those that didn’t remember the States side and are asking now does this help you remember.
                  We sure don’t want the public to start thinking any better of Jodi.

                  They still want the DP for her and if not that they want her to live the rest of her life hated, like they did Casey

                  The media has gotten completely out of control and so has martinez.
                  AND the judge never has been fair. She’s the worst of the wore in judges. .

      • They thought she was connecting with jodi at first. But when Juan crossed jodi she started shaking her head and submitting lots of questions. She was the one closest to the media. They really had their eye on her and she knew it LOL

        • Note to self if I am ever on a Jury have the same color hair as most an do not dress up anymore than anyone else does as you stick out and everyone stares at you more. lol but that would be common sense so that tells me that woman HAD NONE ! an gestures just do not do them period.

    • I agree, but isn’t this a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? What’s been said has been said.. how can anyone tell if she’s managed to prejudice the jurors? I think the only thing is a mistrial, thing is that means Jodi would have to go through everything again.. and that would be really unfair and bad for her.

      The State wouldn’t sequester the Jurors because of $$$$ and the fact they want the DP anyway. This case is truly shocking. They should set Jodi free, its the humane thing to do.

      • AND did it effect just ONE juror.
        What about who she was talking to?

        The way that the sibling was acting emotional and they
        said that the juror was crying, maybe they had become friends
        on the weekends.

        • I was thinking the same thing about TA sisters and Juror #5, I think they made contact away from court, something was going on with Juan, siblings and Juror #5, why else would they be crying over something like that and I understand Juan came out of chambers with his bulldog face, SOMETHING WAS DEFINITELY GOING ON, and I think there is more to come.

      • I don’t know if it is true but I read that some other jurors told on her? an the word was This is Heinous?? heck I don’t even know if I read it here or on a Blog somewhere now.

        But you know what that Katie Wick woman I heard her tell Dr. Drew when I clicked over there yesterday not today that she seen the jurors talking an joking all the time like they get along just fine ??

        WTH I thought they were not suppose to talk amongst themselves until the deliberation ?? I don’t know the past couple days I have heard an read too much stuff I may be wrong but I could swear I heard her say that. It would have been on Monday nights show I am going to see if I can find it an listen again.

  3. It sais, Whatever she said affected “OTHER” jurors. What about the “OTHER” jurors that it affected, what will be done about that????

    • I believe that is why the defense is requesting a mistrial. Which, in my opinion, is a bad thing, in light of the headway that they began to make last week.

      • Yes, I’m not sure a mistrial would be a good thing for jodi. She would have to go through all this again. And good luck finding people who haven’t seen all the media NOW.

      • Oh yeah, that’s not what im saying. I wouldn’t think a mistrial would be a goid thing at all. That’s why so F’d up, now that the defense is doing great and the truth is finally coming out, I would not like to see a mistrial. What I would like to see, is the DP taken off the table (for ALL the misconduct in the case).

        Nurmi has been having to file motions left n right for misconduct (misconduct from everyone) and now this. Nurmi has been bring it up and showing proof to the judge that his client hasn’t ben receiving a fair trail. Its OBVIOUS, (and its not just about jodi), this person hadnt received a fair trial and shes not going to either. So I say, ” TAKE THE DEATH PENALTY OFF!”

      • I think it would be impossible to find a new jury that hasn’t read or seen stuff on tv or the internet about this case. I mean, what would they do?

        • I think the judge will dismiss #5 and the trial will proceed. Then this can become an appellate issue because Nurmi can argue the verdict ( should it not be what they wanted) that the jury was tainted by this juror.

          Sometimes they motion for mistrial knowing full well they won’t get it. They just need for the record for an appeal.

        • Oh yes, I think so, I can’t see anything that would be fair to Jodi now other than to aquit her. The State have bungled.

    • They will be asked to “pinky swear” that they will forget about the other juror. Kind of like when there is an objection durring trial and all of the jurors automatically take back what they heard. 😉

      Some systems are broken, others never worked in the first place, which do you think this is?

      • I think so many of the problems in this case & many others are related to the DP. It makes things more crazy across the board, prosecutor gets to feel like God fighting for ultimate penalty, gets the bloodlusters out in the public all excited, jacks up the cost of the trial way beyond what it probably would have been without it. So much craziness for what, to end a person’s life?

        I posted this before, again here is ACLU site on why DP bad policy. I think ACLU gets caught up in some petty stuff these days, but this conglomerate of anti-DP arguments is pretty good & thought-provoking.

        • They talk out of two sides of their mouth they ACLU works for special interest groups, Look at Gloria Allred. They are all pimps and whores.

          • I’d be careful about claiming “they are all pimps and whores”. It makes you sound like…well, nevermind. its exactly how you should sound. Ignorant.

            You should go back to your pasture now sheep… the farmer will be getting worried.

            • HLN is known to Cater to Hate & Actually Attorney Gerry Spence called them Pimps and Whores, He is far from ignorant. He probably is one of the best Attorneys this country ever produced. He has written numerous books and Yes he calls them Pimps & Whores.Because he is not someone who follows the herd, or shall I say the TURDS!!
              Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power: By Gerry Spence

              Hate Sells meet its prime time Peddler Nancy Grace

              “I can see them now-endless waves of humanoids, one might suppose from another planet; an angry mob stretching from coast to coast; millions of staring, hating voyeurs melded to their screens, watching some bloodthirsty blonde eviscerate whoever has been tabbed as the day’s victim.”

      • Isn’t that famous saying “fruit of the poisonous tree” applicable in this case? I mean, if the judge found sufficient evidence to deem it appropriate to dismiss juror #5, then there should have been sufficient enough evidence to declare a mistrial, no? At the very least this should have given her a clue that the remaining jurors needed to be sequestered. In my humble opinion, this Judge is not really conducting herself in a very professional manner. I can’t even understand the logic she uses when she rules on the objections. lol, I’m no lawyer, but I think she sustains/denies objections based on logic that comes out of her ass! Just sayin…

        • You are absolutely right, I believe there is more to come, because this jury is tainted, and the judge leaves a lot to be desired, she lost control of the courtroom a long time ago. If Arias is convicted, she will easily win an appeal!

  4. If the Defense made the request to get her off the Jury, I would have to think that whatever she said to the other jurors would not go in Jodie’s favor in the end. It’s ashamed if it was the one juror who people thought had actually been “connecting” with Jodie.

    • Yea, but it could go both ways. What if it was the juror that was asking this, “what if” and “so if” “why didnt you” and the negative questions? The juror was probably wanting to taint the other jurors by bad mouthing Jodi already. Well, lets hope it was THAT juror and NOT one that blvd Jodi’s SD.

      • That is true ! hopefully it was a Mormon juror that felt Travis was so innocent an Jodi was the whore of Babylon. They did say she was the one putting in most all the questions in that basket?

    • Something in the way the motion is worded makes me think that Juror 5 revealed herself to be pro-DP for Jodi in front of the other jurors.

      • Karris said she submitted a lot of questions too. Hopefully, it was the questions we saw as biased. What i keep thinking is that this juror knew she couldn’t discuss things in front of the others but couldn’t control herself! So happy she was caught!

  5. Depends on what was said. If other jurors were honest, and they said that juror #5 was trying to get them to think Jodi is guilty, then yeah, she needs to go. I doubt the defense would request her removal unless they knew she was trying to turn others against Jodi.

    If it came out that this juror was trying to get other jurors to believe that Jodi was innocent, what do you think Martinez would be doing right now?

    I sincerely hope this isn’t some thing to get a juror who is connecting with Jodi off the jury (sort of like a planted story to trick the defense).

    • I wish the judge would grant the mistrial. I really like this site and I have been sharing the daily articles from here on my facebook and twitter. (I have about 9000 followers and friends combined) So far the response has been good only a few haters. lol


    • My question is when did this misconduct occur? Was it in the past week, or was it previous to that? Either way, why did it not come out till the jurors were being questioned individually about JM’s behavior outside the court?

      Why didn’t the jurors exposed to the misconduct speak up immediately when it happened? I wonder if there hadn’t been a reason to speak to them individually, would any of them have spoken up about it at all?

      I would want to know exactly when it happened and ask each of the jurors why no one reported it immediately….that doesn’t bode well for them and would make me suspicious that there had been discussions amongst all of them.

    • karris said it was the girl with the tri color hair who asked a lot of questions. The one they could see most. Am hoping she’s asked many of the questions we saw as biased toward Jodi. If she couldn’t control her mouth knowing the rules, she needed to go.

          • Ohh, there you go, true!!!! If this juror is kicked out, We will see her on HLN especially if SHE WAS one already convicting guilt on Jodi.

            • Oh she’ll be on HLN so fast if she’s released, all our heads will spin. And, of course, she’ll say all the jurors HATE Jodi.

              • As soon as she says “all jurors hate jodi”, then the trial is done. The jurors are not allowed to talk to each other about anything dealing with this case. If she goes on national TV and says a single “all the jurors think…” statement, she will be back in court on a juror hearing to have the trial ended.

  6. If Florida can get restitution from Casey for lying, why not seek restitution from Judge Stephens for this disaster?

  7. Oh boy….so the conversation we have had repetitively has come to be. I do not have a law degree but darn if there is a mistrial at this stage…..It wouldn’t be good….. for Jodi. If someone could explain how that would work out I sure would like to know….

    • I don’t think the judge will call a mistrial, since there are still alternates. One or more of the other jurors must have snitched her out, and could have said they could still be fair. Pure speculation right now, but if they said it influenced them, then I think they could be dismissed too.

      • I think the jurors would have to be honest if it influenced them, given how serious it is, because if it did influence them, and they lied about it, and it came out later, then I have feeling the consequences would be more serious than “dismissal”

        • No cindy I haven’t, this is the first US trial I have ever watched and I’m shocked to the core, if this case was here the jurors would have been sequestered.

  8. Does anyone know how a television network gets the rights to broadcast a trial? Is this something that the judge chooses whether or not to allow at all? I’m just curious to know whether Stephens’ judgement (haha there’s a little pun!!) is at the core of this whole media-created, unfair disaster.

    • First the state has to say it’s okay and then the judge. Florida and AZ have a lot of trials on tv. My state says no to all of it.

        • I don’t want to say because of the haters that watch. I will say gambling and prostitution are allowed her though. It was a good state once, but after the downturn it can’t seem to turn around. A lot of unemployment and crime now. I live in the north.

          • Think I know. Good state though, one of my closest friends is from there and she is awesome, so I can only conclude that awesome people live there.

            • Thanks! I’m third generation so it makes me sad to see it now. Hopefully things will turn around though as far as local economy woes. I like our politics actually.

      • Thanks for the answers about how networks get access to trials. I think your state, JC, has the right idea: No TV stations at all!

  9. Given the way Judge Stephens has responded to previous motions by the defense, I suspect that this is going to be dismissed by her. She’ll probably just purse her lips and wag her bony finger at the jury and say “Tsk tsk.” After the usual late start.

    • I don’t think she’ll declare a mistrial (and I hope she doesn’t, we’re already three months into this trial), but she very well could dismiss a juror if these allegations are true. I am loving the fact that this came about due to Martnez acting like a rock star in front of the courthouse. It was that video that led Nurmi to request juror questioning in the first place.

      Nice going, Juan, Katie Wick, and all of the other lame groupies who should be at work instead of stalking a prosecutor!

        • His ego and overconfidence are clouding his judgment. As much as the pro-pros boards think that JM is “so passionate in getting justice for Travis,” I think that he’s primarily passionate about getting his name and face on national TV.

            • Hysterical!!! You’re right! JM on HLN! Guaranteed! And Judge Stephens can do the admonitions to the “in-studio jury” on the HLN late at night show.
              Seriously, I feel kind of sorry for Judge Stephens. Imagine this being her first murder trial. No way she could have expected it to be the circus that it has become. I’m sure she’s doing her best. Her position is not an enviable one.

      • Kira,

        I don’t have the I don’t think mentality. Why don’t you hope that a mistrial is granted? If a mistrial is granted a retrial is most likely not allowed due to the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution to stop someone from being tried twice for the same crime by the same government. Even if Judge Sherry Stephen won’t declared a the defense attorney could appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Got to go up the chain of command for the final no!!!

        • Henry, double jeopardy only applies if a defendant was tried and acquitted. It does not apply to mistrials. If the defense calls for a mistrial, the prosecution can choose to retry the case if they want to. If the prosecution files for a mistrial, I think, usually, they can’t or don’t get to retry the case.

        • A mistrial isn’t an acquittal. Just means this trial is over. No double jeopardy applies since the trial become null and void. There have been cases where a state has chosen not to maintain charges against someone but that is rare. Typically a new trial proceeds

          • In this case, the state will definitely choose to prosecute again in the event of a mistrial. No way they drop the charges.

            • I know the prosecute didn’t succeed in proofing premeditation for them to convict Jodi of first degree murder. The physical evidences are not connecting and not sufficient. That itself is enough to cause a hung jury.

        • If a mistrial is granted, then Jodi absolutely will be tried again. It’s not an acquittal; they’ll just get a new jury and start all over. It really helps to know the law.

          • Kira,

            What you are saying is the Double Jeopardy clause only applies to someone being acquitted? Are you also saying that the determination of a new trial or dismissal of the trial granted is NOT based on the Double Jeopardy clause???

            • Yes, Henry.

              Double jeopardy applies to a trial with a ruling only. So basically, she cannot get retried if she was acquitted, but she can get retried in the event of a mistrial or hung jury.

              Also, let’s say she get’s convicted, and gets a light sentence, she cannot get retried for the same or similar crime

              So they can’t sort of change it up and try to get her convicted on a similar charge related to this case – like let’s say Martinez only charged her with 1st degree, if she did not get convicted, or if she was found guilty of manslaughter, and made to serve 2 more years, when she gets free, she cannot be charged with felony murder of Travis Alexander

              (of course, Martinez has already filed for 1st degree or felony murder, so that example isn’t plausible, I’m just using it to clarify the point)

                • Henry, this is only in cases where the prosecution wants to declare a mistrial over the defendant’s objections.

                  So if Martinez says mistrial, but defense objects, but mistrial is granted, then Martinez cannot retry.

                • This section from your link:

                  “Mistrials are granted when it has become impracticable or impossible to finish a case. Courts typically declare mistrials when jurors fail to unanimously reach a verdict. Like dismissals, mistrials declared at the defendant’s behest will not terminate jeopardy or bar re-prosecution. Nor will a mistrial preclude re-prosecution when it is declared with the defendant’s consent. Courts disagree whether a defendant’s mere silence is tantamount to consent.

                  A different situation is presented when a mistrial is declared over the defendant’s objection. Reprosecution will be allowed only if the mistrial resulted from “manifest necessity,” a standard more rigorous than “reasonably necessary” and less exacting than “absolutely necessary.” A mistrial that could have been reasonably avoided will terminate jeopardy, but jeopardy will continue if the mistrial was unavoidable.

                  The manifest necessity standard has been satisfied where mistrials have resulted from defective indictments, disqualified or deadlocked jurors, and procedural irregularities willfully occasioned by the defendant. Manifest necessity is not present when mistrials result from prosecutorial or judicial manipulation. In each of these cases, courts balance the defendant’s interests in finality against society’s interest in a fair and just legal system.”

                  Shows that double jeopardy wouldn’t apply if Jodi consents to a mistrial, i.e. if her team is filing the motion.

            • Hi Henry,

              Yes. If a mistrial is declared in this case, and there is no verdict, then double jeopardy does not apply. It’s as if the trial never happened, and Martinez would definitely request to try the case again.

              • Kira is right. The only circumstance when double jeopardy results after a mistrial is when that mistrial is called by the prosecution, and it is granted, and a mistrial could have been avoided (as in if there were other alternatives). If the mistrial could not have been avoided, then double jeopardy does not apply.

      • Me neither. She’s biased but not stupid. She can’t just let this matter go without dismissing 5. I dont think she will declare a mistrial though

      • Yeah, I don’t think there will be a mistrial (she has not granted any of those motions yet), but I do think she will at least remove juror #5, possibly the ones that were influenced by her, but maybe just admonish the ones influenced by her. This is a more serious matter, and given actual evidence came out that this juror is clearly biased, it would be grounds for a complete appeal if this juror is not dismissed.

        • Well, that is the logical response.

          BUT —

          Remember it will be up the judge to determine if the juror is actually biased. She doesn’t have to agree with the defense. She usually doesn’t.

          This may just be a move on the part of the defense to enter this into the record in case of appeal.

          • No, but if they filed this, then they have evidence juror #5 spoke to other jurors. The judge would have been present during this time. She would have heard it herself. She can’t let it slide.

            If she does, she really needs to recuse herself.

    • I don’t see a mistrial being granted by this Judge – no way. But, I do think that she will probably remove the juror in question. Assuming the misconduct is legit, which we all know it is given the Defenses’s motion. I think the Judge may now be forced to act accordingly on this………

      • Wondering if she can sequester the jury because of this? Not that it would do a bit of good at this point.

        • I would think she would have the authority to sequester, but I can’t say for sure because I’m not a legal guru on the Arizona laws. However, I believe that any positive benefit of sequestering this jury is long past.

        • JC it would at least be a move in the right direction…..but then again they would all be together and at this point in time they might start talking to one another.

          • It’s difficult for a jury to be sequestered. They miss home and I can’t imagine being sequestered for 4 MONTHS? Maybe being sequestered for the next few weeks wouldn’t be that hard.

            I heard on HLN that Arizona never sequesters juries. Does anyone know if they sequester them at least for the deliberations?

            • Apparently not Trying To:

              “In Arizona, for example, a court committee on jury management found that no one could remember sequestration occurring in the past 20 years. See Arizona Judicial Branch, Guidelines for Sequestration of Jurors,”

  10. Hey guys, been MIA for a little bit. Catching up a bit thanks to this site!

    Ok here are my thoughts on the mistrial situation. I could make a case on how this helps and hurts Jodi long term but what’s the point ? I think they pretty much cancel each other out. Yes seating a new jury would be hard but not impossible. It will take a while and they would without a doubt have to request a change of venue and sequester a jury but it can be done. I’m sure if we researched it large cases have gone to mistrial before and it resulted in a second and more fair of a trial. Yes social media and media obsession in general will make this seem a lot different but its the environment we live in so I’m sure the system will adapt and figure it out. $ wise a reversal of this verdict later would cost just as much as a new trial if not more because of the appeal process so all the haters need to chew on that!

    From what gather while the jurors were being individually interviewed regarding another potential prosecution misconduct/infaction, a juror felt compelled to mention this ” juror” comment. I’m guessing all counsel and jodi were present and heard this. Nurmi requested a mistrial based on the logic that it could have tanted many jurors but he would settle for letting just #5 go. The judge needs to be careful here. Yes a lot of time and money has gone into this but there is a life on the line not to mention in this country we are entitled to a fair trial. Based on the fact that this ” bombshell tonight” … Sorry couldn’t resist… Came to light while investigating a a completly seperate issue that could have been grounds for a mistrial on its own IMO , I would not be surprised if the judge granted a mistrial. The jury is not sequestered, we have a prosecutor posing for pics, kissing babies and screaming at whitnesses all day. We’ve had witnesses admit to watching the trial prior to providing thier testiimony and very important evidence that hasn’t been allowed in. I’m thinking this is one more indication that any verdict decided at the end of this trial could easily be appealed and reversed should this circus continue.

    Assuming trial continues:
    I feel the female expert who is currently testifying regarding abuse is wonderful! I can’t wait to see how she handles Juan and vice versa. Most importantly I’m interested to hear the juror’s questions. Hopefully they will be a little more respectful to her than the PTSD whitness.

      • I was watching JVM a few minutes ago and she had a professional dominatrix on to speak as an expert on whether Jodi was involved in an abusive relationship with TA. I actually laughed out loud! 🙂

          • Well, she did say that she thought that their relationship was unhealthy even outside the bedroom. That’s all I caught of it because I got a phone call.

            • I will check it out when I get home. But by all means HLN, bring on a dominatrix instead of a domestic violence expert to say whether or not abuse was there.

                • Can you imagine what it’s going to be like there if this trial lasts into the May Sweeps?

              • That is effing laughable beyond belief. A dominatrix? And yep, it’s right there on their stupid site. Have they run out of PPL members to put up?

                • What can she possibly contribute that is meaningful? Is she going to say that Jodi was also a dom?

                • Hmmm, so then if they were into S&M … maybe TA was into being stabbed to death…? Maybe he was begging for this …

                  That channel needs to be shut down. It provides an utter waste of perfectly good airwaves.

                  I quit tuning into that channel and after hearing this garbage I know its the right choice.

                  Whoever made the decision to hire JVM and keeps her on the payroll is seriously misguided.

          • No joujoubaby, nope, not at all. JVM actually had a dominatrix on. The dominatrix was pretty unbiased and said that she did not feel Jodi and Travis had a healthy relationship outside the bedroom either, and so you can’t say it was abuse just based on what happened in the bedroom. At which point, JVM seemed to have lost interest.

            I think JVM was expecting the dominatrix to get on and say that Jodi was not abused at all, and that this was healthy role play between two consenting adults. The dominatrix did not say those words, so JVM had to say to them for her.

  11. Ok, having cleared my mind, what do we know?

    The jury must be split. There are suggestions that juror #5 was asking a lot of questions, and was probably pro-guilt,

    That suggests to me that juror #5 is an exception, and the other jurors are not prejudiced, other than to the extent that juror #5 may have influenced them.

    I think the trial will continue, and Jodi will be acquitted.

    • I think I read somewhere though that that particular juror seemed to be making eye contact with Jodi and even smiling at her at times. Wouldn’t that indicate she would be sympathetic to Jodi? I’m confused :-(. I agree that the trial will continue and my hope is that Jodi will be exonerated.

      • SD, if she was pro-Jodi, and was convincing other jurors to support Jodi, Martinez would be filing this motion. Think about it – makes sense.

        But, I went back to HLN’s descriptions of the jurors. It appears as if #3 and #11 are the ones who either don’t look at Jodi or are enthralled by Martinez. Sigh.

          • And never try to discuss anything on their facebook site. It will only cause anger and heartache! Take it from me. LOL

        • I just finished reading Jose Baez’s book about the Casey Anthony trial. He said he can never tell one way or the other, and that in Casey’s trial he was totally wrong about which jurors he thought he was connecting with and which ones he wasn’t. There’s just no way to tell.

            • I’m pretty positive he said that. But maybe I read it somewhere else. I read through the whole book in about 2 days, so I could be confused.

        • Yes, I concur, Nk and that’s exactly why I’m confused! If she was anti-Jodi, would she be making eye contact and smiling at her? Of course, you can’t believe everything you read, and I’m not there to observe, so I’m left in a quandary.

        • I’m thinking that maybe Martinez couldn’t file this motion, because it was the defense who brought the complaint about jurors seeing Martinez grandstanding outside the courthouse. Does anyone know how that would work?

          My other thought is that, if you read the motion, Nurmi includes information given to the jury regarding the prosecution’s saying that the killing was unusually cruel, and I can’t imagine why he would include all that unless the juror said something specifically about that. So juror #5 must be pro-prosecution. That’s just my guess.

          • I’d bet my savings on that juror being pro pros based on that filing. I think Martinez though can ask for a juror to be removed over misconduct. Remember, he was asking to question the jurors along with the defense during the motion for mistrial. Granted I’m no lawyer, but it seems illogical and unfair that he couldn’t file a motion. What if the juror had a made a pro defense statement? He would be obligated to do something on behalf of the state. Granted I’m just guessing though 😉

            • I learned nothing more than we already know. They think #5 is pro prosecution and that the judge would have dismissed her already. So they think the motion is blah blah blah… Sometimes, they post thing because they get real leads. Sorry for bothering everyone with this.

        • Don’t get confused about perceived messages sent by any juror’s body language, eye contact or amount of notes taken or not taken. As far as juror #5 goes, she may be just getting some perverse satisfaction about sending a mixed message. Sounds like #5 needs to go!

          As far as anticipating an out come goes, I think the best any of us can do is concentrate on the facts and hope the jury is doing the same. If several jurors reported #5 for whatever comments she made that were inappropriate, hopefully that means at least some of the jurors are taking their responsibility seriously.

  12. On a totally different topic, I think I figured out why JM, EF and folks are committing perjury about the gunshot. The answer is in the filing Nurmi made.

    They had a number of aggravating factors they presented for the death penalty. During the evidentiary hearing the judge dismissed or disallowed all but one of the factors. The sole factor allowed was cruelty. Of course the problem with the cruelty argument are all the defensive wounds and the blood spatter that clearly shows that this wasn’t a case of someone holding a person down and torturing him.

    One of the arguments the State had made was that the defendant “continued to injure the victim after fatally wounding him” . And there you have it. I bet JM intends to argue that the throat slash was the fatal wound and since the shot came after that wound there’s your second aggravating factor.

    JM is slimier than a slug on a wet day after a slime fight with a snail.

    • That’s what I was thinking too. Remember when Flores was being questioned about the changing stories he said he was concerned about TA’s pain and suffering, paraphrasing here, but that was the point.

    • I think we discussed that weeks ago, Al, when we were talking about how they got the death penalty in the first place. Where were you? LOL

    • Do you remember Martinez’s animated graphics that showed his theory on how it went? It’s on youtube. It has little stick figures. It shows the stab cutting the venae cava first in the bathroom. According to their theory, that’s what killed him. Then their animation shows her dragging the body down the hallway, slitting the throat, spinning the body around and then dragging it back down the hallway back to the bathroom where she shot him. I don’t think the jury is every going to believe it happened that way, and I don’t think Flores believes it either.

      It’s as though Martinez concocted this unbelievable theory just to fit cruelty in. He IS slimy! And poor Flores is taking the perjury hit.

      (I don’t mean to be disrespectful of this by describing it this way. I don’t know how else to describe the animation.)

  13. There should be severe punishment in this for Martinez also. If a mistrial is granted is mistrial with complete acquittal an option?

    • Mistrial and acquittal are two completely different things. I don’t think the judge has the authority, at this point, to dismiss the charges. I’m completely guessing about that, though.

    • The judge could dismiss the charges, but I doubt she would do that. Also JM could chose not to retry the case, but I doubt that too.

      • And Martinez WILL take her go trial again, and again and again. I think he’s taken this case personally and especially now that his “rock star” bubble has been popped in front of everyone to see. He’ll do anything to see Jodi on deathrow and if he can’t help it, at least life in prison.

    • Only if the prosecutor’s conduct is shown to be so severe that it can be shown that there s absolutely no way that Jodi could get a fair trial anywhere in AZ.

      Now if misconduct can be shown, and it can be shown that there is no way they can proceed with jury, and given the level of press coverage etc I think JW and Nurmi can ask for some very serious sanctions. If it was me I might be tempted to offer the state something like a plea to manslaughter with time served.

      The problem really is that we don’t really know what happened and the fact that Nurmi’s willing to settle for Juror #5 to be dismissed as the cure makes me think it might not be something that major. If in fact the juror had gotten to others Nurmi would have been asking for others to be dismissed as well. If he can get 7 of them gone he gets a mistrial automatically.

      • I’d love love love to see JM sanctioned. It’s EXACTLY what his ass deserves for all of his misconduct from withholding evidence to his court theatrics and abuse of an expert witness right down to his “rock star” BS outside the court room.

        But I wonder, if there’s a mistrial (and I doubt there will be), how on earth can they ever find an impartial jury for a second go-round of this kangaroo court circus? They’d have to go to nursing homes to find 80-90 year olds who don’t watch TV, don’t have smart phones, and don’t use the internet. But that’s not a jury of Jodi’s peers!

        • AA, I would love to see JM get a good spanking for his shenanigans also. He’s been over the top with his arrogance.

          Time he gets a ride from Karma.

  14. Well lo and behold,the judge is backed into a corner,wonder how she is going to play this one out,there is no overuling to the conduct that has happened here.I said it before that the media should have never been allowed in there,maybe the talking assholes like Drew and Nancy did us a favour by spewing out all the salacious lies about Jodi.They are still talking about the cost to defend her,what the f@#& is the matter with all these people,YOU CANNOT PUT A PRICE ON A HUMAN LIFE,even though they are trying too!I cant wait for the defence to enter the video about JM signing autographs and posing for pictures tomorrow,Wonder what kind of rules and quotes JM will have tomorrow,shame on the little dick for acting like is is a super prosecutor.As for the jurror?? what stuff did she discuss and how many did she discuss this with?The jury has been tainted and a fair trial cannot procede,if the judge thinks that the jurror was an exception,she needs to wake and smell the coffee.A mistrial is a possibility,can you hear it now about the costs and of course some slimey uncut and unseen video will magically appear to slander Jodi and the defence,hey dont you know that they caused all this,America suddenly has thousands of would be lawyers and prosecutors come that have come out of the wood work to give Jodi a guilty verdic followed by the DP.Justice has not been served and it has never been,a judge that has lost control of the court,a prosecutor that belittles everyone with his antics,witnesses that have watched the procedings and then report back to JM for more dirt on Jodi,the media swaying public opinion against Jodi and a jury that was to be good and cover their ears and eyes while they were not in court,Yeah OK,FAIR TRIAL I SHOULD SAY NOT,nuff said.

    • By the phrasing of the motion, it *HAS* to be something to do with the penalty. Perhaps she said Jodi should hang or something of that nature.

      • Jodi would have saved the state a load of money with her plea of guilt to the lesser charge.

        It’s the prosecution who is causing the expense for the AZ taxpayers and they should be outraged.

    • The article, and even more so, the comments made me ILL!!! Who’s setting us back 100 years? Crap like that.

    • I read that too. Or at least started to read it. I stopped when I saw the line about there being “overwhelming” evidence of premeditation. What trial has she been watching? Because it sure as hell hasn’t been this one….

      • I agree Michael. She’s writing about what she’s heard on HLN, not what’s being said in the courtroom.

        • I bet my commentary on there will not make it past the if . Seriously- this is terrible reporting, and exactly what you said, I think she watched a few shows on HLN and decided to write this garbage.

      • I stopped reading at the same place. These ‘people’ don’t seem to have a brain–how can it be so obvious to us and they come out with such crap like that, making the story fit because they want to. What the hell is wrong with these people?

  15. off topic but I signed up with Gravatar and I cannot get a pic to show up…. :(. I add this site to the links and still not working

    • I blv Jodi DOES DESERVE support? Why wouldn’t she? Is she NOT entitled to that either????
      You’ve been watching from the beginning but Jodi DID NOT testify to killing TA in a ” manner that was violent beyond reproach”, she testified to killing him in “SELF DEFENSE” or did she not???
      You have not chosen to reserve your opinions until the testimony is complete, your giving us your opinion now and the trial still has weeks maybe months to go… this is a support website for Jodi, I dont see anything wrong with what we’re doing here. Good day!

    • I’m sorry, I don’t normally do this, but you’re saying that you’ve had an opinion from trial onset, but you consider us prejudiced? If you have an opinion before testimony is complete but you’re reserving expressing it, you’re not allowing Jodi to have a fair trial. Perhaps you’ve convinced yourself you are, but you’re not. Your opinion hasn’t changed, according to what you say here. You’re just withholding it. That, my dear, *IS* prejudice.

      Some of us may speculate on how this motion will pan out once it’s set for hearing, but there is nothing wrong in what we are doing. In fact, some people are simply asking questions and those who know a little more about court cases, are merely answering from the scope of our own personal experience and knowledge.

      By the way, we are TEAM JODI, which means we support Jodi. We do actually believe the manner in which Travis was killed is “beyond reproach” which means blameless, but I think you believe it means something else. As the site name says “Jodi Arias Is Innocent”. We believe Jodi’s life was at risk and it was either her or him that was going to die that day and one of them would die a heinous death. We believe she killed him in self defense. If you don’t like that, I have to wonder what you’re doing here in the first place. Your comments would be welcomed on several of what we term “hater sites.” While we are open-minded and do not attack those who have questions, ultimately, we support Jodi and believe she is innocent and, as I said, the name of the site and SJ’s terms above every post, make that crystal clear.

      • Sorry, I don’t mean to act like I’m a moderator here because I’m not. It just really annoys me that someone comes to a site called Jodi Arias Is Innocent (paid for by a decent and polite man from his own pocket), and posts while reading SJ’s disclaimer but still doesn’t get the point of this site. When I first discovered this site, I wasn’t entirely convinced I agreed with that, but I respected the disclaimer enough (and had enough self respect) not to say a word, and merely read without being disruptive or disagreeable. I was simply glad to find a site that provided me with the information I was seeking and with intelligent discourse, without numerous inflammatory and disgusting posts. I wasn’t about to post a differing opinion or call the members here “prejudiced” while I enjoyed the good reading I was treated to daily. After all, I wouldn’t go into someone’s living room, partake of their hospitality, and tell them the colour of their carpet or their choice in wall art was hideous, or worse, that their children were not attractive. But that’s what some people seem to deem acceptable behaviour on the internet.

        • I understand Also, for whatever that’s worth. I’m very new to this site. I don’t like what Eileen said either.

          At the beginning of this trial, I believed the reports on HLN. I was horrified by the pictures and was trying to figure out what happened just like everyone else. I found that if I questioned anything, or pointed out that the defense had proved one point or other, I’d get a REALLY bad reaction on other sites. I started reading this site along with other sites, and I still do. And I still watch HLN. So I really have been impartial, and I will continue to be. I’ll listen to the rest of the trial. At this point, I think this was self defense or manslaughter, not first degree premeditated. I’m also biased against the death penalty, and that’s my right. So I resent what Eileen said because first, I think I’ve been more impartial than most, and second, I’d like to point out to her that we’re not on the jury. We’re not obligated to be impartial, so if we’ve made up our minds already, we’re entitled.

          Thanks for standing up for us. And SJ, thank you very much for this site.

          • After about the first week of the trial, I stopped watching HLN and instead watched the trial through the live stream or through the YouTube uploads of the day’s proceedings. It’s far, far different than the spin on television.

            I went from thinking Jodi committed second-degree murder to manslaughter to the point now that barring any new evidence, she should be acquitted.

            • When I first heard bits of the trial I was of the thought she was very cold blooded and very peed off at this guy. No way could I imagine any other thoughts based on the sound bites I’d heard.

              When I went looking for details I first found the anti JA site and was somewhat troubled by the lack of details but high volume of hatred towards someone they did not know.

              When I found this site it was a breath of fresh air to find fair minded folks who are able to add a bit of levity here and there in spite of this very sad story.

              Most importantly the quest for fairness and justice is sought on this site. Witch hunting and hatred is not what fuels this site. Respect and fairness fuels it.

              I would like to thank all the folks with legal expertise and knowledge of how the law works, or is suppose to work. This affects all of us who live in the U.S.A. The time that some of you have taken to explain the details to those who don’t have this knowledge is remarkable. I don’t know you all by correct names, sorry! But I have learned so much and appreciate the time and caring you’ve invested to teach all of us who are interested. Thank you!

              Thank you to the JAiI site owners and Mods for kindly allowing us this safe and informative place to learn, rehash and exchange information and speculate while supporting justice for Jodi.

    • I guess you missed the part that YES she remembers SHOOTING him………..but by accident she didn’t really think the gun went off at first then she heard it an thought she missed him an thought oh no he will be mad if I shot the wall. Then they were on the floor an the rest is FOGGY ! she does not remember the KNIFE the stabbing the slashing PERIOD. So you as everyone else are GUESSING ASSUMING you know how all the rest went down. But FACTS are JODI does not even know for sure. She stated I guess everyone says I did so I guess I did. She does not remember PERIOD.

      How can the JURY GUESS? or say it was a HEINOUS CRIME as you say ? we don’t know if there could have been another person there later on? 5 days he was DEAD in the shower? We don’t know if she went unconscious for awhile? she don’t even know? The shot was first I believe that the rest is a MESS.

      People that do not believe about a 25 shot to the face need to look it up. A man survived 4 or 5 shots to the face in Atlanta GA after he was breaking an entering. He left an was driving himself to the hospital when the cops stopped him? very possible to survive the shot Travis took I think..

    • eileen,

      I just went over all your posts.

      I’ve noticed that you try and attack every post written instead of contributing meaningful discourse. Who are you to define what support is for jodi? You are not intellectually superior to anyone here, trust that.

      I have a real big problem with people coming in here and attacking our regular contributors. So this will be your last post. I hope you have had fun.

    • You cannot deny the PREJUDICE of the Media I feel this site supports Jodi Arias & has actually allowed many different opinions other then the Standard BASH by the Media, Personally from reading the evidence, I find it hard to believe she killed him, But thats just my opinion. But I have been Allowed to voice that opinion on this site, it seems that most people here have various reasons for supporting Jodi, But I can honestly tell you that they have been very fair. and allowed different opinions. The judge in many peoples opinion stinks, The circus atmosphere, her lack of control, and allowing very bad behavior, She has ZERO control of the courtroom, The Media is out of Controls as it was in the Sheppard Case.
      It is a horrible killing, but i doubt highly many of the Pundits in the media even care. How many Men are being BRUTALLY Massacred in the Middle East and the media seems not so outraged. Here we have a person who was an abuser, denying it is beyond ignorance. Just as brutal as the killing was being Raped numerous times by your spiritual advisor.

      • Olivivero,

        HLN was even stating that it is unfair that the jury won’t hear the stalker and slashing tire claims. That the jury doesn’t have all the info! Seriously? Why are they even a news organization? I mean, those claims are completely unsubstantiated, and they want the jury to hear them – It is very obvious they want the jury to hear anything that would get Jodi convicted, but nothing that could help her. Utterly ridiculous.

        • How could she have been a stalker anyway when Travis was having phone sex with her a mere three weeks before he died?

        • Nk I heard them saying that! RIDICULOUS! !!!! And like Vladimir Gagic said lastnight, They also have an issue with Mrs LaViloette making statements about the emails. The prosecutor is fighting as hard as he can so that those emails dont come in BUT he wants to put Jodi on deathrow with WALMART receipt! !!! So the Walmart receipts are more important then the emails! !!!!! Lol

          • REALLY LC!!
            That is pathetic!
            I wonder why matinez didn’t ask if she slashed the tires.
            I’m SURE Jodi didn’t slash any tires.

            Why don’t they subpoena all of “friends” claming that and have them
            testify to the fact.
            One of the talking heads said Jodi used the same knife on Travis that she used
            on the tires??? REALLY???? They should have ti testify.
            If all of the talking headshad to testify about what they knew about this trial, they
            would find their ass in prison for pergery. I WISH!!!!

            During the Howard Stern trial all of the talking heads were admonished that they would be sued for slander by his lawyer and they STOPPED it.
            They really had to bite their tongues I’m sure.
            The media is literally getting by with murder because they are lying constently about someone that could get the DP

            DID You hear Dan Abrams when NG was on ABC laughing about the Death Pentalty?
            Good for him.
            He said that was nothing to laugh about.

            • I used to think highly of Dan Abrams, then some of his commentary early on about this trial turned me off. But I did see him take on Ms. Disgrace and I could tell he still had a shred of decency about him.

              • I wouldn’t have like it either, if his commentaries about Jodi were like all of the rest of them. What is wrong now?
                We only have one side to hear from and all are spins and lies.

        • Nk,
          I heard that by HLN, they keep stating things that have never been substantiated. This is a witch hunt but notice they never really mention all the factual evidence regarding Travis. They are a so corrupt. The Judge should have sequestered the Jury or not allowed Cameras in The Court Room. Thats why i posted the Sheppard Case he was railroaded into prison and also the media was horrible so I think that there could be a mistrial based on MEDIA BIAS.

        • The alleged stalker claims were never proven! Who said this, JVM, NG and/or Dr. Drew? I just don’t understand that network! So they think that if someone is killed, everything the friends say is a fact that should be admitted in court just because they ( friends) said so? That would open floodgates of hearsay evidence and outright lies. If there were any proof to this it would have already been admitted.

          She could not have stalked him when he contracted her to clean his house, talked to her by phone, he was even calling her during the trip to AZ.

          Some here have said court tv was not biased like this. How did court TV present the cases and why was it replaced by HLN/insession?

          • I believe I heard JVM say it. She said “and the jurors don’t get to hear everything. They don’t get to hear about the tire slashing..” or something to that affect. It was really sickening. I mean seriously? I can’t believe that there are people out there who seriously think that Jodi would travel 5 hours to slash tires (2 times, and wasn’t it 2 nights in a row)? (And that email implies that the person knew Travis spent the night, which means, Jodi would have stayed overnight to know that, if she was the one who slashed the tires – which means she would have had to miss work).

            No, I don’t believe that accusation at all. And all because that emails what? “sounds like something a woman would write?” BS! First of all, a whole bunch of amazing female writers in the olden days had to use a male pseudonym in order to get published, and everyone thought they were men. You cannot tell who wrote what based on text. Ugh. I mean, Shakespeare wrote some of the most flowerly speech of all time, and he was a man!

            It is far more likely, Lisa had a stalker of her own, and that person was enraged that he spent the night at Lisa’s and so sent Lisa that email and slashed Travis’s tires a 2nd time.

            • Yeah, on Blink on Crime, they presented an argument that perhaps lisa’s ex (the guy she had just broken up with-don’t r’mber his name) had more incentive for the tire slashing, emails and the rest. Guess TA might hv known but decided blaming JA would serve his purpose better. Lisa and him could get closer to keep the ‘stalker’ at bay, his ‘stock/value’ would go up, throw off the scent from others that he was still messing around with JA, project HIS insatiable need for JA on JA, convince himself that its not him but JA that’s choosing to continue this dark relationship, etc, etc… just sayin..

      • In Wisconsin, just today the trial of a father who slit the throats of ALL 3 of his innocent little girls, tucked them in their beds, then called their young mother and tells her “You can come home now. I killed the kids” started today.

        No he didn’t stab them a million times or shoot them but it is beyond comprehension that a father would do this. He did plan arson of the home.

        Thus far I’ve not noticed NG get her pantys too wadded up over the deaths of these young innocent lives. I guess children who live in Hicksville fly over country are less important.

      • You are so right on that Oliviero………………if it was not for this site here I truly would be depressed because the sites I try to go read comments or reply an it is horrible. Even on U TUBE they click on my comments as thumbs down so they get removed they actually have enough haters to do that. Was so happy to find a site like this with nice people that think OUT SIDE THE BOX 🙂

  16. Oh good grief. Shanna Hogan is vile. She is now claiming that Travis had an engagement ring for Deanna (I am assuming), that he kept, and it went missing, and Travis suspected Jodi stole it because she didn’t want him to having anything tying him a previous relationship. Sorry, this is complete slander. Jodi should be able to sue. Travis is not around to backup any of those statements, therefore, none of those statements of, “Travis said Jodi was a stalker” or “Travis suspected Jodi of stealing a ring” can be considered valid.

    • I have read or heard somewhere that he bought an engagement ring for Deanna, but that he never proposed to her. This BS about Jodi stealing the ring comes from the hater sites, I’m sure. They seem to be able to take a rumour such as “there was an engagement ring” and run with it. Shanna Hogan is simply trying to peddle her book which will be nothing more than the “Jodi Arias National Enquirer On Steroids”. (Actually, the National Enquirer is far more reputable than her gossip. I shouldn’t even equate that publication with her.)

    • That woman is so totally full of shit. If I didn’t know better, I would just about believe the subject of her previous book, Marjorie Orbin, was in fact innocent of killing her husband and chopping him up, but of course she was guilty.

      Hogan has basically put an end to a once-promising writing career because she believed the bullshit Travis’s friends were peddling.

      If there ever was an engagement ring, Travis probably sold it at a pawn shop so he pay some of his debts.

      • “If there ever was an engagement ring, Travis probably sold it at a pawn shop so he pay some of his debts.”

        Excellent point, Tonysam. Why would he have held onto it when he owed everyone and their mother money?

  17. I have never sat in a trial as a on looker so I am wondering why that SLIMY WOMAN KATIE WICK why does she sit on JODI’S side at the back I have seen her many times?

    I thought you sit on the side you are going with? is she like a spy trying to over hear conversations? If that is so why don’t people for Jodi have a spy over there listening to what those people are whispering ?

    That Katie Wick is a real B@!#! she makes up more drama an Dr. Drew brings it on like he is so entranced with it. I haven’t been watching HLN at all for weeks but turned it on just to see what was going on an turned it right back off after seeing it was that instigator on there feeding more lies out of her HUGE HOLE in her face.

    • All spectators are sitting on Jodi’s side for this trial. Travis’ side has his family and members of the media; that’s just the way the seats have been assigned. Of course, this makes it easier for haters to sit directly behind Jodi’s family and act up so that it looks like they’re part of her family and are being disrespectful.

      • Kira….that might apply to some but does not apply to Katie Wick…she is doing everything she can to hear all that she can to report back nightly with Dr. Drew…

        Read the transcripts in the link below…

        Dr. Drew says that Katie Wick is not employed by HLN or this program.

        KATIE WICK on DR. DREW …she said the reason she came down to this trial in the first place was not for the sensationalism of it….but because she’s always had a passion for law, specifically prosecution….and she says that she has a lot of respect and admiration for Juan Martinez and the way that he prosecutes cases…and that was why she got a photo with him.

      • Oh wow that sucks they should have a different area completely then for on lookers or visitors/media. I know space is limited but it sure makes it look weird when televised where they are not really family or friends of the one on trial or the prosecutor’s side. That is weird. I never knew that they just sat wherever like that.

        They should build a balcony like the old days an make the weirdos sit up there that really are not there except to slobber over the Prosecutor an the MEDIA too since they are biased all the time lately. An for the ones that are not decided yet. UP IN THE AIR WITH THEM ALL lol

      • I left a comment on that page for them that is disgusting to me. We need a spy too that hangs around that big mouth that would be funny. Pump her full of some BS an watch it unfold hahaha

    • Rhonda, I agree! I’ve said this before. I believe she was a plant, by HLN, from the very beginning. When HLN claims that Katie Wick is not employed by them, they have set up the perfect ruse by which she can approach jurors and engage in “chit chat” and rumor monger on TV, all the while just claiming to be a “random spectator”.

      I wonder sometimes when she starts chatting people up, during the side bars, what she is saying and if the jury can hear her. If they can’t hear what she is saying, her body language and the faces she makes, especially when a defense witness is testifying, speak volumes!

      I would love to see her get the boot from the court room.

      • Yes she is truly EVIL she thinks the whole thing is so funny! a young woman on trial for the DP is not funny at all ever when they are claiming Self Defense even just truly makes me sick to my stomach.

        All I can think is somehow someway this hate thing will come back to those that are truly wanting to see BLOOD it is horrible.

    • Uuhhhggg Rhonda, did you see her website?!!! Lol if u want a good laugh (and want to waste time), take a look at it. I think she sits there because the TA side is only for family and reports (fake reporters). Anyone else can sit on the other side.

      • When I was reading some dumb HLN page last week, I actually saw some of the haters mocking Katie though and saying she was auditioning for an anchor sport on HLN and/or a ride in JM’s pants. I don’t think she’s done herself any favours with all her stupid behaviour.

        • Is she independently wealthy that she can sit in court each day? Is her home in PHX?

          Lets hope her 15 minutes is coming to a close very soon.

        • Yeah, a lot of the haters don’t care for her. They see through her famewhoring behavior – this is all about getting Katie in the spotlight, not her being passionate about justice.

  18. taken from that other page:

    The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial
    20 hours ago
    Travis’s brother, Steven Alexander, just wrote this :
    “Right now, a helicopter pilot is flying a mission in honor of my brother in Afghanistan. He is flying a flag on his black hawk for Travis. His name is Andrew Scott Rich. Pray for his safety.”

    All i can say is hmmm. I didn’t think the military would do such things. Seems distracting to me from what they should be focusing on. I did pray for his safety of course.

    • I had all kinds of vitriolic criticism come to mind, but decided to grow my emotional intelligence by keeping them to myself. I have no beef with the Alexander family, and if somone wants to fly a plane in their honor……… ok I guess.

    • You know, I can almost understand why people got so worked up over Caylee Anthony’s murder. She was an innocent little child who had never hurt a soul. But it is beyond my comprehension why some are investing themselves in Travis Alexander’s murder this way. The man was no saint – he was certainly no better than any of us, and in all probability was a good deal worse. Why would a helicopter pilot in Afghanistan feel the need to fly a mission “in honor” of this man? Why would someone call Juan Martinez a “hero”? Why do stupid, ignorant people get so involved that they will spend hours a day writing the most vile, hateful, moronic things you can imagine all over the internet?

      Jose Baez said that, as far as the media and most people in America were concerned, he wasn’t participating in a trial about the murder of a little girl. He was participating in The Casey Anthony Reality Show. And it is happening again. None of these people are real people to the rest of America. They are characters in a story, and in this story there are no shades of gray. There are “Good Guys” and “Bad Guys”. The “Good Guys” can do no wrong. And the “Bad Guys” are allowed no redeeming qualities, no nuances – they are simply evil and they must pay with their lives. None of the events, none of the people, has any more depth than what they are allowed to demonstrate in a 30 second soundbyte.

      If that story were fiction, it would very, very poorly written fiction.

      It is disgusting and saddening and terrifying.

      • Very true, Michael. At least, being upset over a little girl is understandable, especially without all the facts. I didn’t follow the CA trial at all, but after being here, I just decided to start reading Jose’s book today. It’s awesome so far and hard to put down. But it’s also incredibly scary to read what happened. I’m only a couple of chapters in so far. I couldn’t believe the bit about him being on Disgrace’s show and how she would throw her zingers and cut him off, then tell him at the commercial he was doing great and that’s just the way her show is run. So, she just puts on an act. It’s all about fame and fortune from ratings. She actually doesn’t believe in what she says. That disgusted me just about as much as anything that comes out of her mouth. She’s mocking her own viewers, basically. And the sad part is that they don’t even realize it.

    • The military doesn’t do that as far as I know, and if it was true, you’d think there would be some type of press coverage or something right? I sure hope if the pilot is doing that on his own, his commanding officer doesn’t find out. Yikes!!

      There is no way to confirm what this brother is saying, they expect everyone to believe it because they say so.

      • U.S Army Chief Warrant Officer II Andrew Scott Rich and Steven Alexander are jeopardizing national security. Air missions are secret for a reason……. if he gets shot down and captured….. shame, shame our U.S Army. President Barrack Obama, hello look this way, making a mockery of your Command. Citizen SAlexander giving the enemy top secret information.

    • Omg now they’ve taken it a little too far!!! PLLLLZZZZ!!!! Of course ill pray for the guy, I pray for ALL our troops but TA brother, they’re idiots and I think they’re still trying to get even more sympathy using our troop!! Now THATS LOW!!!

      • This will probably sound not so nice to some, but TA’s FB page has been collecting donations for the family for weeks and weeks. Every time one of the brothers or sisters (usually Steven and Tanisha) post some kind of praise for all the haters on that site, the haters respond with a new wave of remarks about making another donation. I find the whole dynamic to be pretty weird and inappropriate. How can the Alexanders participate in a site which spews so much hate and accept money from all those hate mongers?

    • Let’s hope someone else flies a mission with colors to remind the military how many women in service have been raped, assaulted, and molested by their fellow male soldiers (“friendly rape” you might call it.) It is the ultimate betrayal and treason to a female soldier to be assaulted and trashed by the very people you are told to trust with your life. Let’s see them fly colors for that!

    • Yeah, I don’t know if I believe that claim. I don’t believe much of anything that comes out of the haters camp, or Travis’ family. All they’ve done is lie. Hell, we went through at least five lies before we got the real story about TA’s erroneous criminal record.

        • I think out of all this, the constant stream of lies is what gets under my skin.

          I get it that Jodi lied. But I understand why she lied. She’s willing to admit she’s lied and come forward with the truth, even though it is so painful for everyone involved.

          But these people… my god… they lie so much I can’t believe anything they say. And the more they lie, the more people believe them. It’s infuriating!

      • My husband is checking into this, he has contacts he is sending the posting on the face book page to. I love having a hubby with contacts in the military. 🙂

          • Okay, both myself and my husband were in the Canadian Military. If I took a piece of military equipment, paid for by the taxpayers I might add, and put a flag on it in honor of some dude who abused women and was murdered for that abuse and went out on a mission in a combat zone…I don’t even want to know what my butt would look like when my commanding officer was finished nailing it to the wall!!! Not to mention possibly breaching national security, I’d probably end up in the brig for a long, long time.

            I don’t care what flag military is under, we are all united in our fight for freedom, and I can’t stand by and allow troops being put in danger.

            The posting and the FB page it’s on has been reported.

        • My hubby is a US Marine (18yrs). I am a veteran of 8 years. We both call BS!
          The pilot can SAY he dedicates the flight that is taking place either way to TA, but believe me, the military is not going to spend unnecessary funds. Money is TIGHT, they are cutting back big time, give me a break!, lol!

          • Lol im with you, kmiller. Thought the same thing too. And they wouldn’t jeopardize any of the missions they’re on to run a TA banner ir whatever it was.

        • It really seems unbelievable to me. If they allow that for one member of the military, then they’d get a million other requests from people who want their loved ones memorialized.

  19. From the very start this Judge has showed no ability to keep order in her courtroom she sits their like an over paid secretary, allowing a circus atmosphere. This judge has never been involved in a Capital Case.

    In the Sheppard Case In 1954, Dr. Sam Sheppard was found guilty in the murder of his wife. Bailey, at the time a resident of Rocky River, Ohio, was hired by Sheppard’s brother Stephen to help in his brother’s appeal. In 1966, Bailey successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that Sheppard had been denied due process, winning a re-trial. A not-guilty verdict followed. In an 8-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland’s radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself – which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media – all combined to so inflame the jury peoples’ minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue.

    Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant’s right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular, the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.

  20. JC! Akk, I wrote this long post about this case and the effects the bullet would have on the brain, and I clicked post comment, but the comment did not post! 🙁 Where did it go?

  21. I noticed someone above said she’ made a comment and was not influenced by the media’. How do we know this? She may have been watching Nancy and Jane V’s heads spinning as they spew their vile pea soup every night!! Due to them being allowed to wander freely among the mostly biased public we have no idea what they’re hearing. Maybe she watches Dr Drewsome! I don’t thinking replacing her is enough if other juror’s heard her comments whatever they may have been. I think the State should lose by default for the shoddy manner in which this trial has been handled.

    • That’s what I think too. How would anyone know if this jurors comment didn’t make a difference in the other jurors minds…. thats really something to think about.

  22. Oh, so I saw a clip, JVM exploring the stab wounds with a doctor or ME or something. Anyway, he said that the wounds to the back did not appear to be self defense, but that is not what struck me –

    He said that it would have been very difficult for someone Jodi’s size and weight to have inflicted all 29 stab wounds within 62 seconds (although isn’t that what both the defense and Martinez are stating is the timeline?) He said, even with Travis not moving or fighting back at all, it would be difficult.

    So given that it would be hard for her to have stabbed Travis within 62 seconds (even without a struggle which we all know there was a struggle, both Jodi and Travis have defensive wounds), wouldn’t that make the 2 person theory more plausible, not less?

    • Yessssssss….. YES IT WOULD! !! I think EVERYTHING makes alot more sense when you put a 2nd person in there (a man), that still had to fight pretty hard to put TA down.

    • Well, he might not have even been dead in that picture. They are all assuming this happened in little over a minute, but the picture is so unclear as to be utterly useless as evidence.

        • Even is the best of conditions I have to believe the amount of strength to inflict this number of knife strikes, plus the throat cutting, plus the shooting, plus the dragging and lifting into that very tiny shower stall would take a great deal of strength – regardless of the adrenaline rush – than what Jodi would be able to manage by herself.

          Someone here commented how their own kitchen knives are lousy to cut a tomato. I have to agree. To accomplish the throat cut to precisely would seem to require a box cutter type weapon

          He was a very strong man who should have been able to subdue her even if she was wielding a knife. A grab of her forearm and one of his wresting moves, I would think, could have easily stopped her.

          Even in the most raging fit of rage, or fear of ones life the injuries are beyond what seems reasonable for Jodi to inflict alone.

      • That is why the defense should not accept the baloney from the cops and prosc that the pictures they ‘managed’ to secure from the memory card were the only ones. Sure, only the ones that are seeming to point to JA and her actual pictures are miraculously ‘recovered’. The defense should have refused to accept any picture that was ambiguous AND run the mem card through their own lab! Who knows what else would have been unearthed, including verifying the time stamps authenticity. I am irritated, because this should have been a simple and logical decision for defense. They could’ve nipped so much crap from JM right from the start by challenging them on every step, except those that were a given. Be suspicious of everything until proven otherwise. IDK, whether legally its feasible? But, I can see it as a lay person, why can’t they? Aarrgghh!!!

        • Agreed. After the state’s attempt to hide 8,000+ texts & emails highlighting TA’s abuse, why should we assume the *only* pictures magically found on the camera were the ones presented by the state?

          Team Jodi

  23. Do we know for sure the comment was against Jodi & not for her? The reason I ask is because at some point during the trial, I remember maybe JC on HLN saying that she thought the 2-toned hair gal was listening intently to Jodi’s testimony & thought she was pro-defense. Does the defense know what was said in the interviews or just that some biased things were said? It wouldd suck if they unwittingly took someone off the jury who was pro defense.

  24. I remember in the Casey trial they were worried about that ONE person on the jury.
    When the verdict came in the talking heads thought that ALL of the jurors were
    just wrong.
    However THEY were the ones listening to evrything in the trial and not the hateful people
    that wanted her dead.

    To NG, I’d just like to say after this trial is over and the verdict is in, I HOPE we hear her say
    the DEVIL is DANCING Tonight.

    I don’t know who she was calling the devil, SHE was on Dancing w. The Stars right
    after the verdict.

    • But within an hour of court ending Thursday, one juror sat eating ice cream on a bench near a group of spectators who were waiting for the prosecutor.

      This sentence? ???? So, if THIS is TRUE, then the juror DID see what was going on!!!

    • Truthseeker1111 I posted there and have, to date, 8 thumbs down! 🙂 At least I was able to get it off my chest without any nasty posts back. You can see they hate the truth on there, I just hope to God none of the jury is like them. I continue to be shocked to the bone by what they say, its disgusting. This case has been a real eye opener for me because I never knew such vile people existed, I didn’t think it was possible.

      • Heather…I agree with you…my first exposure to how hateful and vile people can be was during the Casey Anthony trial…My thoughts back then was how can God live in the hearts of those hateful people…and today….during Jodi Arias trial….I have the same thoughts…I just don’t see how any of those hateful vile people can profess to have God in their hearts…

    • love what you write geebee2…

      scroll down to this entry in the timeline on the link below….

      December 27, 2011

      ….Angela Arias, said that her sister’s statements during the “48 Hours” interview were lies and that Alexander’s death was an act of self-defense on her sister’s part during an incidence of domestic violence.

      “She was not under oath when she spoke on TV and yes, she lied,” Angela Arias wrote on Facebook….”But, it was because she was so in love with that man she did not want people to know what a monster he really was….She wanted everyone to believe that he was as amazing as they thought he was …Angela said that her sister is innocent of the crime they are accusing her of … She did kill Travis but it was not in cold blood, it was not for revenge, it was because she was afraid for her life.”

      • And isn’t it interesting that was the first time ANYONE in the public heard about self defense and battered woman syndrome in this case … yet, that hater site which I posted yesterday had someone claiming to be a friend of Travis, trashing Jodi to pieces, and suggesting Jodi would go that route back in February of 2009?

        HLN gets one thing right in their dumbass headlines: There is soooooo much more to this story.

    • She starts by saying, “It has been rather nerve-wracking to have no info at all on the jurors for this trial.”
      WHY????? I dont get it, why does it matter to some, no one should have information on the jurors, so why does it bother some, so much?!

      • LC.. It looks as though juror “N” is the same as juror #5????? according to the link below

        [quote] “N” is a female – 25 or 30 ish? two toned hair, light blonde on top, brown under the blonde. This is who I believed to be the most attentive Juror. Watched Jodi intently when she was talking about what sex she liked.Shook her head slightly when the mugshot came up on screen.When Jodi talked about using the BMW to drive sister missionaries, this juror was looking at her with a look that made me think of a mom who was watching a child who was lying. Almost an embarrassed look with “pursed” lips and slight head shake.Tracking between Juan and Nurmi during 48 hours clips, writing a lot during Jodi’s explanations. Nodding when the testimony was about Jodi falling asleep on the “love sack” when he was out with Mimi. Nodding with a “here we go again” look on her face. I swear she almost rolled her eyes. Writing frantically.[quote]

  25. Ok. So ive been keeping up w this site the past few days. And let me just go ahead and say i am fully team jodi. I am 21 yrs old i am married to an awesome man and i have two wonderful children by him. Basically, not all woman who are team jodi, are not just 50 yrs old and are men haters. lol, i read that past convo. but anyways, i was in a past relationship very simular, almost scary simular to jodi and travises relationship. its almost like i can invision her thoughts when it comes to how she felt when they were bf and gf, when she was basically just a booty call and even when she defended herself. yes, i do think she definetly went for the overkill, but i can even relate to her a bit on that. travis completly damaged her mentally and emotionally. everyone has a breaking point. i just wanted to leave this comment so maybe she can somehow see that just one more person is on her side, and unlike casey anthony, absolutly every1 is not against her, and she is def not the most hated person in america. btw i cant believe how many haters there r twords this site. compared to most of the hating websites, the people on this one are very intellectual. thnx for letting me b apart of this! all the way team jodi!

  26. As a citizen of Maricopa County I have to say that I’m more than a little embarrassed at the way this trial has been carried out. It is well on its way to becoming the biggest farce in recent history. Now we have a possibility of a mistrial due to juror misconduct – again. This would be the second time this has happened in the last 2 years here. All because of the decision not to sequester the jury. Why? Because they thought they could save some money. This sounds exactly like our great leaders of this County and State. “Cut corners wherever you can” seems to be the motto here. Nice going! If this does turn out to be a mistrial some people’s asses are going to be in a sling. Anyone involved with this decision with political aspirations, election or re-election need not bother. A good portion of us here are quite fed up with these proceedings and are seriously wanting some heads to roll.
    Our Forefathers laid out a plan and had a clear vision for the way our justice system SHOULD work. This is NOT it! If a mistrial should come about and Bozo The Prosecutor should want to retry this case and spend that money all over again many people, myself included, will, pardon the expression, shit the golden brick! I can’t imagine the people of this County would allow that – there would be an uproar. He might as well quit his job and find a new line of work.
    But maybe none of this will happen and the trial will continue on as before. Even so, the biggest issue, for me at least, is the fact that this has certainly NOT been a fair trial. At the very least I hope that a valuable lesson has been learned here, and that is how powerful and DANGEROUS the media can be.

    • Jeff,
      I couldn’t agree with you more,
      The media doesn’t even care if they get it right, just
      so it’s sensational.
      And you said it right, the power of the media is VERY DANGEROUS!!

      I think that they would love to see a mistrial .
      What a shame.

    • Well said, Jeff! I feel your pain, the entire world is watching this trial and I am also embarressed because it makes the whole nation look bad. The lynch mob, the media, social networking, the bad conduct of Martinez (who is supposed to be a representative of the State) and the courtroom always being a circus and never starting on time, with constant three to four day weekends. People around the world are watching this going WTF? And that sums it up exactly.

      • MB,
        It’s funny you bring up the three and four day weekends because the court system is NOT the only area where there are four day work weeks here. There are a lot of employers who, in their great wisdom, have decided that four ten hour days is more economical and efficient than five eight hour days. Well, let me see, if my math skills haven’t failed me it’s forty hours either way. Is it not? What the hell is the difference. To me it looks like laziness and a half-assed way of doing things.

    • I’m from the UK Jeff, and think most, if not all of the people here would agree with you. People here are aware that the US go for sensationlism, big time. I feel proud to be a British citizen and feel so much for you all in the US who have common sense. The percentage really bothers me.. its frightening how the majority think, well, that’s just it, they don’t think.

  27. Martinez’s smoking guns

    1. Samuels bought her a $9 book because he “liked” her.
    2. Arias’ Walmart receipts.
    3. Jodi Arias is evil because she posed naked in pictures and she’s an evil seductress.
    4. Too many gas cans for a ROAD TRIP in the desert! (Right!)
    5. Jodi Arias (5’6/120 lbs) vs Travis (5’10/200 lbs) she attacks him with a knife FIRST! If this isn’t absurdity I don’t know what is!
    6. Those emails the defense requested back in 2009-2011… Those are just bumps in the road that don’t contain anything useful for anyone… Much less Jodi Arias…
    7. Jodi Arias’ experts aren’t experts they are “counselor” pretending to be psychologists.
    8. And finally, his biggest smoking gun is she’s GUILTY cause HLN, nancy grace, jvm, dr drew, his intuitive, his body language expert, Mark Eiglersh and Stacey Honowitz SAYS SO!!!!,

    Note: my remarks are sarcastic and not meant to be taken seriously.

      • It adds up to “binders full of women,” “self-deportation,” and a malarchy! Juan Martinez is gonna be on Dancing with the stars season 23! I make light of this because the so called news has made a mockery of this whole situation. God help us all. I hope none of these people make any mistakes because like they say throw the first stone if you haven’t sinned… Or something to that effect. So many “Christians” that don’t turn the other cheek….

      • Did the prosecution send their own psychologists to evaluate Jodi’s mental health status?

        If not, why not?

        Would they not want their own expert to possibly testify they found no emotional or mental health issues?

    • I spec love this part——
      What was not mentioned in court Thursday was the history of the emails. A defense filing from January 2011 details the efforts Arias’ attorneys went to obtain them. Initially the prosecution told the defense attorneys that there were no available text messages sent or received by Alexander and then was ordered to turn over several hundred.

      Furthermore, according to the filing, the case agent, Mesa police Detective Esteban Flores, told the defense attorneys that there was nothing “out of the ordinary” among Alexander’s emails; about 8,000 were turned over to the defense in June 2010, including the Hughes emails.

      The 2011 filing details the email contents, including “A response from Mr. Hughes … wherein he asserts that he believes Jodi would be his (Travis’) next victim and that Jodi was just another girl that he (Travis) was playing.” Alexander allegedly replied by saying “I am a bit of a sociopath.”

  28. GOOOOOOOooooooo Jodi WOOOOOOOHOoooooooo Let’s Go!!!!!!Hang On This is Coming To An End You Will Be Free!!!!!!

  29. HLN continues to be an embarrassment as a news TV station. Monica of HLN defends Martinez for his ‘showboating’ antics outside of courthouse for taking pictures with the public. With the response “what was he supposed to do” when approached. Well Monica, how about politely saying NO and then politely excusing himself so as not to BIAS the jury in his favor? Have you no brain?

  30. I believe that the jury should have been sequestered in a trial like this. I do not believe that
    the jurors are not watching TV. This should not be happening. There is too much negativity in the news reports about Jodie and that does not give her a fair trial.

    Keep the faith.

  31. Question:

    The juror that was dismissed was allowed to sit in the court gallery today.
    I guess she will be there until the trial is over.

    The judge told the jury that they weren’t allowed to talk to her and I believe the ones in
    the gallery.

    Is this right?

    Because if I understand she can speak to anyone she wishes to.
    So does that mean, she’s in the gallery today and can speak openly out of the court to
    anyone else?

  32. Juror # 5
    In the Hallery yesterday????????????
    The judge told the court and jury NO ONE to speak to her until after the trial.
    SO, I guess she get’s a special seat in the gallery.

    She Speaks!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Latest News

Go to Top