The Jodi Arias Show (Pt. 2) – No Video Coverage Allowed

in Latest News by

Following on from yesterday’s ruling, Pickles has now decided there will be no video coverage allowed (live or recorded) of Jodi’s retrial until after the verdict. Social media stuff has been ok’d though, so we’ll keep ourselves updated via Michael Kiefer’s tweetingz once again.

Click here to read the 2 page court ruling (opens PDF doc in a new window).

As expected, the media are none too impressed with losing out on all the millions of dollars in advertising revenue they were expecting to rake in (again).

Here’s how AZ Central covered it:

AZ Central Video #1:

[hdplay id=260 width=500 height=300]

AZ Central Video #2 (Montini’s Take: Arias trial does not need to be televised):

[hdplay id=261 width=500 height=300]

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


WE ARE TEAM JODI – AND (even without live video coverage) — WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS in our quest for JUSTICE FOR JODI.

Never question it.

Never doubt it.

Leave your thoughts & comments below…

Team Jodi

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

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

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



  1. I’m guessing that JSS is trying to minimize the motions that will be made while the sentencing phase retrial occurs. Let’s not be naive thinking that JSS didn’t know that the media frenzy caused the the trial to become the circus trial of the century first time around!

    So to all of those that had their popcorn ready to be buttered, their 3-d glasses ready to be worn and their couch seat warmed up… stop your preparations!!! ‘The Jodi Arias Show’ has been postponed!

    WARNING: Sarcasm ahead:
    Now what will all those wonderful people that love chanting ‘Die bitch die’ do for entertainment? Damnit! I really feel for them… 🙄

    Maybe Telemundo might have a telenovela that will catch your interest! I know, I know… it won’t be as good as ‘The Jodi Arias show’ but that’s something you’ll have to deal with.

    Hey! Here’s an idea: Get a life!

    • Can’t Pickles realize how ridiculous all her actions seem now? She is basically admitting what a dreadful mistake letting the cameras in the first time was.

        • Stephens ought to pursue further education in criminal justice, and, not to be too sarcastic – reacquaint herself with the laws of physics. (I don’t think that she watches HLN. They routinely air shows that address the latest in forensic investigation techniques.) JSS’ complete and utter disregard for proper examination of the crime scene evidence here is a judicial disgrace; the state allowing her to continue in this regard, IMO, will present an ongoing hazard to the public.

          And how to explain that she allowed an unsolved, unprosecuted gun theft in another state to be presented as circumstantial evidence in this DP case? As Alexey wrote today, it was very prejudicial.

          Absent the gun theft as evidence of “premeditation”, Jodi’s road trip planning could have seemed innocuous…and without that prejudice, the jurors might have turned their full attention to physical evidence at the house, doing so with perhaps more circumspection.

          Yet once JM had lodged his Felony Murder charge and reversed the order of events in the fight, IMO he didn’t care so much whether or not the jurors believed that Jodi had taken her grandfather’s gun. He had, in one way of thinking, sacrificed the inflated leverage that “she stole grandpa’s gun”, but he knew it wasn’t a proven FACT; (and it must have worried him that the gun was never recovered and could be) moreover, in adopting the reversal he gained something else: Another murder one charge against Jodi which he had to know would confound the jury.

          Since lots of people have guns in AZ – the gun laws are different in AZ from those in many other states – it would be no stretch for a jury to have considered that the gun actually came from TA himself. But there was always the possibility, then, (and especially in light of the fury of text messages, etc., that were finally allowed into evidence) that the jury would have also seriously considered Jodi’s assertions that she knew about his gun and only brandished it in self-defense.

          So JM turned his efforts to character assassination, to his “Psycho” dramatizations of Jodi, which went unchallenged in the Mitigation Phase. He wanted the jury to buy the gunshot last as a “signature” attack, after a knife frenzy that Jodi couldn’t possibly have lived through if TA hadn’t been accidentally wounded first. JM sought to suspend the disbelief that Jodi could have overpowered TA with only a knife, by inflating and leveraging Jodi’s alleged motive – and he could leverage all he wanted, since motive was not required to be proven. On the other hand, the prosecutor was only too aware that a jury WOULD have wanted to know where that gun came from.

          The Jury Instructions explicitly state that character issues do not constitute evidence; they also state that lawyers comments are not evidence (without an apostrophe) but that didn’t stop JM from making his “Jodi the Liar” case all day every day in that courtroom. He hoped, apparently, that the jurors would not make much of the fact that he never proved the source of the gun – that most critical piece of premeditation.

          At some point, if a defendant has lied, the “Finders of Fact” are required to look past that. Each juror is duty-bound to examine the actual physical evidence, even if the prosecutor sings “The Star-Spangled Banner” in his closing arguments. The HLN presenters are not required to do that – they can make all the hay they want as illogically as they desire, building on their assorted tweets and snatches of rumor from people who are “with them” on the phone or who may decide (they are not under subpoena) to show up for a chat in the studio.

      • Jodi’s wiki does bring up good points.
        Only a fool buys the state’s case.
        Don’t think for a minute that they have proven her guilty.
        I, and others, have supported her from the beginning.

        Why bring a gun and use a knife?
        It does not make sense.
        Logic has been thrown out the window.
        Let the public take notice – when Jodi loses her rights, we all lose our rights.

        Due to a media circus, she has not had much of a chance to defend herself.
        I cannot believe that this is what passes for justice in Arizona.
        Every one of HLN’s talking heads should be ashamed of themselves.

      • Arpaio is such a vicious, ignorant man. One would think that since now he is in his early eighties, life would have made him more compassionate and understanding.
        It is heart- breaking to realize how much hatred there is in this world. I don’ t know how the degree of hatred is going to diminish or change.

  2. What is wrong with this world?
    I was just doing research on different topics, and just by happenstance I found myself reading about the Mormon church, ” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”, and their stance regarding the death penalty.
    Their official stance is that they take no stance:

    “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law. We neither promote or oppose capital punishment.”

    [ The church DOES, however, take a firm stance against coffee and tea_ both of which are forbidden.]

    “Religions get lost as people do.”
    _ Franz Kafka

    “The better the state is established, the fainter is humanity.”
    _Friedrich Nietzsche

      • Amy, could it be they will not take a stance on the DP because they have their one way of putting an end to their so-called members who have gone against their rules. Truth is they do not need a death penalty. . .they call it blood atonement ritual. Walk the way they are told to, OR face their own executioners. Apparently their religion has gotten ( or they believe ) above the law. . .and it actually has in Arizona! Maybe they all need a big GULP of Coffee to wake up their BRAINS! Drink up!

    • ” We neither promote or oppose capital punishment.”
      What a great way to say ”This is too much of a controversial issue and since we wanna be liked by everyone, we’d rather not express our true beliefs”

    • Their membership has been dwindling, or so I’ve heard – they can’t afford to lose members by taking a firm stance on controversial issues, so they’re on the fence. Just pathetic.

  3. Man bashes in woman’s head (multiple skull fractures) – gets 10 years. Brutal killing during an stranger argument, corpse was probably a mess. I don’t know how long he took to kill her but I expect she suffered physically & emotionally during her death. Why does he get 10 years and the state is trying to kill Jodi? Does this case come down to “no premeditation” & loss of control? I don’t think premeditation was proved in Jodi’s case. Sure, the theft of her grandfather’s gun looks suspicious, but there were other gun thefts in the area and there was never any evidence that she stole the gun. And, possibly she may have proof that she couldn’t have stole the gun if she was with her sister at a temple or whatever.

    • I still can’t figure out why the theft of the gun from Jodi’s grandfathers house was such a big deal. Jodi was never arrested or charged with that crime. IMHO unless she was connected with that theft it should have never been brought up at trial in the first place. Hopefully this issue will be brought up at an appeal.

      Ray in H-burg Va.

      • Exactly!!!

        Jodi was NEVER charged with the burglary. Martinez should have NEVER been allowed to bring it up.
        And those moronic jurors buying it? Wtf? Whatever happend to ”beyond a reasonable doubt” , I wonder…

        • One more example of the judge not fulfilling her legal obligation to ensure that the trial is conducted lawfully.
          I don’ t know who oversees the conduct of judges, but I hope whomever has that role will examine closely the way she failed in her duties.
          She deprived Arias of due process, and that points to the future likelihood that she will not do her job justly when she is presiding over other trials.

      • Good point – the frog presented it as an established fact – as if the burglary was solved and Jodi was found responsible, although the burglary was never solved.
        It was very prejudicial.

  4. Check out The Guardian of September 20, 2014. “Polygamist women dressed like Ninjas attack home of witness in Utah sex assault case.”

  5. The selection of jury for Michael Dunn’s retrial is using their social media. Some were kicked off because they had tweeted since it started. Apparently, you can have history of social media activity but it depends on what you say and how strong your position is either way if you can sit on the jury.

    • I heard, ( I think on this site), that the law has changed since Arias’s defense team asked to be able monitor social media, and now the law says that they are permitted to monitor it.
      I hope Arias’s defense team insists upon this in jury selection; If they don’ t they will be failing her in a way that is inexcusable.
      I was perusing one internet site which treated Arias’s plight as something to mock and cackle about.One member asked how could anyone be picked for a jury when everyone knows who she is, and someone answered her by saying the judge will permit it as long as prospective jurors promise they are, and will remain unbiased__ WE ALL KNOW WHAT A JOKE THAT IS!
      I’ve seen many instances on the internet where people said if they were on the jury they would pretend to be unbiased so that they could have a chance at condemning Arias.

  6. Jodi’s glasses have found a new home, according to Jodi Arias Updates on Twitter. The highest bid was $1000 and proceeds will be donated within the week.

    • Jodi did something kind and beneficial for whatever charity is given the donation.
      Unfortunately many will negate, mischaracterize, fault and condemn her for any kindness she does.
      No matter what she does or doesn’ t do, people will twist it to fit their bias against her.
      Some detractors think she is narcissistic for thinking anyone would want to buy her glasses; the opposite is true. Jodi alone gave no import to the appearance and style of her glasses. She had no money so she could not wear the style of glasses she would have chosen to wear.
      The tabloid media and her detractors seized upon the appearance of the glasses in order to ridicule and demean her, and they used the glasses as a way they could accuse her of whatever fueled their gleeful desire to hate.
      If Jodi took the glasses off, they accused her of being deceptive and vain; if she put them on they accused her of pretending to appear to be someone she is not.
      The truth is, Jodi’s capacity for humbleness and good- natured self- effacement, enabled her to take the very object which had become a symbol of people’s hatred towards her, and she converted that symbol into something constructive and positive.

      No matter what her detractors insist, Jodi is an human being.
      A human being is a human being is a human being.
      A human being has the RIGHT to be kind, the RIGHT to do good, the RIGHT to be an humane human being.

      Arias has the RIGHT to be loving__ in fact it is impossible to prevent her from being loving__ because it is her actual nature__ God given and God driven.

      Jodi Arias has become the ultimate scapegoat and the ultimate blank slate for people’s projections; THAT is what is really shameful__ NOT Jodi Arias.

          • ♥ Colossians 1: 9-10 KJV For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you (Jodi), and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God

      • Jodi discovered she is myopic while in jail, in 2010 ( if memory serves me right).HLN and their hords of haters hurried to say, however, that this was not the case but that Jodi somehow tried to emulate Wilmott’s style. Had they stopped for a moment to THINK, to actually use their heads they would have realized that myopia runs in Jodi’s family; both her aunt and mother, her father, her sister Angela and her younger brother Joseph are myopic (I don’t know about Carlton). So there you go….

        What you’re writing Amy is very true, and very eloquently expressed. I am in awe of your writing skills and the depth of understanding and support you have for Jodi ♥

        • Thank you very much Maria. You and all the other members of this site, and SJ, have done so much to help Jodi and make her feel cared for and loved.

  7. Although benefits to the prosecution of the “gunshot last” scenario were many, the original impetus for JM to have crafted the state’s “knife first” supposition in support of the “back-up” Felony Murder charge could certainly have been his concern for the ever-present possibility that Grandpa’s gun might someday turn up in the hands of a Northern CA burglar, or be recovered in a raid.

    How could seven jurors have voted for: –Intent– to commit a felony AND –Premeditated– murder?

    HOW are these fundamentally contradictory convictions allowed to stand?

    Is it customary for the law to be applied unequally and irrationally to women of Latin heritage in the state of Arizona?

      • whichtrial?,

        I’ve never been clear on the felony charge. Was it BURGLARY because once the struggle started, Travis would have wanted Jodi to leave his home and she didn’t. Or, because she wasn’t invited in? Or, because she stole Travis’s gun (which Martinez spent a lot of time trying to prove didn’t exist but he did mention she took TA’s gun in his closing argument).

        I remember Vladimir Gagic, a lawyer who once belonged to this group, wrote an article elsewhere criticizing the felony charge.

        • coldcase,

          For further clarification, go to the tab at the top of the page here for Trial Video (#1). Find Trial Day Nine there, January 17th, 2013. The last business of that day is listed as the “Discussion w/attorneys – request for release of charges and Rule 20”. Herein, JM argues for the knife first and for the Felony Murder charge in front of the judge, while Nurmi argues against (the logic of) the FM charge. (Btw, JM, in arguing for the FM charge, maintains here that she brought a knife and a gun, even referring to the gun as the murder weapon, another contradiction – by means of flagrant supposititious argumentation – that seemed to escape the judge.)

          Read the Final Jury Instructions at the Court Docs tab at the top of the page. In the list, scroll down to the “2013 Documents & Motions” heading. The Final Jury Instructions are the fourth from the bottom in that list. In the Instructions, find the jury admonition: “LAWYERS COMMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE” – it is the second heading.

          Search the Legal Dictionary online for the definition of Burglary. It says, in part, “…contrary to common belief, a burglary is not necessarily for theft”…and goes on to describe various types of assault.

          The Felony argued for on Trial Day Nine was assault with a knife, an attack that JM goes on to allege did not stop once it commenced.

          He bypassed the blood (and photo, i.e. ceiling shot) evidence of pauses in the fight with this argument, while removing the gun as the most critical piece of [NON]-evidence. The initial injury to TA could not, in this scenario, have been an accidental gunshot, without INTENT to harm.

          There are obviously more benefits to the prosecution in changing the sequencing of wounding, but bear in mind that JM had already argued for the DP before making the state’s case that the gunshot was last.

          • Thanks whichtrial?. I was thinking this should be Highlighted in Bright YELLOW:
            (Btw, JM, in arguing for the FM charge, maintains here that she brought a knife and a gun, even referring to the gun as the murder weapon, another contradiction – by means of flagrant supposititious argumentation – that seemed to escape the judge.)

  8. While I’m asking questions, does anyone know why Chris Hughes (& his wife, Skye?) were allowed to remove emails from a murder victim’s computer and not be charged with something?
    For all we know, he or they might have threatened Travis. And, I’ve heard that once an email is sent, it is possible to retrieve it if you know how. Anyone know the Hughes’s explanation for removing the emails?
    I wonder if they were protecting themselves or Travis or someone close to them?

    • Do we know that they did?

      I mean, I believe that they did. And I certainly think they should have been in some trouble for getting into TA’s mail at all. But do we really know what they DID with his mail?

      • I was under the impression that they had removed emails for a long time (don’t know where I heard it – maybe it was discussed by Chris on that 3-hour blog radio or talk radio, whatever). Plus, I was reading Lise Lasalle’s Candy Crush article again today and I thought she mentioned that they had removed emails. I’ll check Lise’s article first. I don’t know if I can stomach Chris Hughes laughing and telling Jodi stories today.

      • Journee,

        Lise wrote: “After their supposedly good friend’s death, they obtained his computer password and read every message that was on it before the police could seize them. How do we know they did not tamper in the case of unflattering content?”

        So, no mention of them removing any emails. If I ever go through the 3-hour tape and find anything, I’ll post it. It’s interesting though that they searched his computer at all. Were they worried there was something embarrassing or damaging there to Travis or themselves or maybe it was just an innocent search (I doubt it). OR, maybe, the purpose of their search was to look at Jodi’s messages.

        • The reality is – no matter how they want to spin it – THEY HAD NO GOOD, HONORABLE or ABOVE BOARD reason to get into those emails. So the very fact that they did it puts the act under suspicion.

          • Absolutely! Your best friend is found dead and your main and primary concern is to somehow find his e-mails password and snoopr around? SO many bells going off in my head….

        • I remember hearing the same CC53. Yes, I believe they were certainly worried about what was on Travis’s (Deanna’s?) computer. . .pictures? Emails?. . .who does such a thing? WHO would ever think of such a thing at a crime scene? OK, so you find out your BFF has just been murdered and “OH WAIT, I believe I better go check out everything on his computer!” PLEASE!!! They are guilty of something as far as I’m concerned even if it is just being horrible, two faced people! The people who are friends with the Hughes had better be careful there is more behind their fake smiles than we know. I can only imagine, in IMHO and allegedly. Best Friends. . .YEAH Right!

    • I intend to write a more detailed post later, but I just want to say for now that I think Lise LaSalle is wayyyyyyyyyy too generous in her effort to appraise and understand the cartoonist and his product from the perspective of giving both the “benefit of the doubt”.

  9. In reply to the discussion above about felony murder: the felony in the felony murder charge — what Gagic calls the “first-degree predicate felony” — was 2nd-degree burglary. That is in the indictment and not subject to any ambiguity at trial.

    The definition of 2nd-degree burglary, however — see jury instructions — refers to a further *intended* offense. Burglary is unlawfully entering or remaining in a residential structure with intent to commit “any theft or felony” therein. The “any theft or felony” is what LaFave’s textbook calls the “ulterior offense,” which is a better term than Gagic’s “second-degree predicate felony” since any theft suffices.

    In the Trial Day #9 clip mentioned above, Martinez says he’s already indicated three possibilities for this ulterior offense. I don’t know when this was (in previous motions?) and would be glad if anyone would tell me. But at that time he says the most “suited” ulterior offense is (aggravated) assault. Nurmi objects that this really adds nothing to the charge of premeditated murder, but the judge rules against him. I agree with Gagic’s reasons that it should have been disallowed.

    At closing, Martinez mentions this assault theory, but also theft of Travis’s gun (which he’d denied existed) as another possible ulterior offense. I’m guessing that the jury only considered the gun-theft theory of second-degree burglary, since only 7 jurors voted for it. The assault theory of it is implied by premeditation and on that theory the vote for felony murder should have been unanimous.

    It would be great if a vote for premeditated murder and a vote for felony murder were inconsistent, but I really don’t think that is true. As I say, on the assault theory the first implies the second; on the gun-theft theory, Martinez could say Jodi had two intents, one to kill and one to steal T’s gun.

    Gagic’s article is here: As I recall, he doesn’t consider the gun-theft theory of burglary.

    The objection to the gun-theft theory of burglary is that it is absurd. It requires that Jodi killed Travis “in furtherance of” her aim to steal the gun. But no one on earth believes that Jodi killed him in order to get a crappy gun.

    • Thanks, Alan, and thanks for including the Gagic article. I don’t know if anyone read Gagic but his last 2 paragraphs are very interesting. Here’s just a bit of it:

      “…the governent seems to have conceded Ms. Arias did not have premeditation, or intent to kill Mr. Alexander. Aggravated Assault, which is the government’s underlying felony for the burglary predicate, is INTENT TO INJURE, NOT KILL.” (my capital letters).

      So, if I understand it correctly, Jodi’s intent, according to Martinez, was: 1. to kill 2. to injure. Sounds like Martinez was saying: She wanted to kill him….no, no, she wanted to injure him. He didn’t seem to really know Jodi’s intention. He can’t have it both ways, can he?

    • Alan, You wrote,
      “I’m guessing that the jury only considered the gun-theft theory of second-degree burglary, since only 7 jurors voted for it. The assault theory of it is implied by premeditation and on that theory the vote for felony murder should have been unanimous.”

      No, the assault theory does NOT implicitly carry/imply premeditation, if that’s what you are suggesting.

      The FM charge requires only INTENT; Premeditation is NOT embedded in the charge, no matter how one might speculate about an imagined attack or how one might guess the jurors thought about it. The problem for the prosecution is that Jodi could NOT have overpowered TA with a knife, not without that gunshot first. And if she was also found to have PREMEDITATED an attack, then FM constitutes overcharging, which is highly prejudicial.

      But no matter what JSS wrote in her Jury Instructions about the jurors being allowed to vote for one and/or both of the charges, I don’t accept it.

      And it IS absurd to think that Jodi entered the premises with the INTENT to steal a gun from TA and then ended up killing him in the furtherance of that crime. The jury no doubt would have also thought that.

      That’s why JM did not argue for the gun theft on January 17, 2013 before the judge, when discussing the FM charge with her and Nurmi. He clearly argued for a knife assault, doing everything in his power to detract from the fact that the gun theft at Grandpa’s could not conclusively be attributed to Jodi, and, in consideration of that, also swept away the possibility – in alleging the knife attack – that Jodi could have initially been defending herself with a gun that she knew TA kept in his closet, using it only as opportunity offered, and in clumsy fashion.

      The jury could have voted for the FM (via knife attack) and Premeditated murder simply because the Jury Instructions allowed it. This does not in any way suggest that all who voted for Premeditation could see their way to both convictions in ANY of the possible interpretations of the FM charge.

      Felony Murder: INTENT to commit a felony, in furtherance of which, TA died? Or Premeditated Murder?

      WHICH is it? IMO, we cannot have BOTH, not unless a person is overcharged.

      • I said that premeditated murder implies the assault version of second-degree burglary felony murder — not the other way around, which, you’re right, is false.

        The reason is simple: if you intend to kill Travis with a knife and a gun, you intend to commit aggravated assault on him. Killing in this manner includes ag assault as a lesser included offense. And since killing with a knife took time, Martinez’s argument that after the first wound you’re an unwanted guest applies.

        On the other hand, I agree that 2nd-degree burglary felony murder based on the assault theory does not imply premeditated murder. For one thing, as you say, it does not require premeditation. A second reason is that intent to commit ag assault doesn’t imply intent to kill, which is required for M1. (If you look at the jury instructions, you’ll see that intent to do serious bodily injury is a basis for M2, not M1. Premeditated M1 requires intent to kill.) This is why I think JM wanted the FM alternative in: in case the jury either disbelieved premed or disbelieved intent to kill, he could still get an M1 conviction.

        In any case, by the above, given that the vote for premeditation was unanimous, the vote for FM should also have been unanimous — unless the jury disregarded the assault theory of FM.

        Why then did 7 jurors vote for FM? One possibility that the jury focused instead on the gun-theft theory of 2nd-degree FM, and 7 of them were sufficiently confused by Martinez’s closing to disregard the requirement that the killing must be “in furtherance” of the “objective” of stealing the gun. They may have accepted his insinuation that the killing and the gun theft suffice to prove FM, which of course they don’t. (Nurmi rightly objected at this point but was overruled.) And maybe the other 5 jurors saw the absurdity of claiming Jodi’s purpose in remaining was to steal a cheap gun.

        However, I have no real idea why 7 voted FM and 5 did not. How can one tell at this point? Since FM law is really confusing in this context — so much so that all three of JM, SS, and KN, I think, were confused about it at one point or another — one can hardly imagine what went on in the heads of jurors.

        • Alan, thanks for such a well written post. Your comment reads very clearly even without your corrections.

          As to the point you made that “premeditated murder implies the assault version of the second- degree burglary felony murder” – (not the other way around) – yes, I realized that WAS what you’d written (and you very much meant to say), but I was writing quickly, and didn’t have time to add to what I’d said after I posted the comment – when I realized I should have addressed your point the other way. So I fully expected you to correct me on that.

          But I suppose you won’t be surprised, Alan, when I say that it doesn’t work for me the other way either. These are meant to be distinctly separate charges of Murder in the First Degree, correct?

          So, to amend my earlier sentence: The FM charge requires only Intent; Premeditation is not embedded in the charge, no matter how one might speculate about an imagined attack or how one might guess the jurors thought about it – nor is the Intent requirement that is part and parcel of the Burglary in the Second Degree prong of the Felony Murder charge embedded in the Premeditation charge.

          “Intent” in the FM charge only refers to the state of mind of the accused upon entering the premises (whether that Second Degree Burglary felony refers to a theft or to an assault with the intent to commit grievous bodily harm). Therefore, the outcome of the said Felony is NOT included as to the Intention. The Jury Instructions do not state that in order to convict a defendant of FM, they must be found to have had the Intention to cause the death of another when they committed that Felony. In fact, the Instructions explicitly state otherwise, as you know.

          As I interpret the Jury Instructions pertaining to the Felony Murder charge, IF the seven jurors voted for FM because they believed, as you suggest they could have, “that premeditated murder implies the assault version of second-degree burglary felony murder”, they would be wrong, but i believe that that, indeed, is how they understood the charge. The FM charge is a Murder in the First Degree alternative to the Premeditated Murder charge. A proper application of the FM charge, IMO, abrogates the possibility that a killing was premeditated – not ONLY because Intent and Premeditation are not one and the same, but because the Intent in Felony Murder only encompasses an Intention, upon entering the premises, to commit the Burglary. (This is why JM insisted that Jodi BROUGHT a knife with her, and why Flores claimed on the stand that his team looked high and low and could not find a knife anywhere. Consider also the insinuations that Jodi was not invited to begin with, as the tassel fibers were never proved or not proven to be part of a decorative rope that TA would have purchased in anticipation of seeing Jodi.)

          But for reasons that remain exceedingly obscure, Alan, the Jury Instructions allowed the jury to NOT treat those two Murder One charges as alternatives, even though I believe the Indictment charged her with FM “in the Alternative”. So it would seem that, given the latitude to vote for both of the Murder One charges, the seven simply piled on. I do not think that the jurors could have believed that Jodi entered TA’s house with the Intention to steal his gun or anything else, and then ended by killing him in the furtherance of that theft.

          In response to your question as to why all twelve didn’t vote for FM since they all voted for Premeditated Murder: I believe that the five who did not vote for FM did see the logical flaw in voting for both FM and Premeditated Murder, as I and others do.

          Since the Jury Instructions state that every element of every charge has to be proven, and the Yreka gun theft was obviously unproven yet was so crucial to the notion of premeditation, the theft’s lack of probative value had to be one of the most significant reasons that the state charged FM as a Murder in the First Degree alternative. And, in declaring the “knife first” in support of that FM charge, the state effectively scuttled the element of the defense team’s case that involved an accidental gunshot, laying siege to Jodi’s self-defense claim from the very start of the trial.

          I will check the court document pertaining to the charges and post the exact wording with respect to “the alternative” charge heading in a comment a bit later.

        • Alan, here is the seeming inconsistency I was referring to before:

          July 9, 2008


          (JODI ANN ARIAS)
          (FELONY MURDER)
          (JODI ANN ARIAS)


          From the Final Jury Instructions:

          "If you find the Defendant guilty of First Degree Murder, you must indicate on the verdict form how many of you have found the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder and/or First Degree Felony Murder. By way of example only, the jury can be unanimous as to both theories, or just one theory, or it may be divided."

          • I see why that’s bothering you. I can’t check this right now in LaFave’s CRIMINAL PROCEDURE text since it’s in the library, but I’m fairly sure legal charges “in the alternative” need not be mutually exclusive. There is a use of ‘alternation’ that just means an “or”-statement (see Oxford English Dictionary). And “or” can be inclusive or exclusive. In the inclusive sense, “x or y” means “x or y or both.”

            As for the issues about intent, I think I answered them in my second paragraph above. If you “unlawfully remain” (entering is not at issue) with the intent to kill Travis without justification or excuse — which is true given premeditation — then you unlawfully remain with the intent to commit a felony. Then both “alternatives” are satisfied at once.

            • Alan, you wrote: ‘If you “unlawfully remain” (entering is not at issue) with the intent to kill Travis without justification or excuse — which is true given premeditation — then you unlawfully remain with the intent to commit a felony. Then both “alternatives” are satisfied at once.’

              This is exactly the circular reasoning that Nurmi was referring to when he objected to JM’s argument for FM January 17, 2013.

              Burglary is still burglary, not murder to any degree. In FM, because Burglary is not a murder charge in and of itself, the death of any person that is caused in furtherance of, or in the attempt to commit the felony is not included as to the intention to commit, or to attempt to commit that felony, whether or not the defendant remained unlawfully or fled.

              This particular wording of the FM charge:

              “The crime of Burglary in the Second Degree requires proof that the defendant:
              1. Entered or remained unlawfully in or on a residential structure, and <––(italics)
              2. Did so with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein."

              does not define or REDEFINE Burglary. It only elucidates Burglary as it functions as a component of the FM charge by providing an Instruction to the jury with respect to the proof required; "any felony" would not include "murder". To say that it should would require an expanded definition Burglary in the Second Degree to include some degree of Murder, wouldn't it? In meeting the two requirements enumerated above, a defendant's actions could not transmute the Burglary COMPONENT of the FM charge into murder.

              Here are the two essential parts of the Felony Murder charge as they appear in the Final Jury Instructions right below this heading:


              The crime of First Degree Felony Murder requires the state to prove the following two things:

              1. The defendant committed or attempted to commit Burglary in the Second Degree, and <––(italics)
              2 In the course of and in furtherance of committing Burglary in the Second Degree, or in immediate flight from it, the defendant caused the death of any person"

              What DOES make this charge a First Degree Murder Charge is that the "furtherance" of the commission of the felony "caused the death of any person", whether it was intended by the defendant or not. Neither does that felony become by default a Murder in the Second Degree charge in consideration of or in the proving of those (first) two requirements above, or because that felony was assault. So there is no mechanism within this charge, according to these jury instructions, that can ever morph the Burglary charge ITSELF into Murder. Burglary remains a separate element of the charge, and the Felony Murder charge remains a Murder in the First Degree charge, BUT two separate parts do comprise it.

              The Final Jury Instructions also say, (with respect to FM):

              ' "Intentionally" or "with the intent to" means, with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, that a person's objective is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.'

              If it were found that Jodi's objective and intention in committing an alleged Second Degree Burglary (assault) was to cause the death of TA, then the "Second Degree Burglary" would AT ONCE meet BOTH the first and second criteria of the FM charge, and in doing so, FM would no longer be an appropriate charge because the intention would have been to cause death, not to cause grievous bodily harm by assault.

              In addition to arguing before Stephens that the FM charge involved "circular reasoning", Nurmi also referred to this charge as an "empty vessel". I agree with Nurmi, but not simply because FM contradicts the premeditation charge. I do not accept that JM argued for FM in good faith. It seems to me that he wanted to avoid potentially having to accept Second Degree Murder by bringing supposititious double charges of Murder in the First Degree. He applied too much spin to Burglary "requirements 1. & 2". by suggesting that she was not invited, then proving that she was through photographs, then said that once the fight began she became unwelcome without ever proving that she was the instigator; and properly examined, the tassel remnants could have proved she was invited. By tossing out various ways, yet not proving any, that Jodi could have procured two guns and a knife, he further scrambled a solid take on the question of Burglary; Flores said no knife was ever found even though there were crime scene photos of the butcher block knife set, and so forth.

              JM not only sought to conflate premeditation with the intent that is required of the FM charge, he obscured the definition of Burglary in the Second Degree by floating his various suppositions in a chaotic manner, ultimately diminishing its factual significance as a distinct and discrete element of the Felony Murder charge.

              Again, WHICH is it? A premeditated murder or a Burglary in the Second Degree that in the course of its commission caused a death?

              • There isn’t any reason why murder couldn’t be the “any theft or felony” in second-degree burglary. Any type of murder is a felony. There just wouldn’t be any point in a prosecutor’s charging an alternative of 2nd-degree-burglary felony murder on that theory of the intent of the burglary, since it implies premeditation.

                However, agg assault can be the “any theft or felony” in second-degree burglary, and to charge FM on that basis does help the prosecutor, since Jodi could be convicted of such FM if the jury believed her intent (in unlawfully remaining) was only to injure TA badly, not to kill him. LaFave’s text CRIMINAL LAW, 4th ed., p. 762, note 120, lists 6 cases (one from Arizona) where FM was allowed based on burglary with intent to commit aggravated assault. It also lists two discussions of the subject.

                Since the jurors did believe she attacked him with the intent of killing him, automatically they believed she attacked him with the intent of seriously injuring him, and hence satisfied the assault theory of 2nd-degree-burglary FM. That’s just like saying that if you intend to buy a blue car, you intend to buy a car. On these facts, premeditated murder includes agg assault as a lesser included offense. It’s just a variation on the old maxim “Every murder includes an assault.” So they should have been unanimous on the FM charge too.

                In any case, the two “alternative” M1 murder charges are neither contradictory nor equivalent. I wish they were.

                Also, sad to say, I fear that everything about FM is now “harmless error” given the unanimous vote for premeditated murder. Appeals will have to be on other grounds.

                Now it’s time to get off this subject! I’m going back to my own work and to fundraising.

                • “There isn’t any reason why murder couldn’t be the “any theft or felony” in second-degree burglary. ”

                  But that would make the FM charge circular, wouldn’t it? FM is a murder committed in the commission of another felony – so the other felony can’t be the murder, right?

                • “Circular” isn’t quite the right word, I’d say. Arguments can be circular, not charges. In any case, the “other felony” is second-degree burglary, which here is unlawfully remaining in TA’s house with intent to commit “any theft or felony.” Call the “any theft or felony” X. I

                  If a FM charge were based on burglary with X = intent to kill, then, as I say, there’d be no point in making it, since it would imply premed murder and it would be simpler just to charge and prove the latter. As Nurmi said, the FM charge would be “an empty vessel.”

                  What JM actually suggested is 3 other possibilities for X. One is agg assault, and this is what I say premeditation implies. Another is theft of TA’s gun. And I don’t know the third; I wish someone would tell me where to find it.

                • From what I’ve read, JM’s last theory is that TA revoked permission from Ms. Arias to be in his house …… remaining unlawfully in …. a residential structure.

                  I am listening to his closing now. Yuck!!

                • Alan,

                  I wrote a response to your September 29, 2014 10:25am comment (above) but mine landed at the bottom of this page (at 2:21pm) yesterday due to a glitch on my end. Sorry about that!

                  After I proofread the comment I posted, I scrolled back up and saw that you had made a modification to a second post you made after that first one to which I’d already responded. You’d added:

                  ‘ Sorry, in para 2 I meant “X = killing (w/o justification or excuse).” Not “X = intent to kill.” ‘

                  I wrote a response to that but in doing so, lost my train of thought because I’d put so much energy into my first comment and was distracted by the trial circus starting up again yesterday. To make matters worse, my first response to you yesterday was at the bottom, so I was scrolling back and forth to it while addressing your change.

                  I made a request to SJ/admins that my response addressing your modification be deleted last night, since what I wrote was not consistent with my arguments up to that point. Sorry if you read it and had to suffer through it before I could have it removed.

                  Based on your correction above, it seems you do not believe that “any felony” in Second Degree Burglary could include murder, but that it could be assault that causes death, and of course throughout our discussion, I have not disagreed with that. I do agree with Nurmi that the charges of PM and FM are contradictory, and that, given the PM, the FM charge is an “empty vessel” in this case because the Intent would not have been to kill in committing the Burglary.

                  You wrote above, “What JM actually suggested is 3 other possibilities for X. One is agg assault, and this is what I say premeditation implies.”

                  That’s where we disagree, and we’ll just have to leave it at that, because I believe FM is a different charge from PM that should stand on its own merits <––(for lack of a better word). I wouldn't think it fair to use or rely upon one stand-alone charge to imply or prove another separate charge and then allow jurors to vote for both, in contingency fashion, as seems to have happened here. In fact, I believe that in voting for FM, seven of the jurors displayed a lack of credence in the PM charge.

                  You said it's hard to imagine all twelve of the jurors trying to discuss these charges…wow, I mean, I can't imagine it either, because the conversation between us has gone on for days and it's mostly just been only the two of us! And we've both had to correct ourselves at one time or another.

                  Have you had a chance to check the library about the use of the "in the alternative" language with respect to bringing charges? I sort of suspected what you suggested about that, but would love to know what the reference you cited says. Thanks in advance.

                • No, I haven’t been to the law library, which is 40 minutes away. Sorry! Also, I don’t want to discuss FM any more. It’s probably all harmless error now anyway. But I will be asking questions on the Vent page from time to time, starting now.

  10. Did you see the Arizona Central’s idea of a great cartoon? That is so sickening all around. It is hard to understand how that cartoon is accepted in Arizona. It offends victims and families killed by ISIS; the Alexander family; and Jodi and her family. Couldn’t be much more offensive than that. I understand that Jodi’s lawyers are very concerned about it. Enough to bring new motions to court.

    • As I understand the tweets Judy, Nurmi handed JM copy of it and made a motion to have DP removed. Arguments to be heard 10/14 & 15th.

      Arizona Central seems to be very split on how they feel about this case and coverage of same.

      • I was surprised they ran the cartoon – but realized that they have a longstanding relationship with Benson AND that the cartoon ran where political cartoons always run, under the OP/ED banner. From what we’ve seen of AZ politics, I imagine that page sees flames that are internet worthy.

        What *I* am wondering about todays rulings:

        a) will CNN/HLN bribe some guards to insure regular (if not daily – daily would just be too obvious, IMO) seating once the trial begins?

        or, if not,

        b) will the carnival midway of media tents surrounding the courthouse be severely diminished by the decreased likelihood of actually getting a reporter into the courtroom on a predictably regular basis?

        • Besides Benson, there is a reporter/columnist Laurie Roberts who is very upset about the camera ruling, and then there is Montini and probably Kiefer who feel that cameras should not be there.

          I wonder how many reporters are going to get trampled? JVM better not stand on the steps this time.

          • Roberts’ article also rode in under the OP/ED banner. And sure, AZcentral might be using the banner as a place to grumble and be popularly partisan – because they still have to sell advertising too – but I am glad they also seem to have a few reporters with real integrity.

        • I wonder what the legalities would be if the press could be provided a room where they can listen but not watch – and therefore not sneak out film footage taken with their phones/tablets. Would that satisfy the spirit of the law that the courtroom should be open?

          • There is going to be an overflow room of about 48 seats, hopefully, for people who cannot control their prejudicial emotions, but press could use it if there are seats. The trial is being televised, just delayed to protect the rights of the accused so I fail to understand their argument. I just wonder how many times Scoopy is going to get in.

            • My interpretation of that phrase was that there would be 48 gallery seats, total, of which only ONE would be reserved for media. The other seats, with the exception of those reserved for family, would be up for grabs -first come first serve or lottery- and the media *might* be able to snag some of those seats from the public.

              That’s how I took it, anyway.

              But then there was another something said about 28 seats, and I don’t know if that’s just what’s leftover after the reserved seats, or if she was talking about something else.

              • I read it again, and it does say ‘overflow rm’ that will not open until opening arguments. I guess it just didn’t register for me as a separate room because I can’t imagine people actually queueing up to be in a room other than the room where the trial is taking place.

                : : : : scratching head : : : :

                • Me too! 1 designated (24 total) when opening arguments begin. Overflow room – 49 – no guaranteed seats for media – 1st come or lottery. There was overflow room at the OP trial. Does it mean they have 24 guaranteed seats in the courtroom?

                  HLN has started their deluge on her with JVM and NG. Right now NG has this spacy woman reading journal entries that I don’t remember ever hearing before.

                • MaryEllen did specify that they would be in courtroom #4 with the 24 seats. Does anyone remember the courtroom # for the first trial? That gallery wasn’t huge, but I know it seated more than 24 people. Conservatively, I’d say twice that. Seems like there were five rows of seats on each side, with five or six seats in each row. Does that sound right?

                • The reader for Jodi’s journal – oh, ick. Her voice is syrupy, dripping with sarcasm. HLN went hog wild this evening playing clips from the trial, and one journal entry was especially revealing. Jodi is feeling good about TA, saying she loves him, loves the Mormon Church, loves Jesus, loves Heavenly Father. I’ve always believed that her feelings for TA were heavily infused with religiosity, inseparable from her new faith – and in that diary entry is evidence of that.

                • I don’t remember the journal entries that I heard up until last night talking about the tires being slashed or a ring that TA gave Jodi. Did I miss something or is this new stuff aired from Jodi’s journal just last night? Part of it is dated May 26th.

                • I taped it and am transcribing it. Toadie fought every single word in the courtroom, but I am sure he had something to do with NG ending up with Jodi’s journals from jail so she can put out her hand-picked pieces of it. These people keep sinking to a lower low every day.

                • Carol, NG did say last night that some of the journal entries they were airing had never been heard before and that the jurors will still not see them…so I don’t think you actually missed anything before.

                • Oh, but these never seen or heard before journal entries that will still not be seen by the jury are being read aloud for the jurors not yet selected.

                  And who’s to authenticate these “journal entries” that have never been seen or heard before?

                • They do show the pages on the screen so you can tell it is Jodi’s writing. It is quite telling how her writing changed after June 4th. Frantic and confused is how I would describe it.

                  She said at least three or four times that these entries have not and will not be seen by the jurors. She has no regard whatsoever for someone’s rights. HLN, NG and JVM are a disgrace to the United States of America and it’s justice system.

                • And who’s holding HLN to any sort of ethical standard? The FCC is supposed to ensure that the airwaves will be licensed for the benefit of society…but HLN’s prime time consists of a”former” prosecutor who doesn’t seem to know the meaning of the word “former”, a medical doctor who is unrepentantly biased against the defendant in a death penalty case, and JVM, whose first impulse, when asked by an interviewer to speak about a book she wrote on this case, was to call Jodi “slutty”.

                  The syrupy sarcasm-infused renditions of Jodi’s diary entries are constantly interrupted by HLN’s commercial cash-flow frenzy. But these are probably easy days for NG. She won’t have air-time for her trademark repetition (read: trowel work), which must be tiring even for her.

  11. Dr. Phil today was on a thirty-year old man who is dating a seventeen year-old girl who is still wearing braces. Of course, it is driving her mother mad.

    Dr. Phi had a survey and eighty-seven percent of his viewers, believe that a thirty year old should not be dating a seventeen year old.

    • I’m 27 years older than my wife and when my next birthday comes I’ll be28 years older until she has her next birthday. I’m 2 years older than my wife’s mother. Take that Dr. Phil. Maybe you’re jealous.

      • Ah, but was your wife a full-grown woman when you married her? Reasonably mature? The girl on Dr. Phil’s show was not – nor was the guy, for that matter, so maybe they’re better suited than anyone wants to think. But she still has a chance to grow up and fulfill the promise she showed before he came into her life – unless, in her immaturity, she attaches herself to this guy.

        My mother was only 14 when she met my dad – he was an 18 year old sailor who’d been fixed up on a blind date with her 16 year old sister’s best friend. And it was 1948. They got married the first Saturday after her 18th birthday and he died 19 days after their 48th anniversary.

        • I was her dad’s supervisor for 6 years before we got married. At one time I was engaged to one of her older sisters for a year. My future wife used to tag along with us all of the time. The family had 9 kids (originally 11) and they went on vacation back to Mexico in 2 vans one year. Unfortunately, the van she and her brother were in with all of the luggage.had a head on collision in Mexico with a drunk driver. My future wife was severly injured and in a coma for 3 months and not expected to live. She survived but with some things in life lost. No more teaching dance lessons. She walks with a slight limp and has trouble concentrating, trouble learning new things, and had a headache that never went away. 3 years after her sister and I ended our engagement and she turned 19 she expressed interest in me. She realized that I could provide her with things in life that she could never get from her family or most other guys. Chiropractic care cured the headaches and she still goes. She gets regular dental care and health care that she wasn’t getting before. I built and equipped her a gym here at my home amongst many other things. She rarely cooks at home. We go out to eat most nights. Let’s just say she is very pampered.

          While most people might not seem to agree with large age differences in marriages I think it is probably the way to go. With Social Security becoming less sure and health care rising I think it is best if both partners don’t retire at the same time. I think people will realize this eventually and it will become the norm. Currently it is becoming harder for both people retired at the same time to make ends meet.

          • It sounds like you are very good to your wife. The case on Dr. Phil was quite different, in that the girl was still very much just a girl, and she had plans to go to college. Also, the guy of that couple was no catch. He had a negative history as far as his past relationships went.

            I am glad that you are your wife are so good together, but my comment was directed towards men like Travis, who seek out young girls for a very different reason than to give them love and support.

            • I saw that show and the man in question was certainly no catch! 🙄 Nothing wrong with age difference when both are mature. I was 19 and my husband was 30 when we married. . . been married 40 years now and still hanging in there! 😀

  12. Canada Carol, even with our atrocious case here in Canada (Magnotta) we don’t see such cartoons in poor taste. I am glad Nurmi is raising this issue with the court no matter what happens. This just gets stranger and stranger to me.

  13. HLN and Nancy Grace spewing all the old interviews of Jodi. They are desperate to try and increase their ratings. Hours of old interviews and Nancy’s nasty looking expressions. They must be so ticked that they aren’t going to be able to sensationalize the trial in the same way as last year. Was a good call, albeit late, to stop the t.v. trial circus this time around.

    • So, I have a question.

      If Zevakos was not convinced that the state proved their case for premeditated murder –


      That man right there was our HUNG JURY – the one we were so sure we had.

      • If he didn’t think the State proved premeditation but, for whatever reason, convicted her anyway, perhaps there were other jurors who did it for the same reason (feeling intimidated, subconscious fear of going counter to a bully prosecutor, whatever.) I don’t understand his comment that Jodi wasn’t a good witness. I thought she did very well.

        • I think she did really well too. OP was also told by the judge that he did not make a good witness, but I found him to be totally believable, so I guess I don’t know what makes you a bad one.

        • I think she did well, also. It just went on for too long, and Nurmi made it all creepier than it needed to be. I figured at the time that having Nurmi grill her on all these very personal issues might have been a ploy on the part of the DT – that Jodi would appear victimized by her own attorney. Obviously, they forgot that they had JM on hand to do the victimizing, and I think Jodi’s testimony would have come across better if Jennifer had questioned her.

          • FWIW I also believe that DT’s roles should have been different: JW on the relationship stuff and Nurmi on ALV would have been better for Jodi’s case, IMO.

        • No, the hiding something quote came from ‘ponytail guy’ – juror #9 i think he was.

          The CNN article CanadaCarol posted just above quote Zervakos.

        • Here’s the pertinent paragraph:

          “The jury foreman found mitigating evidence in her lack of criminal history and was not persuaded by the state’s argument that the murder was premeditated. Despite the heavy social media backlash from people who wanted the death penalty for Arias, Zervakos said time has only made him more comfortable with in his decision.”

  14. For anyone who can’t stand to listen to NG but is interested in the journal entries she showed on Friday, here is a slightly abbreviated version: Some are not dated but contents indicate certain time periods.

    I have so much to thank you for. I’m grateful that I ceased (should be seized) the opportunity to do so on many occasions being aware that you were a “words of affirmation” kind of guy. (Thanks him for home, refrigerator and waking her up to see sunset). Travis, this can’t really be real. I know you hated that kind of thinking. After we broke up, I stopped wearing the CTR ring that you gave me, but it’s back on my finger now. I didn’t have the slightest clue that when we met …. you’d have a lasting and profound impact on my life. Thank you for believing in my skills as a photographer and artist.

    (new page – on screen not read – get it out of his system until he couldn’t help it anymore.)

    We called each other and talked until it was light out. It actually wasn’t really talking, well dirty talk, I guess you could say I’m just as naughty as he is, more in fact. ….. guiltiest pleasure I’ve known since I discovered Valrohna Chocolate. Anyway, I have the perfect spot in the woods for us up in Greenhorn.
    ….. He has a video camera now. I can’t believe we’re still planning this. Part of me is overcome with anticipation and part of me is reserved and waiting to step us and be a good girl. But he’s very persuasive – in a good way.

    (new page)

    So again, it was just one of his cycles. I have somehow managed to become his “whipping girl” and we’re both addicted to it. It’s the same pattern as always. He gets pissed, goes off on me, feels bad, we make up, things are mellow for a few days, and then the cycle begins again. I’ve learned it’s better just to let it run its course. Yes Travis, you’re right Travis, whatever you say Travis. As long as I’m not too patronizing he does right through it, and then ends up being apologetic and sweet-talking ……… We’re crazy, being addicted to this cycle. … explored about 90% of fantasies — freeway …hood of car … I seriously doubt that will ever happen. We haven’t done the mile high yet, and probably never will, and we’ve yet to act out the Little Red Riding Hood spin in the woods, which of last night, is still scheduled to happen. I still have my doubts. I know I’m not seeing anyone, but I don’t want to sabotage any future possibilities. I’m not superstitious but somehow it just ………….. a little bit shorter, each time I’m a little bit stronger.

    (new page)

    I love Travis and always will. We’re just different. His fiery temper doesn’t mix with my tendency to cry at the drop of a hat over spilled milk or whatever. Anyway, huge digression, so mum’s the word on Mr. Ryan Burns, although Travis jokingly insinuated that I was certainly making a trip out to UT for a reason. He said uh huh, yeah, sure, I bet, etc. He’s not dumb and won’t be able …………

  15. continued from above:

    Monday, May 26th – is date on first page shown.

    Okay, so we finally cracked. I called and left Travis a voicemail and he called back. He was acting very angry at first. He said check your email so I did but there wasn’t anything from him. So I called back and said I couldn’t find an email. So I checked by Facebook and there was a really long ridiculous email from him, just being his classic rude. We also chatted on g-mail, more rude. He accused me again of slashing his tires, which of course is not true. He got mad that I got into his Facebook account which I could …..

    (new page)

    Moving has certainly helped me morally. I don’t know if it has him, or if he’s found a replacement booty call. For his sake, I hope he hasn’t, not because it would be a replacement, but because it is not spiritually productive. We both want to get married and I don’t think either of us is anywhere near that if we continue to act immorally.

    (new page)

    I am mortified that my phone was stolen. It had a hugely scandalous text message from him – ten pages that he sent last week. It would make a steamy romance novel sound light a script from a G-rated Disney movie. It also had one or two recorded conversations that were equally scandalous.

    (new page)

    I never did figure out how to play those back for him.

    – cuts to ALV”s testimony about her awe of TA’s testimony about eternal families.

    One more reading of different days to go.

  16. NG – “Many of these entries, even the jury, will never see.”

    Two undated:

    One thing is for use, I do love him. I don’t think he feels quite the same unfortunately. Sometimes In think I get the feeling or vibe coming off of him that feels like it. But he’s never said anything. If he did just say it, I’d be so happy. I think it would elevate our relationship to a better higher level. He would certainly put me on cloud nine and alleviate silly insecurities and occasional uncertainties I have about him. Those things are natural I guess. Recently I’ve gotten a few suspicious feelings,, but he assures me everything is okay and I’m worrying over nothing. I believe him. Plus, I’d rather spend a little bit of time worrying over nothing than worrying over something.

    Bottom line is he is wonderful. I am so grateful that we’ve attracted each other into our lives. I hope we continue to share the same path. At this rate, we will. What I think is neat is that I feel lucky to have him in my life, but he says he’s lucky. How cool is that? What a great guy. (smiley face)

    New page:

    T-Dogg is taking me to the airport tonight. I will miss him as always, even more so when we’re having fun together.
    I love him.
    I love life.
    I love the Gospel.
    I love the church.
    I love Jesus Christ.
    I love Heavenly Father.

    I am grateful for the countless and infinite blessings I’ve been given and will continue to receive.
    As ever and always,

      • (ofe course I meant June 4th grrr)

        Thurs, 6-12-08
        It just feels like he hasn’t called me too long. I hear him singing. I hear him laugh.

        Fri 6-13-08
        Norma Sarvey – mum or mummum got her flowers today. I sent twenty white irises. Travis always told me she liked the name Iris for a girl. That and Hinckley, Regan or Megan. I’ll take Iris thank you very much. He liked Ivan for a boy’s name. If I ever have a son, I’ll name him Alexander.

        I miss Travis more than words can say. It’s weird, I was getting so used to communicating less frequently with him, finally building up other areas of my life, but his passing has brought up so many things, so many old feelings. It almost feels like I broke up with him again, and thus the separation. I don’t know, I just don’t know. This can’t really be real …….

        (New page – no date)

        Well, it’s my b-day today. It’s a mellow day. Right now I’m riding in the car with grandpa to Medford. I spoke with Ryan on the phone last night be we didn’t talk much. He was very sleepy, although we stayed on the line for a good three hours. He made me even more aware that people are dropping my name as possibly having something to do with Travis’ death. At first it didn’t bother me. I know what is true, but it seems now to really be poisoning the environment in Utah and So Cal. I’m saddened by it because I love my PPL family very much. I also can’t help but wonder if this is part of my repentance process or Heavenly Father withdrawing his blessings because of the immoral way I acted with Travis. It makes me wonder what Travis is going through as a result of hour behaviour as well.

        (New page)

        That was the last place on the list that I saw with Travis. My heart aches so bad. Yes, I want to know who, and I want to know why, but there’s a part of me that realizes that even if that person or persons are found, it won’t bring Travis back. I miss him and my sadness and shock over this still stays with me as my ever-present and unwanted companion.


  17. NG – Even the jury hasn’t heard these. 600+ pages of Jodi Arias’ Secret Journals.

    No date

    This is horrendous. The most awful thing I’ve ever had to deal with. I am in total shock right now. It hasn’t fully hit me. this can’t be real. This just can’t be happening. I spoke with Bishop Layton. He confirms that Travis is dead. What happened?

    Travis, what is this?

    Mon 6-30-08
    Yesterday marked one year since I broke up with Travis. If it weren’t for his abrupt and tragic passing, I might be filled with a sense of growth, progression and independence, but my moving on has actually been somewhat hindered as I have not even begun to stop mourning.

    But this is serious business. This isn’t a benign rumour about some insignificant and trivial little thing I may have done. We’re talking about death, a murder, a homicide. It is horrific enough in itself to know that such a thing occurred, that someone could harm Travis. I don’t understand it and it’s not a secret that he and I had problems and arguments in between periods of love, kindness, generosity and selflessness. But such a roller coaster of a relationship still could not warrant a penalty as death, not for him nor for me. And in considering the little amount of details known about how he died, whatever he could have done or whoever he could have pissed off still could not have possibly warranted the way in which he was killed.

    July 14, 2008 Monday

    I had a dream last night that two people were charged in the case of Travis Alexander. One person was charged with murder and one was charged with conspiracy. The one charged with murder was in custody, and the one charged with conspiracy was not yet arrested on some contingency having to do with legal matters in some jurisdiction, like FBI or something. I was riding in someone’s yellow truck when I got the call. It was raining outside. Anyway, keep praying.

    Sat June 21, 2008
    Time for more irony:
    Today I’ll be driving to Sacramento to get on a plane to Ontario where I’ll attend Travis’ funeral and burial. The irony? Today is the summer solstice. Today is the brightest and longest day of the year, yet it is the darkest.

    Last one – not dated.

    Last night I had a good talk with Ryan Burns. He’s a great guy. I’d like to see him again soon, so hopefully,

    Work was hard today, I thought a lot about Travis. I’ve come down hard on myself for missing his funeral. I know he probably wouldn’t mind although truthfully, I can hear the T-Dogg, now, “wow, wow, that hurts.” (smiley face) I miss his ranting. I can’t believe all of this still.

    Thanks SJ for letting me post this.

    • Carol, I have had trouble today getting JAII to load properly, and more trouble still posting (crossing fingers for this one!)

      I just want to thank you for posting this, and for having the intestinal fortitude to keep tabs on the Hating Liars Network for us!

      These journal entries of Jodi’s break my heart for her all over again.

      • Journee, I had the same problems all day.

        I recommend reading the Mother Theresa quote that Carol posted on the Write to Jodi page if you haven’t already ~

  18. This trial is only to determine sentencing or life vs. death. I agree with the media blackout and probably a media blackout would be a good idea for all capital murder cases. The record is taken by the court reporter or the court videographer. Transcripts are public records. No need to sensationalize via daily coverage on T.V. I am against cameras in the courtroom. And the first trial was a circus, not a proper trial.

  19. Last night I was scared too. The site was disabled somewhat, but you’re all back. I was wondering if NG was ever going to stop, but since Friday, all has been quiet but nightly shows starting tonight. Jodi broke my heart too.

  20. Alan,

    Obviously I understand that murder is a felony.

    You wrote:
    “If a FM charge were based on burglary with X = intent to kill, then, as I say, there’d be no point in making it, since it would imply premed murder and it would be simpler just to charge and prove the latter. As Nurmi said, the FM charge would be “an empty vessel.” ”

    But that’s exactly what JM argued before Stephens on January 17, 2013.

    We all know that JM presented many conflicting, inconsistent POSSIBILITIES in his closing arguments, but closing arguments are not evidence, and just because he made them certainly does not mean that the arguments were consistent with each other OR that they were proved independently. The fact that he did float several different possible interpretations of Burglary – you suggest there were “three” – proves that JM didn’t have much conviction about any of them. The fact that the vote for FM was NOT unanimous, as you point out, IS an indication that there was probably confusion as to the interpretation of that charge. I have simply commented, and will continue to assert, “And, with good reason.”

    And I do not agree, (as you can see based on my post from yesterday), that “There isn’t any reason why murder couldn’t be “any theft or felony” in second-degree burglary.”

    If that were the case, the FM charge wouldn’t read, in its second point, right under the heading:

    “2. In the course of and in furtherance of committing Burglary in the Second Degree, or in immediate flight from it, the defendant caused the death of any person” –

    …because if the Burglary in the Second Degree were in and of itself to include murder, point #2 would, in addition to theft or assault mean:

    2. In the course of and in furtherance of committing [murder], the defendant caused the death of any person,

    I am saying that charges CAN be circular, not merely IN LIGHT OF EACH OTHER, but ALSO if the law is to be interpreted in this redundant, “the end justifies the means” fashion.

    And consider that, in discussing this charge with Stephens and Nurmi trial day nine, JM said that Jodi brought a knife AND a gun.

    Nurmi states:
    “This is either a case of premeditated murder or it’s not (…) because these are the same events”.

    JM states:
    “On May 28, of 2008…the defendant staged a burglary of her own home to steal the murder weapon, so that she could kill Mr. Alexander”.

    After mentioning hair color and the car rental, etc., JM goes on to assert:

    “In addition to bringing a gun, she also brought a knife.”

    Then he argues that the knife attack preceded the gun being fired:

    “And it is the state’s position that she stabbed him first”.

    JM then cites Horn’s autopsy findings this way:

    “And it’s based on what the Medical Examiner’s, uh, told us, Kevin Horn, as to what would happen if the shot would have been first: We would not have had that crime scene. And so, once she begins stabbing him, it’s not a situation where she stopped”.

    So JM is arguing that Jodi killed him with the knife, and that there were no pauses in the fight. He concludes:

    “She killed him three times over. And that also can be factored into the premeditation aspect.”

    That Jodi killed TA “three times” is an impossibility, yet he makes that assertion in support of this Felony Murder charge, and through the course of the trial, ad nauseam.

    Again, when a prosecutor alleges, states or argues a point in a court of law before a judge and/or a jury, we are not obligated, nor is it the jury’s duty or obligation to twist logic, physics, and/or to try to reverse engineer the passage of time in order to make sense FROM it.

    We don’t know why all of the jurors voted for PM but only seven voted for FM. Why pursue a justification for these supposititious charges in order to try to make sense of THAT?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Latest News

Go to Top