Tomorrow murder defendant Jodi Arias will be back on the witness stand, while Prosecutor Juan Martinez continues his cross examination of the 32 year old woman standing trial for first degree murder for killing ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander on June 4, 2008.
Martinez has only just begun his cross examination of Arias, who testified in her own defense for 7 days and her statements went mostly uncontested. The prosecutor came out swinging, and has already started to tear apart some of the more hideous of allegations Arias has made about Travis Alexander including the allegation that she walked in on Alexander "pleasuring himself" to the photo of a 5-6 year old boy on January 21, 2008. According to her testimony, following that alleged incident, Travis Alexander became increasingly aggressive and physical with her and on January 22, 2008 he "body slammed" her to the ground, kicked her in the ribs and left finger.
In a dramatic moment during the trial, Arias raised her left hand and displayed a visibly bent left ring finger for the jury. She claims this finger was broken when she raised her hand to defend her face from Travis Alexander's foot - she claims he kicked her. Juan Martinez has produced photos of Arias and her sister Angela in which her left hand is prominently displayed around the shoulder of her sister, and the finger appears completely normal - not disfigured as it appeared when she raised it for the jury during her direct examination.
In addition, Martinez produced entries from Arias's own journal or diary from this crucial time period. She writes "I haven't written because there is nothing noteworthy to report" - the entry is from January 24, 2008. Wouldn't be getting body slammed and kicked in the ribs and hand be "noteworthy"? And more importantly, IF she had truly caught Mr. Alexander in that compromising position on January 21, 2008 I believe she would have written something about that. Her explanation has been that she never would have written about the violence or what she saw Travis doing because she wanted to protect his reputation. Is the jury buying this story? Martinez is doing a good job so far in providing actual phone records that do not match Arias's account for January 21 when she claims he was calling her frantically, and she didn't answer those calls. He is showing that the likelihood of these events having happened seems little to none. The phone records don't support it, the text messages between the pair don't support her story and her own diary entries don't support it.
If the jury decides that Jodi Arias made these horrible stories up, how badly will they punish her? If these stories aren't true, what - if any part of her testimony can be believed? I think Ms. Arias is in big trouble and will have a difficult time wiggling out of the questions that are coming next week. I know I may sound very opinionated against Jodi Arias, and I'm really trying to be objective here, but I just didn't find her to be credible before the trial, and even less credible after her testimony. If she fabricated these stories about this 30 year old man, somebody who is not here to defend himself - and she is alleging just about the worst thing she could allege about a person, she'll get what's coming to her. Talk about adding insult to injury. Juries do not like feeling like they have been duped, and they are not stupid.
I've heard so many comparisons to the Casey Anthony case and what the jury decided on her case. The only thing this case has in common is the defendants are young, attractive and liars. The State of Florida couldn't say how little Caylee died, so it was very difficult to prove she was murdered, and how. This case doesn't have those problems. I don't believe Jodi Arias would have admitted to this killing, had it not been for those recovered photos and the bloody palm print that she couldn't dispute. She's already admitted on the stand, that she came up with the "two masked intruder" story to try to match the evidence the police had. I believe she's had a lot of time in jail to do her research, look at the evidence and build her defense by adding whatever she believes can't be disproven by the State. Ah, think again Jodi. Martinez is a tough prosecutor, and I believe he will try to expose as many inconsistencies as he has time to find.
The photo of Travis Alexander's closet is very telling. He was very neat, everything was arranged just so. Yet she expects the jury to believe that while being chased in a relatively small area, she had time to go into that closet, and somehow climb onto a step ladder or a shelf to grab a gun on a top shelf? Nothing was disturbed in that closet! Unless she took the time to straighten it up before she left, it's another thing that doesn't fit. She also described Travis as "chasing her", and when they ended up back in the bathroom where the fight originated, he grabbed her by the waist - taking a "linebacker" stance - (this she seems to clearly remember), and at this point they would've had to be close if he had her by the waist - and she held the gun up with both hands and pointed it at him. Wouldn't that have been right in his face?? The medical examiner stated this wasn't a point blank range gunshot wound, likely she was standing above him. I don't know how long Travis's arms are, but again - her story doesn't make sense.
She said after she shot him, "he kept coming" at her and screamed "I'm going to kill you b****". Would a person who was just shot in the head be able to speak, and continue pursing her? Doubtful. She testified that she wasn't even aware the shot hit him. If Travis was shot first, his head would've been bleeding quite a bit. She testified that he got on top of her, "he was a wrestler in high school", and this terrified her because she couldn't get out from underneath him. People who are lying tend to add a lot of detail, such as the high school wrestler comment. If he was on top of her, his head would've been dripping blood all over her. There's no way she didn't know she shot him, that is IF he was alive when she shot him, as she claims. This is all about that aggravating factor - that's why she has to insist the shot came first.
I realize people can black out, and they can block out things that are very traumatic for them. But since Arias remembers the smallest of details prior to, and immediately after killing him, it just seems to be too convenient and unlikely that she wouldn't remember pushing a knife with force into a human body, 27-29 times. And don't get me started about slicing his throat. That had to have been hard to do, yet she did it - and doesn't remember it. Convenient. I wish Travis Alexander were here to tell that jury how it made him feel when Jodi Arias was plunging that knife into his chest over and over and over. We've had to listen to Nurmi asking Arias "how did it make you feel when Travis said this..."
Lastly - the big surprise of the day last Thursday were definitely the magazines that had the messages, written in pencil and in code that Arias tried to get out to somebody during a jailhouse visit. This is the first I've heard of the magazines, and it was quite a moment when Juan Martinez had Jodi Arias read each sentence separately - and then together. They made sense when you put it all together, and seemed to point to Arias trying to have somebody alter their testimony to fit what she had been telling her attorneys for the last year. Wow, talk about a catch! Thank you for all the great comments. I really enjoy reading them and talking to others about this case! Can't wait to see what happens tomorrow and next week. This trial has been full of drama, and surprises. Have a great weekend!