Murder defendant Jodi Arias has reportedly been "tweeting" from behind bars. Fox News.com is reporting that Arias, through former jailhouse buddy Donavan Bering has been sending tweets to her 1600 "followers" on Twitter. Although the Maricopa County Sherriff's Office is aware of this activity, they say there is nothing they can do about it. The Twitter account is not Arias's. Arias speaks to Bering frequently via phone, and Arias gives her updates and messages to send to her supporters. On Wednesday night, Bering reportedly posted a link to what is being described as Arias's "personal website", where she continues to hold auctions for her jailhouse artwork. Why is this being allowed? Why aren't they taking any and all proceeds and putting any gains towards her $1.4 million dollar defense?
Yesterday in court, a reference was made to a "manifesto" written by Arias - apparently she wrote it in the event that she was ever famous. She may be infamous now, but for all the wrong reasons. Some of the tweets from Arias appear to be directed towards prosecutor Juan Martinez. She wrote "Hmm... anger management problems anyone?", and "those afflicted with "Little Man's Syndrome" taint society's perception of genuinely good men who happen to be vertically challenged". Looks like Arias believes she is not only a photographer, an artist but now a poet? She also had a message for HLN's Nancy Grace, who pointed out that Arias appeared to be flipping the bird to Dr. Richard Samuels one day in court - this was her own defense expert. Arias tweeted "Actually Nancy, that finger was for you. Have a nice day".
During the redirect of defense expert Alyce LaViolette yesterday by Jennifer Willmott, in stark contrast to her combative and non-responsive replies to the prosecutor's questions, she suddenly was able to answer yes or no questions when asked, and her tone was notably more cooperative - is the jury noticing these details? It has been reported that jury questions for LaViolette have been piling up, and given that LaViolette seems to give 5 minute answers for every question, she could rack up another $3,000.00 in court appearance testimony fees answering jury questions. Is it just me, or has LaViolette bordered on contempt of court in her refusal to answer the prosecutor's questions as instructed? She addresses the Judge, which seems highly inappropriate in any court room.
Also disclosed during yesterday's proceedings: Alyce LaViolette's revealed that Jodi Arias told her that she shot Travis Alexander IN THE CLOSET, not in the bathroom as she testified under oath. Even when presented with the facts that Jodi Arias lied to her own defense expert Richard Samuels, and she told a different account of where the gunshot occurred to LaViolette - she still believes Jodi Arias has no pattern of lying. This expert has provided little more than a one-sided assessment that assumed that everything Jodi Arias said was the absolute truth. She never sought out the opinions of Travis Alexander's family or friends, the people who knew him the best in an effort to substantiate any of her findings. She blatantly has ignored Travis's own words that he was in fear of Arias near the end of his life, she chose to believe that Jodi's own father lied to Detective Flores, insinuating that he had reason to not tell the truth because he too was abusive to Jodi. If LaViolette wanted to, she could have interviewed "Travis's women", she could have spoken to Travis's friends, his family and Jodi Arias's family. Since she did none of those things, I have to believe that her assessment is invalid because it's one sided and 100% based on Arias's accounts on what happened.
How can an expert do this? LaViolette was hired to find abuse. Let's face facts, she wouldn't be up there testifying if she didn't come to the conclusions that she came to. But how can she honestly testify that Jodi was truthful and Travis wasn't? That's quite a leap, and she's taken many leaps in this case. If only LaViolette could admit that some of the things Arias did were questionable, and if she could admit that her assessment may be flawed if Jodi Arias was not truthful with her. She can't bring herself to even admit that - she is 100% certain of everything she has said. She loses credibility with her inflexible views and her double standards about Jodi's "family of origin" issues, and how can she say that Arias peering through Travis Alexander's window while he was with another woman was not stalking? Was she invited for a peep show? Or does Alyce believe since Arias had the code to Travis's garage and his e-mail password, and in one text message he tells her to "make herself at home", that she is free to spy on him?
Will LaViolette's apparent bias against Travis Alexander backfire on the defense? I suspect it may, based largely on the fact that she failed to seek out any other witnesses, family or friends of either party before reaching her conclusions. I don't believe it was fair of her to assume that Aria's own father had any motive to lie about his daughter being untruthful with her parents. It was not fair for her to discount Travis's fear of Jodi based on the fact that he continued to see her. Jodi Arias claims Travis was abusive and she was afraid of him but she continued to see him. What's the difference? According to Alyce, it's completely normal for a battered woman to continue to return to her abuser. Sure sounds like a double standard to me.
The angry text message from Travis Alexander to Jodi Arias tells the story about how he was feeling towards her in the last days/weeks of his life. "You are absolutely the worst thing that ever happened to me". "I want you to understand how evil I think you are", Travis wrote to Arias. During her redirect, Jennifer Willmott argued that if Travis was fearful of Jodi, would he likely be able to fall asleep next to her in his bed? LaViolette reiterated that she didn't feel he was fearful. If you apply that same standard to Arias, if SHE was so afraid of Travis Alexander, why would she drive through the night from Pasadena to Mesa and fall asleep next to her batterer? They can't have it both ways folks! Yet Arias is using the statistics that many abused women never report the physical abuse as a shield to support her lack of evidence that he ever laid a hand on her. She's using "The Law of Attraction" as an excuse for why she never wrote in her trusty journal about the abuse. It's weak, and it won't work.
I'm sounding like a broken record on this issue, but EVEN IF you believe Arias was kicked, choked and abused by Travis Alexander - by law, her self defense claim is invalid. If somebody slaps you, by law you cannot shoot and stab them. You can only use enough force necessary to neutralize the immediate danger. You cannot continue to stab somebody who is no longer a threat to you. And she certainly had no justifiable reason to slit his throat. Is this how a "reasonable" person would respond to a linebacker lunge? We now know that Arias had some karate lessons, and Ryan Burns has testified that she's a lot stronger than she appears. For those people who don't believe Arias would have been able to drag a much heavier Travis Alexander back into the shower, there is a story on Fox News 15.com today about a man in Oregon who was pinned under a 3,000 pound tractor - his 14 and 16 year old daughters were able to lift it enough for him to wiggle out! Adrenaline is a powerful thing.
Court is supposed to start at 10:30AM PST today. Given the repeated delays and late starts, I hope Judge Stephens clamps down on both sides and urges them to move forward with this trial. They were already talking about dates in May in relation to this trial! I heard yesterday that there may be one more defense witness following LaViolette - although I haven't been able to verify that.
Great job yesterday by prosecutor Juan Martinez, who was very effective and lost nothing with his toned down style. Have a great day! Updates to follow....