My apologies in advance, this blog entry is very light on trial news and heavy on outrage! It's no secret that Jodi Arias has practically incorporated during her incarceration and trial. It appears to me that at times she is actually drawing during the proceedings! If this bothers you as much as it bothers me, I urge you to sign this petition at Change.org to urge Wordpress to stop these sales:
https://www.change.org/petitions/http-ma-tt-and-http-wordpress-org-stop-the-sale-of-art-by-jodi-arias#share
I'm certain the Alexander family is aware of Arias' jailhouse business and they have got to be fuming. Although I have a difficult time understanding how this type of activity can be conducted from behind bars, apparently all it takes is a friend on the outside to run her website and peddle her wares. She is making a mockery of our entire criminal justice system, almost a "catch me if you can" type of taunting via Twitter and the thousands of dollars she's raking in from murderabilia sales.
First things first - the criminal trial is more important than anything else here but again, I seriously hope she gets slapped with a wrongful death suit to ensure ANY money she makes off this tragedy goes to the victims family. I'll get off my soap box now but this really gets to me! There are enough stories on the Internet about Arias selling her artwork now that I'm hoping some of the stats will be brought to the court and jury's attention during the penalty phase of this trial. So this is what she was doing during her own trial?
It's a good thing this trial is coming to an end, because the jurors are starting to drop like flies. Juror #8 is the latest, and he was reportedly nicknamed "the CEO" and a likely candidate for jury foreman. There are still 15 jurors left, and with closing arguments less than a week away I think the jury will make it. The big question is, what will we hear in the form of this surrebuttal witness on Wednesday? Judge Stephens made it very clear that all testimony will be completed on Wednesday, regardless of how late they need to stay. I can't say I'd be surprised if the defense takes 90% of the allotted time and leaves Juan Martinez with 15 minutes for cross examination. What can this THIRD expert tell us we haven't already heard? Does the defense think this is going to make that big of an impact on the jurors?
This is no longer a battle of the experts. This trial will boil down to the defendant's credibility. Will 18 days of testifying in her own words be her undoing? Arias has looked the jurors in the eyes and lied to them, under oath. It may have ONLY been a gas can return, but it calls everything else into question. Why did she have to lie about returning a 5 gallon gas can? Under oath means under oath, regardless of how small the detail is that you are testifying about is. There are no "little white lies" in court (oh I can hear Alyce LaViolette's voice in my head....).
With a 5 day break in the court proceedings and a potential verdict on the horizon, my thoughts and prayers are with Travis Alexander's family and friends. They have been living this nightmare for almost 5 years now, patiently waiting for the wheels of justice to turn. They have shown up every day in that court room, they've been asked to shut down their reactions and emotions and they have had to endure hearing horrible stories told about the brother they knew and loved. They deserved the truth, but that's not what they got. At least there is still the hope that they will receive justice.
I hope you have a fabulous weekend!
MY CRIMETIME BY MY FORTE. A DISCUSSION OF MURDERS IN THE NEWS.
*UPDATED* Another Arias Juror Dismissed
*Updated to include information on the mysterious dismissal of Juror #8. Radaronline.com is reporting that 52 year old Daniel Gibbs was arrested for "an extreme DUI" on April 20. Gibbs apparently told the arresting officer that he was a member of the Arias jury panel. The arresting officer met with Judge Stephens on Tuesday in a closed-door meeting and Juror #8 was dismissed on Friday.
In an abbreviated court session today, medical examiner Kevin Horn returned to the witness stand in the Jodi Arias murder trial. Prosecutor Juan Martinez guided the jury through Travis Alexander's wounds, with Horn describing the effect each of the major injuries would have likely had on him. The defense has insisted that Arias shot Alexander as he was preparing to attack her. She testified that the gunshot came as somewhat of a surprise as she believed the gun, which she claims was Travis' to be unloaded. Does it make a whole lot of sense to point a person's unloaded gun at them? Hmmm. (blunder #1 of many).
Martinez and Horn discussed the effect a .25 caliber gunshot would have to a person's head at great lengths. Horn said the gunshot, while not fatal would have incapacitated him "within seconds", rendering him unable to perform "purposeful actions". Arias testified that after she shot Travis, he became more angry and aggressive towards her - (blunder #2). Then the fog rolled in and Arias doesn't have any memory of slashing him 29 times and cutting his throat from ear to ear. Mr. Martinez asked Dr. Horn if it would be possible for a person who had been shot in the head to continue to advance towards a person, and Horn said "no". If the person were walking forward, their momentum may take them another few steps before falling.
They showed the graphic crime scene and autopsy photos, it never gets easier for the family to see. It's heart wrenching to see their agony as these photos are displayed. Arias appeared to be crying, or dabbing her eyes and nose with a tissue while keeping her head down - but again the camera caught her staring at one of those graphic photos. Off the charts on the creepy scale. The photos of deep slash wounds to his hands were shown. Horn testified they were consistent with a person raising their hands in a defensive posture. "Would he have been able to raise his hands to protect himself if the gunshot came first?," Martinez asked. "No", Horn answered. They went through the major injuries including what the state believes was the first injury, the deep stab wound to his chest. Martinez went through any possible scenario in which the defensive wounds could have occurred if he had been shot first as Arias claims. Jennifer Willmott handled the cross examination, and quickly pounced on that inconsistency early on in the investigation where Detective Flores stated that Dr. Horn believed the gunshot had been the first wound.
She poured it on thick, challenging Dr. Horn's memory of his testimony given in court in early January. He didn't recall his exact testimony and she was quick to point out each and every inconsistency or misstatement. "Didn't you testify originally that the gunshot wouldn't have immediately incapacitated Travis?", Horn clarified that the gunshot wouldn't have been immediately fatal, but it would incapacitate him within seconds. Willmott did her job in pointing these issues out, but it doesn't change the facts. She questioned if the bullet's entry into his head could have caused him to bleed into his nasal cavity, which would then cause the blood to aspirate out as seen on the bathroom mirrors and sink? Horn didn't believe he would have been able to stand at the sink!
It was like a tennis match, back and forth. They discussed the decomposition of the brain at autopsy and how that may have effected his findings about exactly how much damage that gunshot did to his brain. I took the following away from this testimony: it seems highly improbable that Travis was shot first, although to me it doesn't make much difference because it was so violent and horrendous that "overkill" seems to be an understatement. Travis would not have had the capacity or ability to raise his hands to try to thwart the knife attack he was under if he had been shot in the head first. That really is the crux of the issue. Which makes Arias' story all the more ludicrous, that the gunshot only made Travis more angry and he actually was able to speak in her scenario, allegedly threatening to kill her.
It's just been reported that another juror has been dismissed for unknown reasons. Juror #8 is said to be the latest of the three jurors to be dismissed from the 4 1/2 month long trial. That's actually not bad, considering the length of this trial. Thankfully with only a week until closing arguments, it seems likely they will still have jurors plus a few alternates. The woman Travis Alexander reportedly bought that engagement ring for has broken her silence, appearing on Nancy Grace this evening to talk about Travis. I missed a good portion of this as I was not aware she was a guest. Her name is Linda Ballard Boss and she is somebody that Travis planned on proposing to at one point. He even purchased that ring, and held on to it for years after the two had parted ways. She told Nancy Grace that Travis is not at all what the defense is making him out to be. "He was funny, he never showed anger with me" and she called him a happy-go-lucky guy who loved to make people laugh. She was in love with Travis and vice versa. She reportedly saw Travis for the last time in October of 2006 when the two went to the Arizona State Fair together. "Travis loved roller coasters", Ballard Boss said. During that outing, Travis told her about a woman he had began to date - Jodi Arias. He told her that Arias was a pathological liar, and that he had caught her in several lies relating to stories she told him of her ex-boyfriends. Hmmm...anybody seeing a pattern here?
So that's it folks. Jury, you are being asked to take the word of a pathological liar. She's lied to you, under oath. At the very least, please scrutinize every story she's told. Look at the evidence. What makes sense and what does not make sense? How many coincidences do you believe there could be over such a brief period of time? If she lied about taking a gas can back to WalMart, what else is she lying about? Do you believe that gun was not her grandfather's stolen gun? Is it likely that Travis Alexander kept a gun in his house that nobody knew about, with no ammo, no holster or gun cleaning kit? And why would he keep it loose up on the top shelf of his closet instead of somewhere more logical? Why did Arias try so hard to fly under the radar on her "detour" to Mesa? Do you really think a dropped camera could provoke such an angry response from a man who took somebody trashing his BMW in stride? Is their a history of these types of allegations from the other women in Travis' life? What about his friends and room mates? There is so much for them to consider.
The surrebuttal case begins on Wednesday, expected to be a mini-marathon court session that will last "until we are finished" according to Judge Stephens. Enjoy your weekends everybody! Justice is around the corner. Can you see it?
In an abbreviated court session today, medical examiner Kevin Horn returned to the witness stand in the Jodi Arias murder trial. Prosecutor Juan Martinez guided the jury through Travis Alexander's wounds, with Horn describing the effect each of the major injuries would have likely had on him. The defense has insisted that Arias shot Alexander as he was preparing to attack her. She testified that the gunshot came as somewhat of a surprise as she believed the gun, which she claims was Travis' to be unloaded. Does it make a whole lot of sense to point a person's unloaded gun at them? Hmmm. (blunder #1 of many).
Martinez and Horn discussed the effect a .25 caliber gunshot would have to a person's head at great lengths. Horn said the gunshot, while not fatal would have incapacitated him "within seconds", rendering him unable to perform "purposeful actions". Arias testified that after she shot Travis, he became more angry and aggressive towards her - (blunder #2). Then the fog rolled in and Arias doesn't have any memory of slashing him 29 times and cutting his throat from ear to ear. Mr. Martinez asked Dr. Horn if it would be possible for a person who had been shot in the head to continue to advance towards a person, and Horn said "no". If the person were walking forward, their momentum may take them another few steps before falling.
They showed the graphic crime scene and autopsy photos, it never gets easier for the family to see. It's heart wrenching to see their agony as these photos are displayed. Arias appeared to be crying, or dabbing her eyes and nose with a tissue while keeping her head down - but again the camera caught her staring at one of those graphic photos. Off the charts on the creepy scale. The photos of deep slash wounds to his hands were shown. Horn testified they were consistent with a person raising their hands in a defensive posture. "Would he have been able to raise his hands to protect himself if the gunshot came first?," Martinez asked. "No", Horn answered. They went through the major injuries including what the state believes was the first injury, the deep stab wound to his chest. Martinez went through any possible scenario in which the defensive wounds could have occurred if he had been shot first as Arias claims. Jennifer Willmott handled the cross examination, and quickly pounced on that inconsistency early on in the investigation where Detective Flores stated that Dr. Horn believed the gunshot had been the first wound.
She poured it on thick, challenging Dr. Horn's memory of his testimony given in court in early January. He didn't recall his exact testimony and she was quick to point out each and every inconsistency or misstatement. "Didn't you testify originally that the gunshot wouldn't have immediately incapacitated Travis?", Horn clarified that the gunshot wouldn't have been immediately fatal, but it would incapacitate him within seconds. Willmott did her job in pointing these issues out, but it doesn't change the facts. She questioned if the bullet's entry into his head could have caused him to bleed into his nasal cavity, which would then cause the blood to aspirate out as seen on the bathroom mirrors and sink? Horn didn't believe he would have been able to stand at the sink!
It was like a tennis match, back and forth. They discussed the decomposition of the brain at autopsy and how that may have effected his findings about exactly how much damage that gunshot did to his brain. I took the following away from this testimony: it seems highly improbable that Travis was shot first, although to me it doesn't make much difference because it was so violent and horrendous that "overkill" seems to be an understatement. Travis would not have had the capacity or ability to raise his hands to try to thwart the knife attack he was under if he had been shot in the head first. That really is the crux of the issue. Which makes Arias' story all the more ludicrous, that the gunshot only made Travis more angry and he actually was able to speak in her scenario, allegedly threatening to kill her.
It's just been reported that another juror has been dismissed for unknown reasons. Juror #8 is said to be the latest of the three jurors to be dismissed from the 4 1/2 month long trial. That's actually not bad, considering the length of this trial. Thankfully with only a week until closing arguments, it seems likely they will still have jurors plus a few alternates. The woman Travis Alexander reportedly bought that engagement ring for has broken her silence, appearing on Nancy Grace this evening to talk about Travis. I missed a good portion of this as I was not aware she was a guest. Her name is Linda Ballard Boss and she is somebody that Travis planned on proposing to at one point. He even purchased that ring, and held on to it for years after the two had parted ways. She told Nancy Grace that Travis is not at all what the defense is making him out to be. "He was funny, he never showed anger with me" and she called him a happy-go-lucky guy who loved to make people laugh. She was in love with Travis and vice versa. She reportedly saw Travis for the last time in October of 2006 when the two went to the Arizona State Fair together. "Travis loved roller coasters", Ballard Boss said. During that outing, Travis told her about a woman he had began to date - Jodi Arias. He told her that Arias was a pathological liar, and that he had caught her in several lies relating to stories she told him of her ex-boyfriends. Hmmm...anybody seeing a pattern here?
So that's it folks. Jury, you are being asked to take the word of a pathological liar. She's lied to you, under oath. At the very least, please scrutinize every story she's told. Look at the evidence. What makes sense and what does not make sense? How many coincidences do you believe there could be over such a brief period of time? If she lied about taking a gas can back to WalMart, what else is she lying about? Do you believe that gun was not her grandfather's stolen gun? Is it likely that Travis Alexander kept a gun in his house that nobody knew about, with no ammo, no holster or gun cleaning kit? And why would he keep it loose up on the top shelf of his closet instead of somewhere more logical? Why did Arias try so hard to fly under the radar on her "detour" to Mesa? Do you really think a dropped camera could provoke such an angry response from a man who took somebody trashing his BMW in stride? Is their a history of these types of allegations from the other women in Travis' life? What about his friends and room mates? There is so much for them to consider.
The surrebuttal case begins on Wednesday, expected to be a mini-marathon court session that will last "until we are finished" according to Judge Stephens. Enjoy your weekends everybody! Justice is around the corner. Can you see it?
Arias Judge Rules In Favor Of Defense - Dr. Robert Geffner Will Testify
There were several important announcements made by Judge Sherry Stephens relating to the marathon murder trial of Jodi Arias. Yesterday the Judge announced out the trial's schedule for the next two weeks and told the jury closing arguments would begin next Thursday, May 1st and conclude on Friday May 2nd.
Today (Thursday) there will be a short court session, but Judge Stephens told the jury to expect a long day next Wednesday, telling them "we will begin at 9:00AM and stay until testimony has concluded - even if it goes beyond 5:00PM." The jury is expected to officially get the case by late Friday May 2, 2013.
This morning, abcnews.com reported Judge Sherry Stephens has ruled in favor of allowing testimony from a third defense expert witness, Dr. Robert Geffner from San Diego, California. With the tight time frame set forth by Judge Stephens I'd expect this expert's testimony to be very limited in scope. But this can be considered a small victory for the defense, as requests for surrebuttal witnesses are rarely granted - I don't have the details around the Judge's decision to allow in this testimony, nor do I know when, how or why Dr. Geffner became involved in this case. However, he is said to be an associate of Alyce LaViolette. Do I need to say any more? Will this expert's opinion ultimately make a difference at this point in the trial? Has Judge Stephens gone overboard in an effort to avoid appellate issues down the line?
Testimony started late yesterday, and after Judge Stephens explained the trial schedule the prosecution called two additional rebuttal witnesses to the stand. First up was Robert Brown, a computer forensics detective from the Mesa PD. He testified about photos he recovered from Jodi Arias' Helio cellphone that showed close-ups of Jodi Arias with brown hair. It appeared the photos were taken by Arias inside of the car she was driving. The photos were taken on June 3, 2008 between 2:12PM-2:21PM - was Arias taking photos of her newly colored hair? The time the photos were taken suggests it was after her alleged nail appointment, however there were no photos taken of her freshly polished nails. The jury will have to decide whether Arias' two hour trip to a salon was more likely to have her nails done or have her hair colored. Detective Brown explained how the photos were recovered from the cellphone and how the phone's technology allowed him to pinpoint when the photos were taken.
Detective Esteban Flores was called back to the stand as the next rebuttal witness. We've all come to know Flores as the person quietly seated next to Prosecutor Juan Martinez throughout the trial, and the detective who did a masterful job in interviewing Arias before and after her arrest. OK, I admit it - I DO like Detective Flores. I think the way he handled Arias was admirable. He was respectful yet stern, patient and even kind to her in trying to extract some truth from Jodi Arias. Flores testified that on March 5, 2013 he returned to Travis Alexander's Mesa home to take some measurements of the closet where Arias allegedly retrieved Travis' gun. He explained that three of the bottom shelves had been moved out of their original position as depicted in the crime scene photos - he moved them back to match the way they were on June 4, 2008.
The photos were eerie to me. The once tidy closet full of suits, jeans and shoes was nearly empty. It was sad. Juan Martinez showed photos of how these "floating" shelves are held into place by 4 small round metal pins. We all know how these types of shelving units work. It can be frustrating to use them because they aren't built to handle a lot of weight. Another photo showed the effect on the shelf when Flores rested his hand on the edge - surprise, surprise - the shelf tipped towards him. The next photos showed the measurement from the closet floor to the top shelf, which measured around 7 feet tall from top to bottom. It was 8 feet from the floor to the ceiling. Martinez asked if Detective Flores or any other member of the police department found any evidence during the original search of the home that would lead him to believe that Travis or any of his roommates owned or kept a gun at the house. He said they found no such evidence. No holster, no bullets of any caliber, no boxes, no gun cleaning kit - nothing to suggest a firearm was kept at the residence. Martinez asked Flores if the home's attic was searched after the murder. Flores said it had been searched and explained the locations they gained access to the attic. He further testified that the Mesa PD didn't find anything stored in the attic - no boxes, which contradicts another Arias story about helping Travis retrieve something from a box stored in his attic. Remember, it was the little porcelain angel that Travis allegedly gave her that was retrieved from a box from the attic that she "forgot" - which brought her back to Travis' home on January 21, 2008 where she allegedly caught him in the act of pleasuring himself to the photo of a young boy.
Under cross examination by Kirk Nurmi, Detective Flores was asked if he measured any of the other parts of the shelving units, aside from the ones near where Arias claims she retrieved the gun. Flores said he hadn't. Nurmi to Flores: "you had the ability to take the measurements?". "Yes", said Flores. Nurmi's line of questioning moved from irrelevance to idiocy from there. "You heard Dr. DeMarte say Jodi Arias has a high IQ, right?" "Yes", Flores replied. Nurmi insinuated that since Arias was shown to have a fairly high IQ, she would have chosen a better location in the closet had she been lying about the gun and it's location. Again, they seem to take the problematic parts of Arias' stories and try to use them as evidence that she's telling the truth. This is what can happen when you put a client with a history of lying on the stand and let her talk for 18 days. This is what can happen when defense attorneys fail to question or test their client's stories. They had to have known those shelving units could not support her weight and given her height, is it even possible for her to reach the space where she said the gun was kept? Didn't they check this for themselves?
Kirk Nurmi tried to pull a fast one, asking Detective Flores about his interview with 48 Hours - didn't you say "something pushed or provoked her at the end"? Juan Martinez objected, all attorneys went to sidebar and that question was sustained. Then it was on to the jury questions for Detective Flores, I'm paraphrasing:
Were there any guns registered in Travis Alexander's name?
Did any of Travis' roommates own a gun?
What was the width and depth of the shelf where Arias retrieved the gun?
Was there anything stored in the attic when the house was searched?
Did it appear anything was ever stored in the attic?
Do you know what Jodi Arias' height, weight and shoe size was at the time of her booking?
Did you find any evidence of Travis ever owning a gun?
Did you find any empty boxes or containers that could have held a gun?
If Jodi raised her arm straight up in the air, do you know the measurement from her foot to fingertip?
As I mentioned on yesterday's post, Jodi Arias' grandmother was seated in the court room for the first time yesterday. She sat quietly next to Sandy Arias and appeared to be sad. Can you imagine, having your own grand daughter standing trial for first degree murder and facing a possible death sentence? Also knowing the gun used in the crime may have come from your own home must be unnerving to this elderly woman who took Arias in and allowed her to live with them in Yreka. The families on both sides of the court room are forever changed by the actions of this young woman. The Alexander family will never see Travis again. They will never attend his wedding, they will never have nieces, nephews or great grandchildren from Travis. They have been robbed of their future with him. Why do people take such severe and permanent action for temporary problems? How is a person driven to such extremes? I'm afraid that age-old line is true, there's a thin line between love and hate. Simplistic, yet true. Arias seemed to have crossed that line and there's no turning back.
Any sympathy I may have had for her has long since diminished, as I've listened to her testimony and watched her in court. I'm not sure she is even sorry that she killed him, but I'm certain she's sorry she got caught. The fact that she is now hawking her doodles and sketches to her followers and taking in an undetermined amount of money via donations shows me the kind of person we are dealing with. She is an opportunist. Her greed has gone well beyond wanting to help her family with travel-related expenses during the trial. She is taking full advantage of her notoriety and even the ban by eBay on sales of her artwork, telling her followers "it's raised the value of my art". Greed, pure and simple. That Arias is continuing to cash in on these things while on trial for her LIFE speaks volumes to her personality disorders! It's all about Jodi right now. And she's doing it under the watchful eye of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department. It's that in-your-face attitude that tells me she has no remorse. Judgement day is coming for Ms. Arias. I hear that she is "confident" she will be acquitted and is making plans for her future? This was reported by the editor of the National Enquirer on Nancy Grace's show last night. I usually take these stories with a grain of salt!
What are your thoughts on the Judge's decision to allow this surrebuttal witness? Do you think she will set strict limits around the scope of his testimony? Which side do you think is ahead going in to closing arguments? Please share your thoughts as the trial winds down!
Today (Thursday) there will be a short court session, but Judge Stephens told the jury to expect a long day next Wednesday, telling them "we will begin at 9:00AM and stay until testimony has concluded - even if it goes beyond 5:00PM." The jury is expected to officially get the case by late Friday May 2, 2013.
This morning, abcnews.com reported Judge Sherry Stephens has ruled in favor of allowing testimony from a third defense expert witness, Dr. Robert Geffner from San Diego, California. With the tight time frame set forth by Judge Stephens I'd expect this expert's testimony to be very limited in scope. But this can be considered a small victory for the defense, as requests for surrebuttal witnesses are rarely granted - I don't have the details around the Judge's decision to allow in this testimony, nor do I know when, how or why Dr. Geffner became involved in this case. However, he is said to be an associate of Alyce LaViolette. Do I need to say any more? Will this expert's opinion ultimately make a difference at this point in the trial? Has Judge Stephens gone overboard in an effort to avoid appellate issues down the line?
Testimony started late yesterday, and after Judge Stephens explained the trial schedule the prosecution called two additional rebuttal witnesses to the stand. First up was Robert Brown, a computer forensics detective from the Mesa PD. He testified about photos he recovered from Jodi Arias' Helio cellphone that showed close-ups of Jodi Arias with brown hair. It appeared the photos were taken by Arias inside of the car she was driving. The photos were taken on June 3, 2008 between 2:12PM-2:21PM - was Arias taking photos of her newly colored hair? The time the photos were taken suggests it was after her alleged nail appointment, however there were no photos taken of her freshly polished nails. The jury will have to decide whether Arias' two hour trip to a salon was more likely to have her nails done or have her hair colored. Detective Brown explained how the photos were recovered from the cellphone and how the phone's technology allowed him to pinpoint when the photos were taken.
Detective Esteban Flores was called back to the stand as the next rebuttal witness. We've all come to know Flores as the person quietly seated next to Prosecutor Juan Martinez throughout the trial, and the detective who did a masterful job in interviewing Arias before and after her arrest. OK, I admit it - I DO like Detective Flores. I think the way he handled Arias was admirable. He was respectful yet stern, patient and even kind to her in trying to extract some truth from Jodi Arias. Flores testified that on March 5, 2013 he returned to Travis Alexander's Mesa home to take some measurements of the closet where Arias allegedly retrieved Travis' gun. He explained that three of the bottom shelves had been moved out of their original position as depicted in the crime scene photos - he moved them back to match the way they were on June 4, 2008.
The photos were eerie to me. The once tidy closet full of suits, jeans and shoes was nearly empty. It was sad. Juan Martinez showed photos of how these "floating" shelves are held into place by 4 small round metal pins. We all know how these types of shelving units work. It can be frustrating to use them because they aren't built to handle a lot of weight. Another photo showed the effect on the shelf when Flores rested his hand on the edge - surprise, surprise - the shelf tipped towards him. The next photos showed the measurement from the closet floor to the top shelf, which measured around 7 feet tall from top to bottom. It was 8 feet from the floor to the ceiling. Martinez asked if Detective Flores or any other member of the police department found any evidence during the original search of the home that would lead him to believe that Travis or any of his roommates owned or kept a gun at the house. He said they found no such evidence. No holster, no bullets of any caliber, no boxes, no gun cleaning kit - nothing to suggest a firearm was kept at the residence. Martinez asked Flores if the home's attic was searched after the murder. Flores said it had been searched and explained the locations they gained access to the attic. He further testified that the Mesa PD didn't find anything stored in the attic - no boxes, which contradicts another Arias story about helping Travis retrieve something from a box stored in his attic. Remember, it was the little porcelain angel that Travis allegedly gave her that was retrieved from a box from the attic that she "forgot" - which brought her back to Travis' home on January 21, 2008 where she allegedly caught him in the act of pleasuring himself to the photo of a young boy.
Under cross examination by Kirk Nurmi, Detective Flores was asked if he measured any of the other parts of the shelving units, aside from the ones near where Arias claims she retrieved the gun. Flores said he hadn't. Nurmi to Flores: "you had the ability to take the measurements?". "Yes", said Flores. Nurmi's line of questioning moved from irrelevance to idiocy from there. "You heard Dr. DeMarte say Jodi Arias has a high IQ, right?" "Yes", Flores replied. Nurmi insinuated that since Arias was shown to have a fairly high IQ, she would have chosen a better location in the closet had she been lying about the gun and it's location. Again, they seem to take the problematic parts of Arias' stories and try to use them as evidence that she's telling the truth. This is what can happen when you put a client with a history of lying on the stand and let her talk for 18 days. This is what can happen when defense attorneys fail to question or test their client's stories. They had to have known those shelving units could not support her weight and given her height, is it even possible for her to reach the space where she said the gun was kept? Didn't they check this for themselves?
Kirk Nurmi tried to pull a fast one, asking Detective Flores about his interview with 48 Hours - didn't you say "something pushed or provoked her at the end"? Juan Martinez objected, all attorneys went to sidebar and that question was sustained. Then it was on to the jury questions for Detective Flores, I'm paraphrasing:
Were there any guns registered in Travis Alexander's name?
Did any of Travis' roommates own a gun?
What was the width and depth of the shelf where Arias retrieved the gun?
Was there anything stored in the attic when the house was searched?
Did it appear anything was ever stored in the attic?
Do you know what Jodi Arias' height, weight and shoe size was at the time of her booking?
Did you find any evidence of Travis ever owning a gun?
Did you find any empty boxes or containers that could have held a gun?
If Jodi raised her arm straight up in the air, do you know the measurement from her foot to fingertip?
As I mentioned on yesterday's post, Jodi Arias' grandmother was seated in the court room for the first time yesterday. She sat quietly next to Sandy Arias and appeared to be sad. Can you imagine, having your own grand daughter standing trial for first degree murder and facing a possible death sentence? Also knowing the gun used in the crime may have come from your own home must be unnerving to this elderly woman who took Arias in and allowed her to live with them in Yreka. The families on both sides of the court room are forever changed by the actions of this young woman. The Alexander family will never see Travis again. They will never attend his wedding, they will never have nieces, nephews or great grandchildren from Travis. They have been robbed of their future with him. Why do people take such severe and permanent action for temporary problems? How is a person driven to such extremes? I'm afraid that age-old line is true, there's a thin line between love and hate. Simplistic, yet true. Arias seemed to have crossed that line and there's no turning back.
Any sympathy I may have had for her has long since diminished, as I've listened to her testimony and watched her in court. I'm not sure she is even sorry that she killed him, but I'm certain she's sorry she got caught. The fact that she is now hawking her doodles and sketches to her followers and taking in an undetermined amount of money via donations shows me the kind of person we are dealing with. She is an opportunist. Her greed has gone well beyond wanting to help her family with travel-related expenses during the trial. She is taking full advantage of her notoriety and even the ban by eBay on sales of her artwork, telling her followers "it's raised the value of my art". Greed, pure and simple. That Arias is continuing to cash in on these things while on trial for her LIFE speaks volumes to her personality disorders! It's all about Jodi right now. And she's doing it under the watchful eye of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department. It's that in-your-face attitude that tells me she has no remorse. Judgement day is coming for Ms. Arias. I hear that she is "confident" she will be acquitted and is making plans for her future? This was reported by the editor of the National Enquirer on Nancy Grace's show last night. I usually take these stories with a grain of salt!
What are your thoughts on the Judge's decision to allow this surrebuttal witness? Do you think she will set strict limits around the scope of his testimony? Which side do you think is ahead going in to closing arguments? Please share your thoughts as the trial winds down!
Closing Arguments Set For 5/2 - 5/3 in Jodi Arias Murder Trial
(Judge Sherry Stephens just announced the trial schedule for this week and next week, closing arguments are now set for next Thursday and Friday - that's May 2nd and 3rd) Trial is beginning now, but there's a new face in the gallery on the Arias side - Jodi's grandmother is there today.)
It's day 53 of the Jodi Arias murder trial, for anybody out there who is keeping count - week #17. Should it come as a surprise to anyone that it's now 11:38AM PST and we are still seeing the Great Seal of The State of Arizona on the screen? Unfortunately we have almost come to expect this from the Jodi Arias trial.
The defense's request to allow the testimony of a surrebuttal witness has been bothering me. I'm not an attorney, nor do I have a legal background but it would seem to even a layperson that the basic rules of discovery around expert witness testimony would dictate that Arias' attorneys should not have been surprised by the borderline personality disorder diagnosis of the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Janeen DeMarte. If this is the case, why is Judge Stephens even entertaining the thought of allowing in a third expert for the defense?
The development of Dr. Robert Geffner as a potential third expert witness seems like sour grapes on the surface. Could the defense team have a bad case of buyer's remorse with Dr. Richard Samuels and Alyce LaViolette's testimony and opinions - perhaps they didn't get the bang for the buck they believed they would? I can't help but feel that if this trial were being conducted in a state where jury questions were not part of the process, we wouldn't be talking about Dr. Geffner or surrebuttal witnesses at all. Didn't the defense depose Dr. DeMarte before this trial even began? I did a little digging on the topic of written discovery of expert witness opinions and found the following:
Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the opposing party must disclose the identity of any expert witness. The mandatory disclosure must include the following, among other things:
It's day 53 of the Jodi Arias murder trial, for anybody out there who is keeping count - week #17. Should it come as a surprise to anyone that it's now 11:38AM PST and we are still seeing the Great Seal of The State of Arizona on the screen? Unfortunately we have almost come to expect this from the Jodi Arias trial.
The defense's request to allow the testimony of a surrebuttal witness has been bothering me. I'm not an attorney, nor do I have a legal background but it would seem to even a layperson that the basic rules of discovery around expert witness testimony would dictate that Arias' attorneys should not have been surprised by the borderline personality disorder diagnosis of the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Janeen DeMarte. If this is the case, why is Judge Stephens even entertaining the thought of allowing in a third expert for the defense?
The development of Dr. Robert Geffner as a potential third expert witness seems like sour grapes on the surface. Could the defense team have a bad case of buyer's remorse with Dr. Richard Samuels and Alyce LaViolette's testimony and opinions - perhaps they didn't get the bang for the buck they believed they would? I can't help but feel that if this trial were being conducted in a state where jury questions were not part of the process, we wouldn't be talking about Dr. Geffner or surrebuttal witnesses at all. Didn't the defense depose Dr. DeMarte before this trial even began? I did a little digging on the topic of written discovery of expert witness opinions and found the following:
Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the opposing party must disclose the identity of any expert witness. The mandatory disclosure must include the following, among other things:
- A complete statement of all opinions and conclusions to be expressed by the expert witness
- The basis and reason for each opinion
- The data or other information used by the expert in formulating the opinions
- The exhibits to be used as a summary in support of the opinions
- The qualifications of the witness
- A list of any cases over the last four years in which the expert has testified or been deposed
- A list of any publications authored by the expert over the last 10 years
What am I missing? Where is the new evidence Dr. DeMarte brought in? If you happen to know more about why they have filed this motion, please fill us all in. Again, I'd love to know when how and why Dr. Geffner became involved to begin with - given DeMarte just left the stand a few days ago. Who will we see taking the witness stand today when court finally resumes? There has been some discussion around Arias' bank account activity around the time of her road trip to Mesa/Utah. Did she have more cash on hand than she claims she did?
I've always wondered why Arias inquired about the check she sent to Travis shortly before his murder - early on in the investigation, she asked Detective Flores if he knew when (or if) that check would be deposited. Could it be that she never expected it to be cashed or deposited? Another tidbit to think about. I know if somebody I loved had been killed, or even died of natural causes, the last thing on my mind would be an outstanding check! There has also been talk about Arias stopping for an impromptu nail appointment, and why the appointment reportedly took more than 2 hours. I'm not sure who they will call to testify today, but it seems that Juan Martinez never calls an unnecessary witness. He always keeps the bigger picture in mind so I have to believe there's a good reason for whoever he calls in.
Will Judge Stephens allow the defense to call in another witness? If the state offered up brand new evidence via Dr. DeMarte that's one thing, but anything short of that would be unfair to the prosecution who has played by the rules and presented a fairly straightforward case. You don't get a "do-over" just because you feel you've failed to convince the jurors - even in a death penalty case! What will happen today? I noticed that for the most part during yesterday's testimony, Arias appeared unaware or uninterested in the proceedings until the questions to Travis Alexander's ex girlfriend Deanna Reid turned to marriage and sex. At one point she looked up and her eyes got wide, I thought I caught her smiling when Reid testified that she broke off her relationship with Travis because he wasn't ready for marriage and she was.
I believe court resumes today at 1:30PM (PST). Enjoy your day!
Did Kirk Nurmi Cross The Line In Questions To Travis Alexander's Ex?
We are another day closer to closing arguments in the Jodi Arias murder trial as the state continued their rebuttal case with some powerful testimony from one of Travis' close friends, an ex girlfriend, a representative from WalMart and a member of the Mesa police departments forensics unit.
Jacob Mefford was a close friend of Travis Alexander who recounted on the witness stand that Travis was affectionate with Jodi on many occasions. He is the owner of the clip that has been televised where Travis is sitting on his couch with Arias' curled up with her head on his lap. Friends are there and he recounts a traumatic near death experience where a gun was held to his head. The jury saw that clip today, although they were not allowed to hear the audio. What Juan Martinez got out of Meddford's testimony is that contrary to how the defense has portrayed Travis and Jodi's in-pubic relationship, his friends did in fact see them being affectionate towards each other.
A representative from WalMart took the stand and testified that the store had no record of any returns for the 5 gallon gas can Arias insists she took back on June 3, 2008. The representative further stated that she searched the register records for more than a week and the record of the return does not exist. Could WalMart be wrong, or did Jodi Arias lie to the jury under oath? This was crucial for the potential lying under oath. She looked the jury in the eyes and lied. I suppose she could have been mistaken about which WalMart she returned it to or when, but she was fairly certain as to the particulars when she testified and answered those jury questions.
There was also testimony from a representative from the gasoline company regarding Arias' gas purchases, but I missed that witness and her testimony.
Travis' ex girlfriend Deanna Reid was a big witness for the prosecution. She had a fairly long term and serious relationship with Travis and she testified that he was never violent or abusive with her nor did he call her names or raise his voice to her. They had fights, just like most couples do but they were civil. They met in 1998 when Reid was 20 years old and Travis was 21 and they attended the same singles ward and church. Reid was brought up in the church, in contrast to Arias who joined after meeting Travis Alexander. The two were friends for two years before their relationship turned romantic. It was difficult for her to testify that she did in fact have a sexual relationship with Travis, but explained that "we are all human and we make mistakes, but they were in love". The pair disclosed all to their respective bishops and dealt with the consequences of going against the "laws of chastity" as Reid referred to it (vs. "vows of chastity" we've heard as well).
Reid went on a 1 1/2 year mission to Costa Rica and during that time away she and Travis corresponded via letters. Shortly before she was due to return home, he expressed a desire to date other people. Kirk Nurmi was particularly sensitive in his cross examination of Reid, even apologizing for asking about their sexual relationship and allowing her time to fill her water glass. But before long, he was pointing out stark differences in the relationship she had with Travis and the relationship Jodi had with him. He referred to some of the nastier sexual comments Travis made to Jodi, asking Reid if Travis ever made similar comments to her. I don't want to repeat the statements here, but he clearly made her uncomfortable and it seemed he really didn't need to point out the xxx-rated comments yet again to this witness.
During Reid's testimony we learned that the laws of chastity is discussed at church and through teachings and sermons. What I got out of that is Jodi Arias clearly should have known that all forms of sexual contact was prohibited - yet, she would have the jury believe she relied on Travis as her spiritual advisor, the implication being that he misled her into thinking certain acts weren't as bad as others. Big win all the way around for the prosecution. I felt a little bad for Reid, from what I've read she really loved Travis Alexander and was even caring for his beloved dog Napoleon after his death. Nurmi didn't have to make those references to make his points, and the jury frankly has probably had enough of the sex talk.
Last up, Michael Valendez of the Mesa police department. He's the man who testified during the state's case about the recovered photos from the digital camera. Today he talked about what he looked for when he analyzed the laptop computer he seized from Alexander's home. He testified there were no photos of women's breasts, or "photos of women from the waist up" - no peer to peer software that would allow photo or file sharing capabilities, no adult content websites or photos or documents containing photos of children. On the digital camera, the jury asked a question about the photos that were not deleted from that camera. He said he believed there were approximately 90 photos that had not been deleted on June 4, 2008.
Overall it seemed like a banner day for the prosecution. Still waiting to see if the Judge is going to allow the surrebuttal expert witness. I noticed Arias actually looked up from whatever she is sketching or writing during key parts of Deanna Reid's testimony. She seemed to be interested in their intimate details and the discussion about marriage. Hmmm...go figure! Have an excellent evening!
Jacob Mefford was a close friend of Travis Alexander who recounted on the witness stand that Travis was affectionate with Jodi on many occasions. He is the owner of the clip that has been televised where Travis is sitting on his couch with Arias' curled up with her head on his lap. Friends are there and he recounts a traumatic near death experience where a gun was held to his head. The jury saw that clip today, although they were not allowed to hear the audio. What Juan Martinez got out of Meddford's testimony is that contrary to how the defense has portrayed Travis and Jodi's in-pubic relationship, his friends did in fact see them being affectionate towards each other.
A representative from WalMart took the stand and testified that the store had no record of any returns for the 5 gallon gas can Arias insists she took back on June 3, 2008. The representative further stated that she searched the register records for more than a week and the record of the return does not exist. Could WalMart be wrong, or did Jodi Arias lie to the jury under oath? This was crucial for the potential lying under oath. She looked the jury in the eyes and lied. I suppose she could have been mistaken about which WalMart she returned it to or when, but she was fairly certain as to the particulars when she testified and answered those jury questions.
There was also testimony from a representative from the gasoline company regarding Arias' gas purchases, but I missed that witness and her testimony.
Travis' ex girlfriend Deanna Reid was a big witness for the prosecution. She had a fairly long term and serious relationship with Travis and she testified that he was never violent or abusive with her nor did he call her names or raise his voice to her. They had fights, just like most couples do but they were civil. They met in 1998 when Reid was 20 years old and Travis was 21 and they attended the same singles ward and church. Reid was brought up in the church, in contrast to Arias who joined after meeting Travis Alexander. The two were friends for two years before their relationship turned romantic. It was difficult for her to testify that she did in fact have a sexual relationship with Travis, but explained that "we are all human and we make mistakes, but they were in love". The pair disclosed all to their respective bishops and dealt with the consequences of going against the "laws of chastity" as Reid referred to it (vs. "vows of chastity" we've heard as well).
Reid went on a 1 1/2 year mission to Costa Rica and during that time away she and Travis corresponded via letters. Shortly before she was due to return home, he expressed a desire to date other people. Kirk Nurmi was particularly sensitive in his cross examination of Reid, even apologizing for asking about their sexual relationship and allowing her time to fill her water glass. But before long, he was pointing out stark differences in the relationship she had with Travis and the relationship Jodi had with him. He referred to some of the nastier sexual comments Travis made to Jodi, asking Reid if Travis ever made similar comments to her. I don't want to repeat the statements here, but he clearly made her uncomfortable and it seemed he really didn't need to point out the xxx-rated comments yet again to this witness.
During Reid's testimony we learned that the laws of chastity is discussed at church and through teachings and sermons. What I got out of that is Jodi Arias clearly should have known that all forms of sexual contact was prohibited - yet, she would have the jury believe she relied on Travis as her spiritual advisor, the implication being that he misled her into thinking certain acts weren't as bad as others. Big win all the way around for the prosecution. I felt a little bad for Reid, from what I've read she really loved Travis Alexander and was even caring for his beloved dog Napoleon after his death. Nurmi didn't have to make those references to make his points, and the jury frankly has probably had enough of the sex talk.
Last up, Michael Valendez of the Mesa police department. He's the man who testified during the state's case about the recovered photos from the digital camera. Today he talked about what he looked for when he analyzed the laptop computer he seized from Alexander's home. He testified there were no photos of women's breasts, or "photos of women from the waist up" - no peer to peer software that would allow photo or file sharing capabilities, no adult content websites or photos or documents containing photos of children. On the digital camera, the jury asked a question about the photos that were not deleted from that camera. He said he believed there were approximately 90 photos that had not been deleted on June 4, 2008.
Overall it seemed like a banner day for the prosecution. Still waiting to see if the Judge is going to allow the surrebuttal expert witness. I noticed Arias actually looked up from whatever she is sketching or writing during key parts of Deanna Reid's testimony. She seemed to be interested in their intimate details and the discussion about marriage. Hmmm...go figure! Have an excellent evening!
Arias Defense Keeps Pushing The Envelope
The Jodi Arias murder trial will be remembered for many reasons, but I'm afraid the purpose of this trial has been lost, delayed and drawn out by a defense team determined to push this Judge into granting every unusual request they make. I know, I know - it's a death penalty case. I know Ms. Arias has the right to put on her case, but at what point do we consider the rights of the (deceased) victim? With each new motion - for mistrial, a surrebuttal witness, jury instructions to include lesser included charges it seems this trial seems to have gone off the rails.
The defense has had more than three months to put their best case forward. Was Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis of borderline personality disorder really a big surprise to them? Don't they receive a copy of any report to be used at trial well beforehand? As if sensing the jury thought more favorably of the prosecution experts' diagnosis than their own, the defense now wishes to bring forth another expert, Dr. Robert Geffner PhD to dispute Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis and testimony. Like Alyce LaViolette, Geffner is from the Southern California area (San Diego).
I have no idea when, how or where this expert came into play, but like LaViolette and Samuels, Dr. Geffner has more than 30 years experience to his resume. He has co-authored several books and has too many affiliations to list in this forum but a sample of his book titles will give you an educated guess to what his testimony would be all about: Ending Spouse/Partner Abuse Clinician's Manual, "Intimate Violence and Children Exposed To Marital Violence. Ringing a familiar bell? To my knowledge, there has been no official ruling from Judge Stephens on the surrebuttal witness request. Attorney Kirk Nurmi told the judge "it was necessary and critical to Ms. Arias' defense after this court allowed the state to present new evidence during rebuttal via it's witness Dr. Janeen DeMarte". Does anybody out there know the rules around providing these types of reports including diagnosis to the other side? I find it difficult to believe the defense was shocked by the diagnosis or her testimony.
So I'd really love to know when Dr. Geffner interviewed or tested Jodi Arias. If this was done previously, why didn't they call him to the stand during their own case? DeMarte only finished her testimony a few days ago - how could the defense have found another expert who could have read through all the text messages, IM's, e-mails and journal entries in addition to listening to the police interrogation videos, the Inside Edition and 48 Hours interviews and all other "collateral materials"? Are you as confused as I am?
The second motion filed by the defense team on Monday involves a jury instruction to include "manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion". Wait a minute, isn't this a self defense case? OK. A look at the legal definition (legal-dictionary.com) of manslaughter tells us the following:
"Manslaughter is a distinct crime and it is not considered a lesser degree than murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
Under current statutes, the offense can be voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The main difference between the two is that voluntary requires the intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter."
The most common type of voluntary manslaughter is the "heat of passion" variety that the Arias defense would like to see offered to the jury. This is an intentional killing that has additional circumstances that may mitigate but do not excuse the killing. "In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror or desperation will suffice" (legal-dictionary.com)
If the jury believes Jodi Arias drove to Mesa with her grandfather's stolen gun, can you think of any other reason she would need to steal it if she wasn't planning something nefarious? If she was going to use it for protection, why not borrow it? For all of the expert witness testimony and the diagnostic testing involving Jodi Arias, it may boil down to that gun and where the jury believed it came from. Is it more likely that Travis Alexander owned a .25 caliber gun that nobody knew of, and kept it on an elevated shelf in his closet or is it more likely that Arias staged a robbery at her grandparents house and took their .25 caliber gun?
Let's keep the trial moving forward. I hope the Judge does not bow down to the constant threats of appellate issues, prosecutorial misconduct smokescreens and other blatant allegations meant to intimidate this Judge into going from cautious to frivilous. What will today's proceedings bring? Will we see the prosecution's case move forward with a new witness? Will Matt McCartney shock the court room and Jodi Arias by testifying for the prosecution? Will we ever get to closing arguments in this trial?
Stay tuned, updates to follow.
The defense has had more than three months to put their best case forward. Was Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis of borderline personality disorder really a big surprise to them? Don't they receive a copy of any report to be used at trial well beforehand? As if sensing the jury thought more favorably of the prosecution experts' diagnosis than their own, the defense now wishes to bring forth another expert, Dr. Robert Geffner PhD to dispute Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis and testimony. Like Alyce LaViolette, Geffner is from the Southern California area (San Diego).
I have no idea when, how or where this expert came into play, but like LaViolette and Samuels, Dr. Geffner has more than 30 years experience to his resume. He has co-authored several books and has too many affiliations to list in this forum but a sample of his book titles will give you an educated guess to what his testimony would be all about: Ending Spouse/Partner Abuse Clinician's Manual, "Intimate Violence and Children Exposed To Marital Violence. Ringing a familiar bell? To my knowledge, there has been no official ruling from Judge Stephens on the surrebuttal witness request. Attorney Kirk Nurmi told the judge "it was necessary and critical to Ms. Arias' defense after this court allowed the state to present new evidence during rebuttal via it's witness Dr. Janeen DeMarte". Does anybody out there know the rules around providing these types of reports including diagnosis to the other side? I find it difficult to believe the defense was shocked by the diagnosis or her testimony.
So I'd really love to know when Dr. Geffner interviewed or tested Jodi Arias. If this was done previously, why didn't they call him to the stand during their own case? DeMarte only finished her testimony a few days ago - how could the defense have found another expert who could have read through all the text messages, IM's, e-mails and journal entries in addition to listening to the police interrogation videos, the Inside Edition and 48 Hours interviews and all other "collateral materials"? Are you as confused as I am?
The second motion filed by the defense team on Monday involves a jury instruction to include "manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion". Wait a minute, isn't this a self defense case? OK. A look at the legal definition (legal-dictionary.com) of manslaughter tells us the following:
"Manslaughter is a distinct crime and it is not considered a lesser degree than murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
Under current statutes, the offense can be voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The main difference between the two is that voluntary requires the intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter."
The most common type of voluntary manslaughter is the "heat of passion" variety that the Arias defense would like to see offered to the jury. This is an intentional killing that has additional circumstances that may mitigate but do not excuse the killing. "In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror or desperation will suffice" (legal-dictionary.com)
If the jury believes Jodi Arias drove to Mesa with her grandfather's stolen gun, can you think of any other reason she would need to steal it if she wasn't planning something nefarious? If she was going to use it for protection, why not borrow it? For all of the expert witness testimony and the diagnostic testing involving Jodi Arias, it may boil down to that gun and where the jury believed it came from. Is it more likely that Travis Alexander owned a .25 caliber gun that nobody knew of, and kept it on an elevated shelf in his closet or is it more likely that Arias staged a robbery at her grandparents house and took their .25 caliber gun?
Let's keep the trial moving forward. I hope the Judge does not bow down to the constant threats of appellate issues, prosecutorial misconduct smokescreens and other blatant allegations meant to intimidate this Judge into going from cautious to frivilous. What will today's proceedings bring? Will we see the prosecution's case move forward with a new witness? Will Matt McCartney shock the court room and Jodi Arias by testifying for the prosecution? Will we ever get to closing arguments in this trial?
Stay tuned, updates to follow.
Is Jodi Arias Making More Behind Bars Than She Did On The Outside?
In another sickening revelation, it appears accused murderer Jodi Arias' art work is selling so well that she has announced on her website that "100 Limited Edition Reprints" a sketch called "Hourless" is coming soon. Is this a disgusting display of pure greed, or has Jodi Arias finally found the success from behind bars that alluded her as a free woman? It has been reported that eBay banned the sales of Arias artwork after several pieces sold caused public outrage, but Arias who has taken to Twitter said that the eBay ban has only increased the value of her art! According to her website, authenticity of true Arias artwork comes via her right thumbprint. Seems her left palmprint is what started this whole thing Ms. Arias.
I'm sure the Alexander family is more concerned with getting through the criminal murder trial before pursing a potential wrongful death case against Jodi Arias, but I hope they eventually do. Arias has shown she does have some artistic talents - however, we all know she would not be fetching a reported $2,000 - $3,000 per piece if NOT for the notoriety of her savage crime. Arias has been able to effectly get around her lack of computer access by having a friend or supporter run her website, which I refuse to name in this post. It's not hard to find, but I wouldn't honor it with another page views. The site links to the other Arias supporter website but both accept donations!
If there is nothing that legally prevent Arias from profiting from her crime while behind bars, what can we as a society do to thwart the shameless greed? All we can do is boycott anything Arias related and limit the buyers to those who collect "murderabilia" and the like. While the Alexander siblings suffer, Arias who claimed to be selling her sketches to help pay her family's travel expenses during the trial - has just become outright greedy. While the taxpayers are footing the bill for a $1.4 million dollar trial for Arias, she is making thousands of (unreported) dollars through art sales and other online donations? I.R.S., are you hearing this? Unreported income.
I don't know what else to say. I'm sickened, I'm saddened and I wish the jury were privy to the shameless profiteering of this murder defendant. They will likely never know, unless it's brought forth in the mitigation or sentencing phase. It looks like Jodi Arias got a little taste of "fame" or rather "infamy" and she now seemingly can't get enough of it. Tweets and a website, all from behind bars. Looks like Arias has found the success that she's always dreamed of. I wouldn't be surprised to find copies of her journals up for sale next. All I can say is "Wrongful Death Suit". Please.
I'm sure the Alexander family is more concerned with getting through the criminal murder trial before pursing a potential wrongful death case against Jodi Arias, but I hope they eventually do. Arias has shown she does have some artistic talents - however, we all know she would not be fetching a reported $2,000 - $3,000 per piece if NOT for the notoriety of her savage crime. Arias has been able to effectly get around her lack of computer access by having a friend or supporter run her website, which I refuse to name in this post. It's not hard to find, but I wouldn't honor it with another page views. The site links to the other Arias supporter website but both accept donations!
If there is nothing that legally prevent Arias from profiting from her crime while behind bars, what can we as a society do to thwart the shameless greed? All we can do is boycott anything Arias related and limit the buyers to those who collect "murderabilia" and the like. While the Alexander siblings suffer, Arias who claimed to be selling her sketches to help pay her family's travel expenses during the trial - has just become outright greedy. While the taxpayers are footing the bill for a $1.4 million dollar trial for Arias, she is making thousands of (unreported) dollars through art sales and other online donations? I.R.S., are you hearing this? Unreported income.
I don't know what else to say. I'm sickened, I'm saddened and I wish the jury were privy to the shameless profiteering of this murder defendant. They will likely never know, unless it's brought forth in the mitigation or sentencing phase. It looks like Jodi Arias got a little taste of "fame" or rather "infamy" and she now seemingly can't get enough of it. Tweets and a website, all from behind bars. Looks like Arias has found the success that she's always dreamed of. I wouldn't be surprised to find copies of her journals up for sale next. All I can say is "Wrongful Death Suit". Please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Most popular posts
-
Dr. Janeen DeMarte is expected to take the stand in the Jodi Arias murder trial as a key witness for the prosecution. Think of DeMarte as th... -
As the defense finishes questioning their star witness, domestic abuse expert Alyce LaViolette, many are disillusioned by her choice to take...
-
Marie "Mimi" Hall was the first prosecution witness to take the stand in the Jodi Arias Murder trial. She took the stand on Janua...
-
Yesterday, as Dr. Richard Samuels finished up his testimony the Jodi Arias defense team called their next expert witness to the stand, Alyce...
-
Episode 3 of TNT's Cold Justice uncovered a 31 year old blunder, or a mystery - depending on how you look at it. In last night's e...