Arizona we have a problem
Earth to Martinez
Fate has ordained that the prosecutor who looked at the stars and dreamed of becoming a hero by going to the moon and back to give the death penalty to Candy Crush will stay forever on the moon.
Nixon’s speech writer, William Safire, was asked to write an address for the launch of Apollo II, because they were worried about the astronauts not being able to make it off the moon and back to earth; the speech was written to honor their sacrifice which was to give mankind hope.
Juan Martinez, Maricopa prosecutor extraordinaire and the ring leader of the biggest legal Circus in the history of buffoonery, opened in closing argument on February 25th, 2015 by saying:
“In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.”
He then shockingly went on to say “That is so compelling isn’t it? Heart wrenching! And so…not true. Just like the story the defendant told you about Travis Alexander on his knees masturbating to a photo of a little boy is not true.”
It is beyond comprehension that he would want to implant this image of Alexander on his knees in the mind of the listeners.
He actually provided a sexual image and tied it to a speech about an event that could have happened or not. Exactly like the testimony of Jodi Arias – It could have happened or not, we will never know.
What we damn well know is that the astronauts came back. What a strange concept. Legal pundits worth their salt are still mystified by that attempt at a dramatic delivery.
To compare an international lunar event to an over hyped and overblown legal case shows to what extent he wanted the attention on himself, instead of focusing on the truth.
And how self-inflated his ego had become.
He tried to tie the case to an historical event to make history as the prosecutor who sent a young vulnerable woman to her death, even if she had no priors. The word lunatic is the only link I could find to the event he so misguidedly referred to.
During the 1st trial of Jodi Arias, our favorite Candy Crush defendant, Martinez obsessed over the seven dwarfs as he was interrogating Alyce Laviolette, an expert on domestic violence.
Who could forget his tragicomic cross examination?
He had legal analysts in stitches and the legal folks at HLN pretty worried it would sink the case. What was he doing they asked?
Attorney Mark Geragos went as far as calling him a buffoon.
Well, it turns out that his closing argument was ‘just in case’ he got the death penalty, but ‘the prosecutor’ as he likes to call himself, did not get what he wanted and Jodi Arias is not going to remain in the constellations.
Even attorney Jeff Gold who calls himself a legal analyst and has participated greatly to this Circus atmosphere, was shocked by this speech. He could not understand the value of such an opening to try to close the deal.
Not that Martinez really had to win this jury over. They probably could have put a blown up doll instead, and they would have obtained the same results. Arias was already tried, convicted and put to death by the media and the relentless lynch mob.
In this video of Juan Martinez rambling about Snow White, you can see consternation and shock in Laviolette’s face, but some of his minions describe his logical fallacies as brilliant. A great example of the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome.
I still strongly believe that Maricopa County should have accepted Arias’ plea agreement and moved on to other matters. There is no logical reason to try a defendant when she pleads guilty and is willing to go to prison for a long time.
Some say that Arias turned down a deal offered by the state, but by definition, in criminal procedure, a plea deal is a negotiation between the defendant and his attorney on one side and the prosecutor on the other, in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest to some crimes, in return for reduction of the severity of the charges, dismissal of some of the charges, the prosecutor’s willingness to recommend a particular sentence, or some other benefit to the defendant.
If Arias was offered LWOP with no right to appeal, it was not a reduction of the severity of the charges and did not benefit her in any shape or form.
In fact, it would have been like asking her to jump off the highest cliff instead of jumping from an airplane with a parachute. It is the kind of ‘deal’ they would give to a serial killer, a repeat offender or a terrorist whose appeal would automatically be denied.
In Arizona, her chances of reversing the death penalty would have been very high because her case never qualified to begin with.
Why on earth would she have agreed to this farce? The Alexanders were on social media giving the thumb down to any legit deal, and they made it abundantly clear that they wanted the sentencing retrial to get the death penalty.
Pretty disingenuous of them to now claim she was not cooperating.
It is her constitutional right to appeal and this case needs an appellate review of all the mistakes made by the state, the ineffective assistance she received and the misconduct of the prosecutor.
The defense ended up costing $3 million and the rest of the costs are estimated at several millions, including the prosecution, the investigation and all the expenses related to the case.
How do you like them poisoned apples?
By the way, the costs for the defense were related to me directly from the twitter feed of Montgomery’s office, and the rest was an estimation published by an Arizona newspaper. So don’t shoot the messenger.
As if the first trial was not bad enough, they disrespected the process and gave it another good old college try to get what they really wanted; the death penalty.
But something was eating Gilbert Grape from day one. Martinez was off his game and all over the place.
Not that it bothered the 11 jurors who came up with the death penalty decision and tried to throw the resisting 12th juror under the bus and off the panel so they could present a united front for the media and the wailing family.
Click here to read the document and see how scrutinized she was. It is totally acceptable to check her out, but were the other jurors the object of this kind of scrutiny because they had made up their mind at the first vote and never wavered from their initial assessment?
Four jurors had dug their heels at the 1st trial, and this time around, with more mitigation factors, proof of computer tampering, that a state expert had lied about the presence of porn and viruses on Travis’ computer and a witness confirming the victim’s sexual tendencies, it swayed only one person.
It still is a huge loss for Maricopa and Martinez’ ego. Their little speech about moving on is covering deep seething anger, especially when we know that Martinez filed a secret motion to try to have Juror 17 dismissed.
Were the jurors really paying attention? One of them said they didn’t discuss the computer aspect. Another went as far as labeling Jodi a sociopath. When was this mentioned at trial? Never.
If Janeen DeMarte could have diagnosed Arias as a sociopath, she would have gladly done it like she did for Marissa Devault, but she could not. The jurors even discussed the possibility of the defendant walking if she did not get the death penalty.
They asked Juror 17 what she would do if the victim had been her son in order to pull at her heart strings. They put the gruesome pictures of the deceased victim all over the table for shock purposes.
The foreman provided his own speculations on the sex tape and premeditation, which had nothing to do with this retrial about sentencing and mitigation.
It was so misguided and off the grid that it made you wonder if they understood the instructions at all.
Instead of accepting the decision of the lone holdout, they proceeded to accuse her of being biased so they could bully their way to a unanimous verdict. Her husband said she felt assaulted during deliberations.
Bless her soul for standing firm for her beliefs knowing full well she would not walk out to a parade like the others, but to a lynch mob who already started to post her personal information on social media.
Mind you, some Arias supporters posted the names of the 11 other death happy jurors and I totally disagree with their actions.
This state of affairs is not entirely surprising considering that this was a trial by media conducted by a rabid prosecutor who, at times, reminded me of a pygmy carrying a decapitated head.
His use of one of Travis’ autopsy photo was disturbing. He carried it around and slammed it everywhere he could. He superimposed it on a photo of Jodi Arias as a child to inflame jurors.
The photo was a gross exaggeration of the original injury because the neck had been widely stretched during the autopsy. As usual, it did not bother him whatsoever to show disrespect for Travis and his family.
Would they mind? I am still pondering the question.
My own family lost someone precious as the result of a violent crime. We walked away from the media when they became crass and all the money donated went to a specific charity.
When the media did not get what they wanted, they moved on to perfect strangers willing to give them revenge and sensational comments.
After a while, the knee jerk reaction towards the perpetrator faded away and forgiveness came. This is what I wish on any victim’s family. Not holding on to revenge and refusing to see the perpetrator as a human being.
If a defendant pleads guilty and is willing to show remorse and do time, let it be.
I shake my head when I hear so many Travis supporters say that the poor family had to go through this. They demanded it and wanted the second trial.
So if their brother’ s good name was dragged through the mud, it is because of their choice, and of the self-defense scenario first chair, Kirk Nurmi, decided to basically shove down the throat of his client and his team.
No way would we have let our brother’s naked photos and sex tapes be played for public consumption and his rants and emotional abuse become known.
We would have walked away trying to keep his reputation intact.
Even if I know their pain is very real and they never acquired any conflict resolution skills because of their upbringing, they are not absolved from their actions.
When tragedy strikes, it is how you react that defines you.
They are not getting an unconditional moral and ethical pass because they lost a family member. Bad things happen to good, average and bad people all the time.
The Alexanders have had more support than most families. They have received money, attention, help and love.
So it is no wonder some of us are not ready to Canonize them.
Let me simply say they are not role models and any notion of restorative justice has escaped them even with their religious affiliations.
They wanted the death penalty even if it meant staying attached to Arias, the media and the court because they knew the death row conditions were inhuman at Perryville where she would end up if the verdict swung their way.
They do not want an eye for an eye because it would mean a sharp death happening in the span of two minutes. They want a long life of suffering for Arias with torture attached to it.
The family members of the victims in the Charleston senseless shooting found it in their heart to forgive the young man who murdered their loved ones. I am in awe of them. They are love personified and taught us all a great lesson.
The 1st trial foreman said the Alexanders had received justice. They should have been pleased with the results.
The death penalty meant her case would have certainly been overturned, so the payout for them had to be that she would have been kept in solitary confinement.
They had 6 years to reflect on this tragedy. I hope they find peace and decide to let go.
Suing an indigent woman might not be the way to detach from the situation, but I can only imagine that once again, it will bring them a lot of sympathy and attention.
Jodi Arias was never a candidate for the death penalty, but when Maricopa County top dogs realized the magnet that our Candy Crush was for the media and the public, they decided to configure the crime to suit their needs like they did for Debbie Milke and so many other defendants.
If the punishment does not fit the crime, they will adjust the circumstances so you can wear their label of choice with great shame.
Milke ended up on death row because of a false confession unsigned and unrecorded. The two brain damaged men who committed the crime never testified against her. But she spent over 20 years in solitary confinement before the appellate court could reverse the decision and denounce the misconduct.
Bill Montgomery is still trying to fight the decision and beat around the criminal bush with empty words and revenge filled intentions. How could they let go of Debbie Milke? She was their star inmate, their big catch and election bait. If they’re soft on crime, who will vote for them?
Who can forget the case of Matt Bandy, the Arizona teenager who faced 90 years in prison for having nine images of child porn downloaded into his computer?
It reminds the ones interested in due process why it is so important to be vigilant. Due process is a shield against abusive prosecution by the State whose power can become corrupt at times. Imprisoning a human being is bound by principles based on common sense and decency.
Matt suffered through legal prosecution during two years and it cost his family over $250,000 until they went broke. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office eventually offered the boy a plea bargain. The charges were dropped from nine felony counts that carried a life sentence down to three “class 6 undesignated felonies” with no jail time. Class 6 felonies are “non-dangerous, non-repetitive offenses under the criminal code.”
He had to plead guilty to showing a Playboy magazine to some 16-year-old classmates. As silly as it sounds, this plea bargain allowed County Attorney Andrew Thomas to declare that “this defendant did plead guilty in a court of law.”
The reduction in charges were introduced when a forensic analysis of his computer revealed the images were downloaded into his hard drive by a virus. During that time, the Mocbot worm had infected an estimated 265,000 computers.
Even if Matt’s attorney sought to have a forensic analysis performed on the computer, by then in the possession of the police, the DA’s office had blocked his access from the beginning even if the defense has a legal right to examine all evidence. They had to obtain a court ruling to finally have access to it, but not before the County Attorney’s office appealed the lower ruling to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.
You can click here to read his story.
This overzealous prosecution is only the tip of the iceberg in Arizona.
But the prosecutors in Arizona are not so overzealous with computer porn when it comes to cases they want to win.
The powers that be should have quit while they were ahead with a solid conviction.
Their decision to spend the county’s funds to finally nail Candy Crush to their death row wall did not pay up in the grand scheme of things.
It opened a humongous can of worms that will be crawling all the way to the corridor of justice and the appellate court.
During a retrial based on mitigation factors, we learned that even if a state expert swore under oath there was no porn or viruses on Travis’ computer, it was a lie.
A so called ‘secret’ witness testified to having caught the victim watching juvenile porn and that he admitted being abused as a boy. As to be expected, this same witness was attacked and his secret identity revealed online and 3 times in court by the prosecutor.
His own mother even signed an affidavit to support part of his testimony.
It took a lot of guts to come forward knowing what it would cost him. What would he have had to gain except grief and harassment?
And they wonder why nobody wanted to testify on behalf of Arias during this phase.
Laviolette and all other experts and friends who showed up the first time around were lynched.
It does not matter at all if Travis was watching porn or how many times, except for juvenile porn of course.
What matters is that the state lied to make Arias look guilty and sound like a compulsive liar. Martinez said during his first closing argument that she lied about this.
He accused her of lying about Travis’s attraction to young boys and girls, but surprise, the witness confirmed it. And it was spelled out in the sex tape for everyone to hear.
It does not make him a monster. It makes him damaged and probably the result of his extremely traumatic childhood.
And what to say about the chain of evidence being tampered with? Martinez tried to blame the experts and pretty well everyone else until he conceded that there was a little porn and something went array along the way, but who cares?
Not what they were saying to Matt Bandy.
And we had the testimony of a Mormon bishop who came with his own Mormon lawyer. He ended up trying to embellish facts. When it is Arias, it is a lie, but for the bishop, they call it confusion and let’s move on.
Poor Deanna Reed gave a very Clintonesque version of the truth. ‘I did not know they were talking about me when they asked if Travis had sex with anyone else than Jodi.’
The poor girl was ‘embarrassed’ to admit she had sex. Imagine how embarrassed Jodi Arias must have been to admit Travis was dead.
I find the fact that Deanna underplayed the truth during her first trial’s testimony very interesting also.
She said, ‘No, Travis’ parents were not very abusive.’ We only have to read his own writings to know how bad it was. So one of them was lying.
But according to Maricopa County, only Jodi Arias lies. No one else.
Fifty shades of grey
In Arizona, they will sometimes give you the death penalty if you committed first-degree murder, including pre-meditated murder and felony murder, accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors.
Some gang member who planned the execution of a rival and cut his head off did not get the death penalty, but who is counting? It was not in the media so why would they bother with the huge costs of trial and the death penalty?
You can find so many similar stories in Arizona, but only if you are looking and most people don’t bother with facts. They revel in the high profile case du jour and buy hook, line and sinker what the media and the state are serving them.
The death of Travis Alexander is an undeniable tragedy, but this man was involved in a toxic relationship with Jodi Arias.
He was not a stranger or a member of a rival gang, but knee deep in a relationship where he was pulling the strings since two years.
It did fit the category of domestic violence dispute and crime of passion. Not the work of a stranger lurking in the bushes for a victim.
The prosecution soon decided that they had to adjust the tragedy to the definition necessary to invoke the death penalty and the criteria necessary for 1st degree murder, peppered with aggravating factors.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, the premeditation was sketchy at best.
When people call on reasonable inference to deduct that gas cans, hair color, an uncharged phone, a license plate upside down, a non-red car and the theft of a grandfather’s gun with the wrong type of bullets are indications of premeditation, I say let us review the legal definition of reasonable inference: A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. A logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact not presented by direct evidence but which, by process of logic and reason, a trier of fact may conclude exists from the established facts. Inferences are deductions or conclusions that with reason and common sense lead the jury to draw from facts which have been established by the evidence in the case.
In this case, none of these premeditation factors were proved or admitted. So it leaves a conclusion reached from established facts, but they do not match so we are left with speculation.
All the pre-requisites were added by the prosecution to fit the mold: the gun shot was last, oops there was a typo in the autopsy report and the dura mater was not intact, she was not invited by Travis the moment she attacked him, but what happened if he attacked her? I must have missed the witness to this crime? Who was it already? Oh, that’s true, there was none.
And even if the bullets were different than the ones for grand pop’s gun, let’s go with the fact that Arias stole it and brought it to Arizona.
There was a shoe print on the smashed door at the Arizona’s residence after the burglary. Did they measure it or photograph it? No. Was there proof? No. Ok, so we are left again with speculations.
Now if Arias used a gun that was on the shelf and belonged to Travis, she stole it. If he attacked her, would it be self-defense to use it? I forget, there was no witness so we will never know what really happened. Now it is starting to sound like the Nixon speech.
Anyone who can count up to ten knows that the shot was first and even pro prosecution Beth Karas had to concede the obvious.
So isn’t it a problem for them that Juan Carlos de la Martinez lied about the shot being last to suit his gruesome scenario? It does not seem to bother anyone on the side of the prosecution, but it sure bothers people concerned with due process.
Travis’ friends, and they are so many to carry the title of best bud nowadays, swear he never owned a small caliber gun.
They also thought he was a virgin and a very decent guy.
I spend time in Arizona and you can buy a gun at any flea market without ID.
He was depressed at the end and even mentioned getting a gun. Maybe for show, but he did say that. Reasonable inference or speculation? It cuts both ways.
The Maricopa District Attorney’s office went commando on this case. It was full of grey areas and they Photoshopped it to black and white.
Love hurts, literally
Helen E. Fisher, PhD biological anthropologist, is a Research Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University in New Jersey. She has written five books on the evolution and future of human sexuality, monogamy, adultery and divorce, gender differences in the brain, the chemistry of romantic love, and human personality types and why we fall in love with one person rather than another.
She has been studying the subject of love for 32 years.
She and her team gave MRI scans to 17 people who were happy in love and 15 who had been rejected in love. The latter had been brokenhearted for an average of 63 days. In this group, they found activity in a region of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which has a high number of dopamine receptors. “It suggests that when you have been dumped you love that person more,” says Dr Fisher.
Activity was also found in parts of the brain associated with risk-taking, physical pain, obsessive-compulsive behavior, controlling anger and theory of mind – imagining what the other person is thinking.
“It made me understand a little bit more about why people become so depressed,” says Dr Fisher. “You’re intensely in love, you have just been rejected, but you are still in love, if not even more so, and you are willing to take enormous risks. You are in physical as well as psychological pain, you are obsessing about this person, you are trying to control your anger and you’re trying to evaluate what to do next. You are in a very uncomfortable state. No wonder so many crimes of passion take place.”
I often hear that if a man had committed this type of crime, they would have thrown the book at him. Could they have thrown a bigger book at Arias than they already have? Could they have come up with other charges than the death penalty? Is there some other form of punishment in Arizona I have never heard about?
She was shamed publicly, tarred and feathered by Martinez, the media and trolls all over the planet. What else would they have done to a man?
One of the jurors told Nancy Grace that he was sad Arias did not get the death penalty because she was getting away with it.
He then tried to backpedal and fix this slip of the tongue.
Getting away with what? Being in jail for life without parole, because we all know Judge Stephens will never give her life with parole, is simply getting away from solitary confinement for life. That is what he meant. They wanted torture for Arias. The cat came out of the bag.
Juror 17 saved her from this barbaric practice and this is why they are furious at her.
Strangely, she is the only one who noticed how depressed Arias was in her journals. She had to be provided security by authorities because of threats to her life.
They demonstrated their allegiance to revenge and not justice. It reminds me of the expression ‘If two wrong don’t make a right, how many does it take?’
By the way, the state has the right to take your freedom, but it is not allowed to torture and taunt you.
In fact, many inmates would prefer the death penalty to solitary confinement if it did not take up to 20 years or more to finally execute them.
In Montreal, a Cuban man stabbed his girlfriend to death more times than Arias did and received 12 years. It was a crime of passion. The same thing happened recently between two men, and it was premeditated. The attacker will be eligible for parole in 17 years.
Dr. Martin MacNeill (now deceased) was supposed to be eligible for parole in 17 years. According to the prosecution, he premeditated the murder of his wife and killed her in the bathtub after administering some meds.
Dr. Conrad Murray killed Michael Jackson for money and knew coming in he was risking Michael’s life every time he administered Propofol. He is not on death row.
By the way, the prosecutors in the MacNeill and Murray’s case were impeccable and so were the judges. You did not see any grandstanding, cruelty or abuse coming from any of them.
I recommend watching prosecutor David Walgren cross examine a witness.
It is justice in motion. He does not yell or trip the witnesses. He is very respectful of the process and does not do the happy dance when a verdict is read.
He does not sign autographs or show some glee at making people feel uncomfortable.
He wants the truth to prevail and he is prepared. He is much scarier than Martinez who wants to win and shows signs of cruelty and deceit himself. It is never a good idea to sound and act more criminal than your own witness.
The judges were also to be applauded and respected for keeping the proceedings at the highest ethical level. When Dr. MacNeill’s mistress, Gypsy, was asked about photos of her derrière she had sent to her lover, they were not shown to anyone else than the jury and the witness.
It turns out that the phone sex tape recorded by Arias was played in open court for all to hear, because Nurmi had decided, in spite of his client’s tears and pleading and his co-chair’s strong opposition, to use it several times to boost his self-defense scenario and humiliate his client. Judge Sherry had offered to play it exclusively for the jury in closed session, but he had declined.
Judge Sherry Stephens improved greatly the second time around, but the constant sidebars and lack of decisiveness showed how over her head she was all along. I suspect she was picked the first time around because she was so easily manipulated, but she tried to appear impartial at retrial when she realized her partnership with the prosecution could cost her dearly.
She should have never allowed the photos of naked Jodi and Travis to become public. It would have been easy to show them only to the jury and the witnesses.
Mind you, it might have been at the insistence of Nurmi who was working against his own client and with hindsight, appeared to be a sexual deviant.
Total humiliation and public shaming for Arias. As if she was named by Arizona and the media as the Slayer of all that is good and wholesome in the world.
The fact that they made her wear a stun belt in court and when she testified, illustrates the spirit of exaggeration that prevailed during her trial. They treated a docile woman as a security threat.
Jodi Arias was deeply in love with Travis Alexander. It is all over her journals and she admitted to it. She was a monogamous woman, contrary to the whore propaganda going around and promoted by Travis himself. She had no power in the relationship because she loved him and he did not reciprocate.
In fact, he displayed attachment issues. He seduced girls and could not commit. He enjoyed multiple partners and could easily have sex without emotions. Arias was the opposite so she was bound to be the one to suffer.
The constant games he played with her were undignified and unworthy of a man occupying a high status in the Church. The whole Cinderella story Arias had encountered by being invited to the ball and given a beautiful dress turned into a nightmare full of sex, videotapes, Mormons and lies.
She converted because of him and also because she was searching for spirituality and guidance in her life.
She was known to study different religions and spiritual movements. She thought she had found a solid religious man to start a family with. She took his words seriously, but soon realized he was saying the same thing to all the girls.
We all know she should have moved on, but it did not happen even if she returned to Yreka.
Deanna did not move on either even if he took her virginity, which is the kiss of death for a Mormon woman. She stuck by him because he was a charismatic and likable man.
So why was Arias any different? She could not let go because he kept using his charm to have sex with her on a regular basis.
She said it herself, she had become his whipping girl and they were both addicted to it. Gus Searcy testified to the pull Travis had on this girl. She was getting away and he would call her and she would be shaking uncontrollably.
The problem is that Jodi Arias took the relationship very seriously and built dreams around it when it meant nothing to him.
The last chapter of this Shakespearean tragedy ends with both lovers losing their precious lives. Even if Arias did not go with a bang, she is going down a more tortuous road than he ever did. According to his own beliefs and words, Travis is in a better place now. If he is half the man his friends said he was, he would not want this horrible fate for the woman he once cared about.
Next time you think Jodi is a monster and she deserves to be tortured and die, go online and check prison videos and cases of dangerous murderers.
She does not fit any category. She is not a dangerous offender and was never a problem in prison either.
I believe and take part in restorative justice programs and Arias is a prime candidate for it because she admitted to have participated in the tragedy and expressed remorse.
She asked for forgiveness and did not try to clam up and say she was not involved. It would have been very easy to stick to the intruders’ story and not testify at trial.
In fact, she never tried to overexaggerate the facts when she testified. She could have said that he was forcing her to do awful things and that he was very violent. Instead, she said she enjoyed his company and their sex games and he was a great guy, but with an abusive side. Instead of protecting herself, she was also preoccupied with preserving his memory.
The online messages proved her point. It was reasonable inference to think that he went from mental and verbal abuse to pushing her around. But after what I have read on social media during this case, I am not surprised that so many people did not consider it abuse.
They are equally abusive themselves, proud of it and addicted to playing Candy Crush.
There is huge Marquis de Sade chapter out there.
In fact, a Travis ‘supporter’ said that if Arias was to receive the death penalty, her husband would get some that night. They are actually aroused by cruelty and death.
So many are using offensive, abusive language and threats that they probably agree with Travis mistreating a woman.
She asked for it they said. She pushed his buttons. She deserved it. She just had to walk away.
They missed all the points Laviolette and Geffner tried to explain and that DeMarte could not comprehend because she is not a domestic violence expert.
Arias led a very peaceful life before this nightmare and would no doubt go down the same road if given another chance.
All the boogeyman stories are inventions of the media, the Mormon lynch mob and Janeen DeMarte. The best she could come up with on the stand was high school mean girl insults: She was a bitch at family reunions, she talked to boys more, corrected their grammar. She kicked a dog once and had a moment when she punched an inanimate object. If that is the best they could dig up, it proves Laviolette and Geffner’s point.
The people who knew her best at the time, only had good things to say about her. She was a messed up girl in a messed up world and it became the perfect storm when Travis encountered financial and emotional woes.
They should have both looked for education to improve their respective lives instead of turning to the impossible restrictions of Mormonism and illusions of grandeur offered by Legal Shield.
As Martinez said in his closing, ‘In modern times, we look for constellations, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.’
Our heroes should be people who want peace, love, understanding and restorative justice. People who do not throw young women to the wolves for making huge mistakes, especially if they suffer from a mental disorder at the time. People who can forgive.
Note: Kudos to Kirk Nurmi for stepping up to the plate at retrial. He lost weight, grew hair and some legal balls and took on the prosecutor with gusto.
His efforts were not in vain because he filed all the right motions and prepared the grounds for appeal very meticulously and professionally.
It was a pleasure to see Martinez being put in his place by Nurmi and the great experts he brought on board. They fought a good fight.
Too bad he screwed up part I that was the most important inning of the game. I also took exception to his big Porn Perry Mason moment that fizzled out. What was that?
Doing time at Perryville will be very challenging to say the least. The ray of sunshine is that she will be out of the clutches of the county jail and will be fed 3 meals a day during the week and allowed some letters instead of postcards.
Even if she was given a lunch bag at trial, Sheriff Joe Arpaio likes to use food as punishment and only serves 2 vegetarian meals a day unless the inmates work on a chain gang or appear in court. His recent wave of generosity with video phone calls was not for the inmates, but to reach the quota necessary to start making profits.
Note to all Christians: The highest priest of Christians, Pope Francis, is against the death penalty and calls life without parole a hidden death penalty.
This is a restorative justice site and I will not post or answer any hateful comments. This is my personal take on the trials and I respect different views, but will not entertain them in this section. This is not a forum to debate Jodi Arias’s guilt or innocence.
Thank you for reading!