Closing arguments (Part II) in Jodi Arias trial

Friday, May 3, 2013

Good morning.

Defense summation and prosecution rebuttal today beginning at 9 am, MDT.

Livestream Link


Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,


43 Responses to Closing arguments (Part II) in Jodi Arias trial

  1. Malisha says:

    I know very little about this case. One thing that surprised me a LOT was that apparently the victim had gotten the killer to convert to Mormonism before or during their relationship. It seemed weird to me. Anyway — I know a lot of Mormons; none of them has any murderous tendencies — as they say thank God for small favors.

  2. colin black says:

    B T W before you think oh ho I hope there are no mormons like her on the jury.

    There arent ,
    At least mormons that is both sides decided an agreed dureing vior dire.
    Any whom were mormon were excluded or excused depending on your poit of veiw.

    Though appellate wise its a moot issue as both sides concured.

  3. colin black says:

    Juror No. 1

    She is a white female in her 60s and sits closest to the witness stand. She doesn’t look at Arias often during her testimony. People in the gallery observed her yawning once during an emotional part of Arias’ testimony.

    Juror No. 2

    He is a white male in his 50s. He takes few notes and usually has his head cupped in his hands as he listens to testimony.

    Juror No. 3

    She is a white female in her 40s. She takes a lot of notes and often watches prosecutor Juan Martinez as he moves around the courtroom. She has been seen submitting questions.

    Juror No. 4

    He is a white male in his 60s, and he takes few notes.

    Juror No. 5

    She is a married, white female in her 30s. She sits on the edge of her seat and is the most visible juror from the gallery because she has a “unique hair style.”

    Juror No. 6

    She is a white female in her 60s and is also seen taking many notes.

    Juror No. 7

    He is a white male in his 30s, and he is married. He takes notes and often bites his nails.

    Juror No. 8

    He is a white male in his 50s and is married. He also takes notes and has been observed submitting questions.

    Juror No. 9

    He is a white male in his 60s. He wears denim on most days and sits at the end of the jury box. He sits close to the first row of the gallery where Alexander’s family sits.

    Juror No. 10

    He is a white male in his 70s and is married. He has a tattoo on his right arm. He rarely is seen taking notes. He sits the furthest away from the witness.

    Juror No. 11

    She is a married, white female in her 30s. She takes a lot of notes. She does not look at Arias during testimony. She tends to look straight ahead or down at her notes.

    Juror No. 12

    She is a white female in her 40s and also takes lots of notes. She swiveled her chair toward Arias during her testimony.

    Juror No. 13

    He is a white male in his late 60s to early 70s. He wears an audio-enhancing headset provided by the court. He does takes notes.

    Juror No. 14

    He is a white male in his early 60s who often swivels in his chair. He does not appear to be taking notes.

    Juror No. 15

    He is a white male in his late 20s or early 30s. He appears to be the youngest member of the jury and takes very few notes. He smiled when Martinez asked Arias if she could predict the future.

    Juror No. 16

    He is a white male in his 40s.

    Juror No. 17

    He is a Hispanic male in his late 20s to early 30s. He dresses casually and sometimes slouches so far down in his chair that he is hardly visible to the gallery. He does not appear to be taking notes.

    Juror No. 18

    She is a white female in her 40s. She is an occasional note taker and she often looks at the

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Wow, you’ve really studied that jury, Colin.

      • colin black says:

        Not me plaugerised that from a wing nut jodi supperter.
        She is intelegent studious anhas attended every hearing an day of the trial.

        She hates Travis with a passsion an would happily do what jodi did.
        Shes a local an a mormon or it was perhaps a typo for moron.

        As she may be well read an claim religion.

        Anyone whom supports the slauaghter of a Human Being in any manner.
        Let alone that blood frenzy has no soul or spirtuality no compassion an thinks jodi is wonderfull is a wing nut.
        So I stoled it.
        innerwebbs a biatch an so am ah.

  4. Malisha says:

    I was VERY uncomfortable with the spectacle of the judge reading jurors’ questions for Jodi Arias and her answering them, for many reasons. I haven’t listened to all of them (only heard three or four and thought they were largely irrelevant and actually prurient) but I certainly felt the very act of asking jurors’ questions of a defendant in a Murder-I case was in a certain way a “mental/emotional Fourth Amendment Violation.” I can’t express it adequately yet; kind of shocked that it took place at all.

    Why were her lawyers not yeling “OBJECTION blah blah blah” after each one of those bizarre questions?

    • colin black says:

      It kinnda floored me as well as a Brit .
      And Im no fan of Jodi Arias far from it .

      But I was not only shocked by the jurours being aloud to ask questions vis the JUDGE.

      But the Judge actully interjected her own inflections into asking the wittnesses the jurours question.

      Forinstance iff it was an obviously sarcastic type question.
      In stead of delivering it stone faced an non emotiting.

      She would inflect the sarcasim into the question.

      An she did it whith every type of question be it sombre or dubious or ironic even at time humerous .
      Shed say it in a jokeing levity type manner.

      W T F Is this Imwittnnessing Is what was going through my head to be honest.
      And again Im no fan of J Arrias but she made it so obvious she favours the prosecution an hates the defendant with a passion

      An that was never more obvious than when she read the jurourd questions to Jodi when she was on the stand.

      She came across as a PISSSED OF MOM ON STEROIDS.
      An Jodi was her troublsome daughter whom once again had been caught getting into trouble.

      An she was delivering the spanish inquisition of all interogations on her.

      Im telling ya this Judge is going to tear her her a new one come sentanceing .

      • Malisha says:

        This is the stuff of which successful appeals are made.
        Or at least successful federal habeas corpus petitions after the “state court remedies” are “exhausted.”

        Especially in a death sentence case where the appellate lawyers are taxpayer-paid and work forever and ever and ever with help from an anti-death-sentence public including ME.

        What a monumental constitutiona screw-up.

        And the judge is way way WAY over her bounds. This screams: arbitrary and capricious. It screams “appearance of bias.” Florida is a damned circus. And law is a virtual tourist trade. Bozos.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        In the case of Jody Arias, Arizona is neck to neck with the circus of Florida in various capacities.

  5. Dennis says:

    What makes me sick is that Jodi is using the battered woman syndrome defense to justify a brutal murder that doesn’t even have the slight resemblance of self-defense. It is a complete slap in the face to every woman who legitimately has to kill an abusive man in self-defense.

    Any opinions from the ladies here would be greatly appreciated.

  6. Two sides to a story says:

    I think it’s kind of fascinating how some victims aren’t satisfied with the combination of a long stretch in jail and an execution. That shows me that eventually, you do have to forgive people their crimes if only to find peace within yourself.

    • Dennis says:

      I can’t forgive someone that has no remorse for their actions. If you did your time and feel remorseful, I’ll let you slide.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        When we can’t forgive, no matter what the reason, I think we make ourselves sick with it.

  7. colin black says:

    I know when Martinez was reading the self defence statute instruction to the Jurours.

    An saying a reasonable person has to beleive there life is in dager or serious injury is imminent an turned round an indicated to wards the defendant.

    There talking about reasonable people .
    Not Jodi Arias she is not a reasonable person .

    I was envisioning Bernie pointing to foggagge an saying the same thing.

    An Martinez description of a reasonable person to the Jurours was.
    You are reasonable people would any of you acted in the manner of the defendant.
    Is anything the defendant said or done about the murder thats reasonable or beleivable.

    In that case put ourselfs in the imageined position as foggagges jury.
    Was anything he said or done that night considering his use of deadly force against the person of Trayvon Martin reasonable.

    Would any off us have taken his course of action.
    An given that we are reasonable assholes an we would phone police on a kid walking in the rain lookin around.

    An we were armed reasonable assholes would we given what the accused describes as happening knowing the police were en route.
    Think we were going to die unless we blew a hole the size of a saucer into this unarmed skiny kids chest cavity.

    I know how this asshole would vote.

    • Dennis says:

      I don’t think it matters what they consider to be reasonable or unreasonable.

      It makes more sense to just analyze Fogen’s statements. If he shot Trayvon in self-defense, a reasonable person would assume he is telling the truth. If the defendant tells lies then it is obvious he is guilty. Guilt is one of the reasons people lie. If you can confirm him to be a liar, that makes him automatically guilty.

      I know some of you may not be happy with my logic and may ask, “What if the person is innocent?”.

      Well the answer is simple, if you are innocent, you should not have lied about the killing of an unarmed kid. If you got innocently convicted because you chose to lie, that is your own damn fault.

      • It’s not always that simple, Dennis.

        People lie for different reasons.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Exactly, if GZ were telling the truth, the danger to his life would be obvious from what Trayvon would have been doing.

        We don’t know what Trayvon was doing. We only know what GZ told us he was doing.

        GZ said that Trayvon punched him so hard that it broke his nose!

        We saw no evidence of a broken nose, nor any medical confirmation of this crucial evidence being preserved in a homicide case, because the “victim” refused to have his injuries either treated or documented.

        GZ said that his head was being continuously slammed against a concrete sidewalk.

        This is a claim that it is not easy to imagine anyone accomplishing, let alone a 17 year old boy, without any training, slight muscle mass and low body weight, without any evidence on his hands, of ever having touched the injured and profusely bleeding head of GZ.
        Which makes it even more impossible to imagine such an attack even happening, no less being lethal besides.

        We are told by GZ that the attack caught him by surprise and commenced while he was near the “T”, on the east-west walkway, attempting to return to his truck.

        While the elapsed time shows he should have been back at his truck long before the attack he claims could happen, if his story about his path and time of travel were true. We find that the body is 40.5 feet south of where it should be, if GZ were telling us the truth.

        Obviously, GZ is concealing how and why the truth differs from his testimony.

        If GZ is telling the truth, there is no reason on gods green earth, for him to conceal why the evidence differs from what we believe it should appear to be, from his own narrative.

        Keep eating George, tick tock!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I’d have to agree with Mr. L. Innocent people lie and run sometimes. Humans and situations are complex.

  8. Bill Taylor says:

    the tv talking heads amaze me, they all say arias is guilty and cant be believed because she changed her story too much…..BUT those very same people will claim fogen is innocent, when reality is his story has changed far more often than hers and hers has possible bits of truth in it while fogen again is clearly lying about every aspect.

    • type1juve says:

      Those tv talking heads know that Fogen is guilty as well. They are blinded by their racism or they simply don’t care that a young, Black child was murdered while trying to get home and escape his killer.

      • Cercando Luce says:

        I don’t think that is so. I think, rather, that the novel defense strategy of trying this case very loudly in “the court of public opinion” [that is, appearing often on TV, issuing press releases, being very available to local reporters, addressing the NRA, making straight-faced assertions assuring the public that the defendant can only be acquitted by a reasonable jury] while the prosecution works silently, causes the TV talking heads to repeat only what they have heard, which is the voice of Mark O’Mara.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I believe there is a stronger bias against female killers.

  9. colin black says:

    Jodi was a sadist as well as murderous.
    She toyed with her prey like a cat with a mouse.

    Thats why she took so long in his company before executeing him.
    Even the suggestion of visiting the thousand places to die.
    After the broke up an became just freins with benifits.
    Her twisted mind was already formulating the plan to execute him.

    It was fun to her as they were screwing knowing it would be his last.
    She wanted him naked an vulnrable in the shower i m o
    The gun was aimed at him an she told him to crouch down in the shower.

    Travis knows she is unstable pointing a gun at him does so.
    Probably starts praying an pleading for her to put down the gun.
    Then as he is most vulnerable skooted down in the slippery still running shower she starts stabbing him one of the first stabs peirced his heart so he was already going to die.

    All the time she would have been screaming hatred an blamming him for everything.
    He got up stAggered to the sink an she stabbed him about 14 times in the back.
    Some deep some merley jabs.
    She was tormenting him enjoying inflicting pain an fear.

    An as he finaly slumpedan slid along the wall she lifted his head,
    Still alive as the blood spurts showed an slit his throat from ear to ear.

    Thats why she took her time to kill her Nurmi she was haveing fun.
    An thats what Martinez will tell the jury when he rubutts his absmill attempt at a closeing speach for the Defence.

    Being inept doest help but there is no defending the indefenceable…

  10. colin black says:

    doesnt make any sense

  11. colin black says:

    Nurmi trying to sound like J Cochrane so far counted
    oops there he goes again 10 now.

  12. hey kids! watching the defense attempt at some sort of sensible explanation of the planning and over kill of a decent guy! CONVERSATING is NOT a word!! LOLO

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I doubt Travis was any angel, but still . . .

      • No ones an angel so what does that have to do with it?

      • two sides to a story says:

        Shannon. Just responding to your “decent guy” comment. I sense a lot wrong with Travis, but it doesn’t justify a brutal murder that clearly wasn’t self-defense.

        I’ve been around the block a few times (several decades) with the SW Mormon culture.

      • Malisha says:

        If you have a boyfriend who is not an angel, and you have no kids with him, and you’re fit and able and under 95 years of age, LEAVE and don’t double back to stab him in the shower!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Exactly, Malisha.

    • Started watching that case just a short time ago, but wow. It’s quite a stretch to claim self-defense in that one, and it was a mistake to take that to trial, if they even offered a deal, that is.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Crane, that’s exactly what I thought. Only a sociopath or someone with a personality disorder could plead not guilty on that one. I’ve only listened to about 15 minutes of closing arguments and also quickly scanned through a pictorial history of case and trial, and it made me feel icky sticky weird to do so. I have a friend who has watched pretty much every day of the trial. No wonder she feels so heavy and depressed. Yikes.

        • I stumbled into that trial midstream one day. I thought my computer had been exposed to one of those XXX viruses somehow. Like, what the hell am I watching. But anyway, wow. I don’t even know what to say, other than her story looks and sounds way different than any other battered woman’s story I have ever heard.

      • The state said No deal! Just 1st degree w/LWOP ( love to say that for some reason:) )
        She actually tried to get the state to give her 2nd degree, and I forgot the terms, but prosecution refused.
        I believe it was just not enough prison time for her. I think if she were convicted now, by jury of second degree, she’d be out in like 6-7 years. So that’s what she’s really hoping for.

        • Sheeeyut. She on weed if she think she gonna be out in 6-7. I ordinarily hate plea bargains, but if I were in her shoes I woulda taken 1st degree with LWOP and thanked them.

          • Ain’t never had weed that Strong!! Must be angel dust mixed w/crank or LSD, or somthin new outa someone’s garage!

          • Lord love a duck. Even on a good day, ‘parole eligible’ doesn’t mean parole, and guaranteed, DOC would serve her out on any sentence she got. They’d serve that sentence out, because of the gruesome nature of the crime, the violence of it. I’ve seen DOC do that, on a whole lot less. 6-7 is straight-up dreaming, all day long.

      • Again, I am open to being wrong, and have seen some surreal court things, but I doubt there is a chance this jury will come back with a murder 2. There is overwhelming evidence of premeditation as well as efforts to cover it up. To be honest, they should have tried to pursue the ‘my client is totally crazy’ route, it would have been better than this potential suicide mission they did pursue.

  13. Xena says:

    Good morning! (following)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: