In Maricopa County, Arizona, a jury of 12 people have begun their deliberations in the trial of Arizona v. Arias.  The trial has been taken by the media and turned into a circus worse than even Florida may have seen.  Dubbed seductress, a femme-fatale, a stalker, and other names not suitable for civilized conversation, the defendant has been vilified.  The victim has been given an ultimatum by the public, either he is perfect or we cannot accept him for who he was.  Mainstream media has covered the case basically 24/7, even local newspapers of Arizona have seen a profit increase.  The money has been made all around, there is no questioning that, but when a person’s life is on the line, discussion should turn to facts and away from the seemingly here-to-sadly-stay “entertainment news” industry.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez has had a very divided viewership.  Most lawyers don’t agree with his tactics and questions have arisen, like does he go too far?  Of course, par for the course, are those that have asked those same questions of the defense, in a tit-for-tat.  There is not a prosecutor in this country that would not have loved to have this case.  In the practical world of law, as we have seen in statistics and in real-life stories, guilt and innocence isn’t always the question for the government or the media.  Martinez has lost at least 3 cases that he should have won.  Attorneys, including prosecutors, are supposed to be persuasive and both sides try their hardest to fulfill their jobs as adversaries.  They vet the case out in front of the jury who figures out which one is right.  It is when one side or both don’t play by the rules that we run into problems.  Juan Martinez received manslaughter in those three cases when he could have easily won 1st degree convictions regardless of merit or validity.  A better prosecutor, a more disciplined prosecutor with a better attitude would have won.  We would be kidding ourselves if we think that all prosecutors really consider guilt or innocence when trying a defendant.  Ever heard the phrase, “they look good for it”?  People like to attack defense attorneys all day and all night, the truth is prosecutors are no different.  There are good ones and bad ones.  Prosecutors have no crystal ball or special skills that allow them to have some kind of insight above and beyond the rest of us, where they magically know that the defendant is truly guilty.  One need only visit the Innocence Project to understand this concept quickly or analyze an acquittal.

Public opinion often requires people to exclude evidence or facts that don’t match their theory.  The courtroom has rules, hopefully this will prevent the mob mentality from infecting the annals of our due process.  You can think or even suspect something, we have all suspected someone of something and been wrong, that is why we require the finding of beyond a reasonable doubt.  The difference being that when you suspect someone you stop talking to them, when we convict someone over this “suspicion” their freedom is destroyed and they lose years if not all of their life.

There has been a lot of talk, especially in Juan Martinez‘s closing, about having to believe the defendant.  Sometimes it seems like Juan Martinez reads the blogs and watches HLN, they love him enough.  We are required for both Constitutional and humane reasons to consider someone innocent until proven guilty.  Therefore, yes we must start from a place where we believe her, then consider the evidence and see if that has changed.  It is the right thing to do.  But, we need not necessarily believe her testimony.  There was tons more testimony.  Travis Alexander gave a sort of testimony.  His own words prove that he did not value Jodi Arias, his lover.  He called her horrible names, beat her down verbally, and twisted her between you are the worst thing that happened to me and I can’t stop thinking about you.  That is not a normal relationship.  Travis Alexander talked about a 12-year-old girl and an orgasm.  There is no excuse on this planet or any other that would explain why that is okay.  It is just plain wrong.  He talked about doing sexual things with Arias while she was asleep because not many other guys do that.  There is a reason for that.  Again, no defense for such actions.

Travis Alexander was emotionally and verbally abusive.  That is the term for the words he used.  A lot of people find this hard to believe because they do this themselves on forums both pro-guilt and pro-innocence.  They drag each other through the mud, Travis Alexander, and Jodi Arias as well as extended family members of the two.  This type of crazed atmosphere devolves the importance of this process into meaninglessness.  This isn’t an opportunity to choose teams, this is an opportunity to learn and get it right.

There is no evidence that Jodi Arias is a stalker, never has been.  Yes, there were tons of people who went on Nancy Grace and said so, but you can’t count on 20 hands the number of times Nancy Grace has been wrong.  Ranting and having an agenda is not evidence.  Her admissions of reading emails and looking in his window is all they have.  However, it just isn’t true to say that someone who you let look at your emails is violating your privacy for looking at said emails.  Also, looking through someone’s window or reading their texts is normal investigative behavior when you believe that your significant other is cheating on you.  Lots of men and women do this.  The problem here was that she thought their relationship was one thing and he thought it was something else.

After carefully watching the entire trial, I have come to what I believe is the most likely events according to what was presented in reality, not on TV, but in front of the jury.  Travis Alexander wanted to be that respected, pure, perfect, inspirational, salesman, successful Mormon, elder churchman and have sex and be a porn star on the side.  He wanted to have sexual relations with Jodi Arias and then run off on his Cancun trip with another woman.  That woman wasn’t interested in anything more than friendship, but when has that ever stopped someone interested in more?  There is absolutely zero chance that he was afraid of Arias.  She was smaller than him, weaker than him, and he maintained a long-distance relationship with her.    What sense does Juan Martinez’s argument, that Travis Alexander slept with Jodi Arias that day to appease her and get her to leave him alone, make?  About as much sense as saying that Travis Alexander is a pedophile.  That was never said.  He said some iffy things that are inexcusable and certainly not normal to think about, but that doesn’t mean he ever touched a child.

Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias had a turbulent relationship, a secret relationship, a high-charged relationship for about a year and a half.  People can only take so much.  Jodi Arias snapped.  She got fed up.  Yes, Travis Alexander said she was a stalker, that he was happy she moved away, that she was the worst thing that ever happened to him, but then he turned around and had an X-rated photo shoot with her.  He was not afraid of her, he never avoided her, he sought her company.  He texted her, had phone sex with her, and he never said leave me alone or I’ll call the police or I know you slashed my tires, stop it or else.  No, he sent her pictures of his privates instead.  How many stalkers receive that sort of thing on their phone from their victims?

Travis Alexander called another one of his girlfriends a stalker too.  While he was telling one girl the other was a stalker, he was talking to that “stalker” at the same time about meeting up.  People like to say that Jodi Arias played innocent to seduce others, I think people have it backwards.

His angry texts and emails show that he couldn’t handle anger and frustration in a healthy, non-impulsive manner.  Is there absolute proof that Jodi Arias was physically abused?  No.  Does that mean anything?  No.  Defendants do not have to prove anything.  Even if you don’t believe she was abused, it doesn’t automatically discount her self-defense argument.

Jodi Arias went to the house that day to “hang out” with Travis Alexander do what they always did together.  The phone sex recording spells out everything for us.  They had that photo shoot he wanted so badly.  And then, something went wrong.  I don’t know if it was something that was said or done, most likely an argument, which isn’t uncommon in these situations.  They exchanged words and she got the gun.  I don’t know where, it wasn’t proven by the prosecution.  Even if she brought the gun, there must be intent to use it to kill.  Bringing a weapon is not the required intent.  Their relationship was toxic.  They both had bad childhoods, rough lives.  They were both trying to build new, better ones.  They both tried to break out of the chaos.

What still doesn’t make sense to me is why she only shot him once and then opted to use a knife?  How she was able to, in one slice, create that neck wound?  How she dragged him all that way and then positioned him?  If she turned her license plate over in Arizona, then how did she get through the Hoover Dam checkpoint?  Why she said that she thought the evidence would match two people?  Why she waited so long, if she premeditated it?

Premeditation is defined as the contemplation of a crime well enough in advance that you can reflect upon the thought and deliberately continue with your intent to commit the crime.  Premeditation cannot and should never be proven with a mere speculation, assumption, or inference.  Where did Jodi Arias premeditate this crime?  Jodi Arias has to not only have brought the weapons, but also intended to use them to murder him.  His wounds are hard to get past, but they do not prove premeditation because they are horrible.  The cleaning of the scene does not prove premeditation because it is a post act.  The gun that was stolen from her grandfather‘s house was not the only item stolen.  There was also cash, a stereo, and a DVD player.  They don’t know where the weapons are.  They have never been tested for forensics.  Without this, it is only a speculation.  I don’t view the world from the lens of guilt, I view it from the lens of innocence.  That is what the law proscribes.  If we live our life and make our rules by the guilty, we will have no fair processes.  I cannot make the leap of logic from there was a stolen gun to she stole the gun to she used that gun to kill him, without any corroborating evidence.  It is not too much of a coincidence.  It is merely unproven.  There was zero evidence except for the lack of evidence (there was an unliftable print on the TV) at the grandparents‘ house to show she stole the items.  So because the police can’t solve the case, we are supposed to assume a two birds with one stone mentality?

The deeper issue I have with this theory is why the prosecutor is allowed to do it?  He isn’t charging her with this crime, she has never been convicted of this crime, and there was no evidence presented supporting her guilt.  How is it that a prosecutor is allowed to claim an unproven, uncharged crime is proof of another alleged, charged crime?

Her route and actions are supposed to be premeditation as well.   There are several problems:  She rented a white car far away from her home to be unnoticed.  Really?  She rented it in her name and she also took it with her on the rest of her trip.  So, other people saw her in a white car later, including a police officer. She turned the license plate upside down.  There is no proof when this happened and it really makes absolutely no sense that this was part of her plan.  If you want to go unnoticed, you don’t flip your license plate over.  She had an alibi on the trip.  Well, sort of.  She was late.  Leslie Udy said that she was worried about her.  She was unaccounted for.  Dying her hair.  There is no proof she dyed her hair except for the testimony of the rental car man.  If I have to compare the testimony of one man to all the rest of the evidence including photographs that show her with no blonde hair, I’m going to come down on the side with corroboration.  Just because the rental guy said he saw “Kool-Aid stains”, which can be incriminating doesn’t mean he is right.  The gas cans are to me just a red herring.  It is a fact that many people, whether dangerous or not, take gas cans when they travel through the desert.  Is it safer to go into the desert with no way out or to go into the desert with a combustible way out?  It is a lose-lose, toss up.  I would probably brave it with the gas, if I ever went into the desert myself.  Did she return the can?  I have been to Walmart many, many times.  They are fast and loose with the rules like any other corporation.  You can return items with no receipt and get items with no documentation put down.  It happens, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.  If you do the math, like Juan Martinez wants you to, with two gas cans and a car tank, you can come out with that amount, just like if it were a car tank and three gas cans.  The cell phone being off when in Arizona.  Is this incriminating or did she really just lose charge?  Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t.  I don’t know, but I hardly think that someone can know beyond a reasonable doubt that someone who has their cell phone off is definitely incriminating.

Another issue is that there were rope pieces found at the crime scene according to Det. Flores.  The knife story is denied by the prosecution, but not refuted.  If there was no knife to cut a rope in the bedroom/bathroom area, then why are there rope pieces?  Ignore it, according to Juan Martinez.  It’s some kind of pillow fringe or something.

Throughout the more than 50 day trial, there have been many witnesses.  The best witness all around was Dr. Robert Geffner.  He was very objective and very intelligent, also very relatable.  He wasn’t there to give us a diagnosis, quite the opposite.  He was there to tell us what the test meant without any theories or agendas.  The worst witness of the entire case was Dr. Janeen DeMarte.  It angers me when attorneys call experts that have such little experience to testify at the most important cases in the entire system.  I understand they need experience, but they can get it elsewhere.  She has only 3 years of experience, despite her attempts to convince us it is okay to practice without a license for 5 years before that.  She misused tests and didn’t complete tests.

I think Kirk Nurmi said some things that everyone needs to remember.  Look for those who have no agenda, that is where the truth lies.  The defense has done a great job in this case. They didn’t throw things, yell at witnesses, say things like ‘you don’t get to ask me questions!’, and they never devalued life and signed autographs and posed for pictures like a red carpet.  They are taking their job seriously.  It is quite a contrast to Juan Martinez.

The ridiculous threats that people make against witnesses about ruining their careers because they disagree with them and the outrageous threats against defense attorneys who are doing their jobs.  How dare these people act in such a fashion, call themselves Americans, and claim 1st Amendment privileges!  The 1st Amendment, first of all, does not allow threats or offensive speech, but it does allow a disagreement.  Instead of being civilized, oh no, we can’t be civilized, we would rather act like petulant children on the playground fighting over an action figure.  That’s the image we want to show the world, the image we want to show our children.  It’s okay to destroy someone’s career through giving bad reviews to their books and calling for their firing.  What about all the people they’ve helped and will help?  That doesn’t matter because we disagree with them, right?  Collateral damage is okay because it is my “opinion”.  We wonder why we have bully problems in this country.  I find it laughable that we don’t know why our children are bullies.  They see vanity and judgmental, harsh, sometimes nasty words on television media programs and then they see their parents tweeting and Facebooking hate campaigns against others for the mere reason that they disagree with them (not that any reason is good).  Why do we have bullies?  I wonder.  All these sanctimonious people who tweet, Facebook, etc.  You have no idea whether you would tell lies to keep from going to jail whether you have done something criminal or not.  Who wants to go to jail?!  We seem to rarely want to fill the role given to us to protect our fellow man’s rights.

The bottom line is that this case is full of liars because everyone lies.  Travis Alexander lied, repeatedly, to his friends, to his girlfriends, to his mistresses, to his church, and to his parishioners.  Jodi Arias lied to the police and to the media.  The media lied to you and me.  Detective Esteban Flores went to the aggravation hearing, which is a hearing where, under Arizona law, it is decided whether or not the State has possible reason to charge the death penalty.  He testified that the Medical Examiner Dr. Kevin Horn told him that the gunshot was first.  But, magically, at trial that never happened.  The M.E. says that he never met with Det. Flores and he never said that to him.  Really?  So, according to the M.E., Det. Flores made that all up in his head.  Which, in other words, means that he lied at the aggravation hearing.  It can’t be both ways.  Either Det. Flores was right when he testified that the shot was first according to the M.E and the M.E. lied at the trial.  Or the M.E. is right, the shot was last and Det. Flores is the liar.  Also, don’t forget that the M.E. admitted he messed up the autopsy report, even though he read over it in preparation for the trial more than 4 times.  The question is did he mess up or did the bullet not go into the brain?  We don’t know, there was no second expert to check his work.  His theory on the track of the bullet is just that a theory, speculation, there was no actual medical proof.  My personal thoughts are that the State changed their theory to distance themselves from the defense.  They didn’t want to give any legitimization to the defense’s case.

The reason I don’t think it is manslaughter is because I do not see anything more than words being the provocation.  Words can cut deep and they often cause people such pain, that kids will commit suicide or kill others over them.  The pen is mightier than the sword.  Words can falsely build someone up or falsely tear someone down.  But, under the law words are not enough.  It is proven that he was verbally abusive, but not physically.  Could he have been?  Yes.  Could he have not been?  Yes.  I believe that the appropriate verdict is 2nd degree.  Second-degree murder is when a person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person without premeditation.  I will of course always respect the jury’s verdict and always keep an open-mind if they disagree.  If the appellate courts uphold it, then so be it.

I hope that we take away good lessons from this, but I don’t hold out hope.  I’m tired of mainstream media’s cross-over to tabloid media.  I’m tired of the war on defendants.  I’m tired of people not realizing that life is like dominoes.  Everything affects another.  Karma, the golden rule, the 14th Amendment, ever heard of any of these concepts?

If we say that Jodi Arias can’t say anything bad about Travis Alexander then how can she put forth her defense?  How can we know what the truth is, what justice is, if we can’t air out both theories in a fair way?  If we don’t let Jodi Arias argue self-defense, then there isn’t an argument in the world that can explain why we should let other people.  Not in the land of equality.

People complain, ‘she’s destroying Travis Alexander’s reputation’, no she’s not.  If you don’t believe her, then how does that change anything?  If his family doesn’t believe her, how is his reputation effected?  What about her reputation?  What if we are wrong?  Things don’t have to be one way, we have choice.  Show me the law that says that Jodi Arias getting a defense somehow hurts Travis Alexander?  There isn’t one.  It is an abstract concept.  If you don’t believe it, it changes nothing, but if you don’t give it a fair and unprejudiced chance it will change everything.

Don’t realize this when it’s too late.  Don’t we have enough innocent people in prison to show us to take this process more seriously?  We are supposed to be one of the checks and balances that is why the jury is of our peers.  When do we start questioning authority again?

People still don’t get it, I don’t know if they ever will.  “Go get your popcorn!” (people on Facebook, Twitter, and HLN have all said this).  Really?  To do what?  Watch a woman, perhaps, be sentenced to die?  Is that entertaining to you?  And you think she is sick?  What’s the matter with people?  The 14th Amendment says that we are all equal under the law, but it goes both ways.  If the law is a bad law, we are all mistreated by it.  When people get emotional, they make bad decisions.  If we didn’t give Jodi Arias a fair trial because you think she is guilty.  Then, it would only take an appellate court upholding that for it to spread like a virus through our whole system.  We have enough problems we don’t need this teenage ‘It’ll never happen to me’ mindset.  If you take another person’s rights away, 1.) you will never know what justice should be and 2.) you will never have that right again and neither will your loved ones.  Ever heard the phrase, “you don’t know what you got until it’s gone”?

It isn’t just a devaluation of Jodi Arias’ life when the media and the public take a trial and make it some kind of sporting event.  It is one thing to be informed, it is one thing to check the government and want justice, but it is another thing to create cutesy or evil names for people, destroy someone in some kind of public bullying pile-on, and to use the assumed victim as some kind of face to this damnable activity.

I’ll leave you with these two thoughts:    Even if you disagree with everything that Kirk Nurmi has said, how you can disagree with the fact that what Travis Alexander said on that phone sex recording was sick and wrong?  Travis Alexander talked about a 12-year-old girl and her first orgasm.  No matter the context, unless you are saying it is wrong to say those things, there is no excuse.  It is not in the heat of the moment.  What man or woman thinks in the heat of the moment of a phone sex conversation about children?  What might be more sick and wrong are the people making excuses.  ‘Oh, it is just a guy being a guy.’  What kind of guys do you know?!

Even if you agree with everything that Juan Martinez has said, how can you agree with the comments he made about battered woman syndrome?  He said that battered woman syndrome shouldn’t be allowed in a courtroom.  That you can’t take a blood test to prove it.  Most of his arguments about this sounded like a batterer’s defense attorney.  The worst part is that people adopted this mindset, not just people in social media, but people in the mainstream media.  Not just journalists, but victims.  Victims saying that it is a slap in the face to victims that Jodi Arias is saying she is a victim.  Wait, haven’t they heard that somewhere?  Haven’t they heard the comments Juan Martinez made to the witnesses and in his closing?  I believe that they may have the fog.  Juan Martinez was very offensive in this case, not only did he say in his closing argument that you can consent to non-consensual sexual activity after the activity, not only did he personally attack witnesses without any proof like Dr. Samuels is in love with Arias, but he didn’t have to say any of it.  He had a case from the beginning.  No, it isn’t his style, it is who he is.  And sadly, people will reward his bad behavior.

  1. Patty says:

    There isn’t a blood test to prove someone is an ahole and jerk…but doesn’t mean JM isn’t both! Thanks for thought provoking article!


  2. Sacred Vamp says:

    Reblogged this on Sacred Vamp and commented:


  3. ralpheeb says:

    Wonderful post. I am disgusted by HLN’S Continuous coverage of this case. I do not watch that channel at all. They feed into the mob mentality. It truly sickens me. Juan Martinez is a bully. The adoration of him by the majority is scary. The remarks about the defense attorneys appearance are so inappropriate. The mob trying to destroy any defense witnesses career is horrifying. Really, I agree, how do people not get why kids are bullying when they are leading their children by example. Shame on them. There are many people that agree with you, but if they say or post they don’t like JM, or that JA deserved a fair trial, they get jumped on, often being told that the “majority” does not agree, therefore, you must be a troll and believe JA is innocent. God help us all. Once again, wonderful post.


  4. d7654 says:

    Excellent! Very well said! This needs to be shared everywhere.


  5. cbyamz says:

    applauding your article and standing up on your last 2 sentences .. bravo . . well said and true


  6. Rose Chimera says:

    Thank you for being the voice of reason in the storm of the mob-like mentality to take Arias and burn her at the stake. I have watched the trial from the very beginning and have found myself shaking my head at the apparent stupidity of the general public’s comments against Arias and for Alexander. I have worked for a criminal defense attorney for 15 years so I probably have a different perspective of the law, trials, the process, etc., than others.

    It is a hugely unpopular stance to take the side of reason in this case. If you don’t want Justice for Travis then you are just as evil as Jodi.

    I found myself going from annoyance to anger at the “public” crucifying the defense witnesses–going as far as to brag about negative remarks on Amazon to prevent selling their books–as I think you mentioned. How ridiculous, how pathetic! Clearly there’s a need for the expert witnesses, but to attack them personally was by far and away over the top. Because Martinez did it, it must be right! That he refused to refer to Samuels with his correct title of Doctor was truly annoying to me. It was disrespectful and belittling in my opinion. Certainly unnecessary since the prosecutor is to present the facts–be the fact finder if you will. To make it personal was evidence that Martinez lost perspective, if he ever had it.

    No, we didn’t see the defense attorneys posing for photos, signing autographs. We saw them doing their job. Not a job that they wanted to be sure. Nurmi requested but was denied to get off the case.

    Defense attorneys have to take their client as they find them, good bad or ugly. We’re all entitled to a defense also. Criticizing the way Nurmi looked for instance or Wilmont…what’s the point in that?!

    This case is not cut and dry as the Travis supporters would want us to think. Travis was no angel to be certain. HIs voice tells us he led two lives. That his friends went on that loud mouth, obnoxious Nancy Grace’s show and talked about how wonderful Travis was–and that they had no idea about the dark side of his life, aka Arias–showed me clear and convincing proof that they didn’t truly know him at all. There was FACTS, aka evidence to show that Travis abused Arias…they did have a toxic relationship. Arias pulls away, moves back to Yreka, Travis calls/texts/emails her and pulls her back in.

    The general public simply does not appreciate nor understand the field of psychiatry. That the mind works in mysterious ways. That a borderline personality is a chaotic life. Anyone that is with a borderline personality must like a certain amount of chaos in their life. Clearly Travis enjoyed it! But his childhood was nothing except chaos so it made sense to me that he’d find it attractive.

    All during this trial, especially watching the police interrogation videos all I could think was, if Arias had picked up that shell casing, not left that hand print, not left that camera in the washer (odd mistake there) and kept her mouth shut forever, she likely could have gotten away with it. She should have lawyered up the very second she knew the police were looking at her…as you said, “they look good for it”. Should she walk free? No, she did kill Travis, but should she get the death penalty? Definitely not as there are two many variables in this case to warrant killing her. Is she evil? I don’t think so. I think she has classic borderline personality traits and she just simply snapped when Travis used her for one more marathon sexual escapade then told her she’s not going to Cancun with him. Maybe she just got tired of being used, abused then discarded like yesterday’s trash. Add that to a borderline personality you’re going to get the end result of a death like Travis’.

    All in all I wasn’t overly impressed with Martinez…if I heard him call one more woman ma’am! in his condescending manner or heard him yell, did I ask you if…. or we’re not talking about that! Or anyone of his constant interruptions of the witnesses I thought I’d throw something at the screen. The defense team deserves accolades for having such a difficult client, a truly difficult case made worse by having cameras in the courtroom and remaining above the fray, staying the course, doing their job to the best of their ability.

    In the end, regardless of the verdict, the country will be divided over this case, much like OJ Simpson verdict…but if Arias doesn’t get the death penalty, the jury will be criticized to the end of time for being incompetent, stupid, sucked into Jodi’s charm, etc. Martinez will remain godlike in many people’s minds and Wilmont and Nurmi will continue on to their next client. And so it goes…


  7. gailconlon says:

    In the blink of an eye, Martinez has made a mockery of Domestic Violence Survivors and Battered Women.

    I am at a loss for words, I truly am….


  8. Lon Spector says:

    It might help if we knew something about personality type.
    Both Jodi and Travis were Ennagram 3’s. Number 3s look VERY GOOD on the outside,
    (The name of the 3 is called the “Motivator.”) Travis fancied himself a motivational speaker.
    It’s funny how these “empty-suit” politicians like John Edwards (Who did his dying wife dirt.)
    And Arnold Schartznenger who did the same to his living one feel entitled to “double dip.”
    Why, aren’t they perfect? A sterling example of how to suceed in America.
    Certainly, their adulation in the eyes of their trophy wives tells them this.
    Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands right along side him, as does Anthony Weiner”s Perhaps they have
    about $ 15.000,000,000 reasons to do so.
    Travis wanted to make the cover of TIME. I doubt he ever expected to do it in this way.


  9. Jenni says:

    Sheer brilliance.


  10. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for your post. I thought it was unbelievable that Juan Martinez said it was okay to consent to sex after the fact. That was the most degrading thing I’ve ever heard, and it was spoken in the court of law. Talk about setting a precedent. I was completely uphauled. There are so many victims of sexual abuse in this world he cut with his words. This was an example of how words can cut people. He also reduced the comments that Travis Alexander as if it wasn’t really that bad.

    This man is supposed to represent the people and state of AZ. I really hope that the people of AZ do not believe this type of BS. And he isn’t representative of the rest of the state. It sets a very bad example to the rest of the country.


    • mizdjohnson17 says:

      Juan Martinez is an EXCELLENT prosecutor. He does his job very well and as he should. Thats what prosecutors do. They speak for the VICTIM, which is Travis Alexander. He was the one slaughtered and gutted like an animal being hunted.


      • If he was a good prosecutor he would not state that domestic violence/battered woman syndrome isn’t real because you don’t have a blood test to prove it, so it should not be allowed to be testified to in court. He wouldn’t say that you can consent to rape after the fact. He did not NEED to say these things or be outlandish and unprofessional to show his case. He had a strong enough case to go on the merits. Just because Travis Alexander is the victim doesn’t give Juan Martinez license to act in such a deplorable manner. His sexual crimes co-workers should be disgusted and so should the Arizona taxpayers. He represents them and I hope they don’t believe that stuff. So should all women and victims, period. Every case is interconnected and there will be a case sometime where a woman will have snapped and killed her abuser. She will be prosecuted and if will condone what Juan Martinez has said, what will happen to women like her?


Join the Discussion

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