Jodi Arias: Bordering on Death?
Just when we thought Jodi Arias had receded into the shadows of notorious sociopathic killers, she has returned for yet another drama-filled narcissistic replay of her depraved indifference to life and humanity.
The Jodi Arias show, Part II, the Sentencing Hearing has begun. Even though there is a blackout of television coverage until a verdict is reached, we are all glued again to television reports, tweets and our imagination to relive once again the Jodi Arias murder story.
All the cast of characters are back – Juan Martinez, Judge Stephens, the state witnesses, and of course, Jodi Arias, her defense team and band of other miscreants and wackos.
Some things have changed and some things are the same. The pictures, the brutal violence, and the incredible tragedy surrounding the cold-blooded murder of Travis Alexander are the same.
Judge Stephens who has undermined our criminal justice system through her inept trial management skills, is back on the bench and sitting over this three-ring circus. As I have written before, Judge Stephens bears the most responsibility for losing control of the original trial, and she is well on her way to doing so again.
A judge has a responsibility for managing a criminal trial. That does not mean that she has to bend over backwards to let the defense do or ask whatever they want.
A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one. Judge Stephens has confused the term fair to mean that no limits are placed on the defense.
Out of self-preservation, Judge Stephens closed the courtroom to cameras and other public access to the events. Once the curtain is lifted, we will see yet again on television how she has botched this sentencing proceeding to the detriment of Travis Alexander’s family, and most importantly, to any concept of justice.
The first sign of problems to come was the fact that within one week two of the jurors on the case were excused. Talk about a blithering failure, Judge Stephens has now threatened the trial by failing to impanel a large enough jury to survive the loss of additional jurors down the road.
While the evidence, the judge, and the key actors are all the same, there are two significant changes to focus on – first, remember that Jodi Arias’ conviction for first-degree murder (premeditated and felony-murder) has been established. The remaining question is not whether she acted in self-defense – that claim is gone and rests in the heap of Jodi Arias’ past lies and deceptions.
Jodi Arias has a new claim to escape the death penalty – that she is mentally ill. She was the “victim” of abuse from her parents as a child, and Travis Alexander’s so-called “abuse” of her triggered horrible memories and rekindling of her past PTSD, and eventually led to her violently attack Travis Alexander.
What a bunch of lies and deceit. She was not mentally-ill – she was and is a cold-blooded murderer. Once again, she will take the stand and testify as to her ridiculous story with new embellishments and lies mixed in to focus everyone’s attention on her – in fact, all of this was and still is designed to shine the light on one person – Jodi Arias.
If we had a judge with a backbone, and one who viewed her job to manage the trial and provide a fair and efficient trial, Jodi Arias would not be the focus of this trial – instead, justice would be the focus and the death penalty would quickly and properly be imposed, subject to years and years of appeals, but nonetheless a careful reflection of our criminal justice system.
Unfortunately, what we are witnessing and will eventually see on television, is how a cold-blooded murderer and her band of merry attorneys can manipulate and obfuscate our criminal justice system.
We all, as Americans, deserve better, and most especially Travis Alexander’s family deserves a system that recognizes the need for justice to respond to his unfortunate and tragic death.
This is spot on Michael! I really hope this jury see the true evilness of this succubus!
“A judge has a responsibility for managing a criminal trial. That does mean that she has to bend over backwards to let the defense do or ask whatever they want.”
I believe you meant it to read as follows:
…That does NOT mean that she has to bend over backwards…
Thank you, Mr.Volkov. Interesting and insightful article.