Jodi Arias Jury Foreman Speaks Out Again, Didn’t Vote for Death Penalty

Surely this news will come as no surprise to you. William Zervakos acknowledged, for the first time, that he was one of the four jury members who voted against the death penalty. The main reasons why he voted against the death penalty include Jodi’s young age and her lack of a criminal history. Another mitigating factor, in his mind, was her “dysfunctional family.” He also believed that Travis Alexander verbally and mentally abused Jodi Arias.

106 thoughts on “Jodi Arias Jury Foreman Speaks Out Again, Didn’t Vote for Death Penalty

  1. At age 27 and with no criminal history she can’t be all that bad. What she did was horrific and she will be punished but it wasn’t her fault. She had a dysfunctional family and Travis abused her. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is stupid and hasn’t seen, read or heard all the evidence he did.

    Excuse me. I have a doctor’s appointment to have my tongue removed from my cheek.

  2. Memo to the Jury Foreman: Sir, you did not follow the law. You deserve the disdain and contempt that the public feels towards you for ignoring the oath you took to follow the law(s) of you State and the judge’s instructions. Shame on You!!!

    I sure wish there was a way to legally punish the foreman for taking an oath that he had no intention of honoring. His behavior has caused so much pain…. What an arrogant old fool….. Oh, he makes my blood boil.

    • SoCal Joy I agree whole heartly. There was enough there to convict her for the DP. If you can’t vote for DP then don’t take the case. Don’t for get about the other 3. And now the trial may not be til 1/14. That is justice????????

    • I agree! /so the jury foreman bought into her lies. As tough as she was to Martinez, do you really think she would let anybody abuse her? If you consider Travis’ emails to Arias, looks like Travis was correct. Jodi was the worst thing that ever happened to him, and how was he supposed to react to a woman who would not leave him alone? She use sex to keep him in her life. Also, name one l person that said that travis was anything but a wonderful person. Why would you ignore the people who loved and respected travis and choose to believe /arias. UNBELIEVABLE. You have been suckered by her,,, You are probably responsible for the 3 other jurors wh0 did not vote for death. I hOPE YOU ARE HAPPY!!

  3. Bill Zervakos is an arrogant know it all who has to be right. He is jealous because three jurors who voted for the death penalty and two alternates who wanted Jodi Arias to get the death penalty have been on HLN talking about how they saw through all her lies and she was not abused in the least and the jurors failed in not putting her to death.

    So he had to shoot off his mouth on a local TV station to defend Jodi and his decision again. Although we all knew the first time he spoke he voted against the death penalty his excuse for being on TV again is he was giving News 3 “an exclusive because I never said this before. I did vote on the side of life.” He feels he is so important that he can give news media “an exclusive” interview and their ratings will sky rocket. I wouldn’t watch him on the news but I did watch your video to see him make a fool of himself again. This proves he is a media whore.

    His statements are mind boggling.

    ” You don’t put people to death for being stupid. You don’t put them to death for lying.” What? All she did in his eyes was act stupid? He thinks it was just a harmless little prank to stage a burglary and steal her grandfather’s gun, drive 1,000 miles with gas cans and her cell phone turned off, make love to a man, stab him 29 times, nearly decapitate him and shoot him in the head. He keeps saying something happened. Yes, a premeditated extremely cruel murder happened.

    “i don’t think Jodi Arias is a menace to society.” Huh? Did he hear her testify she bought a 9 mm gun after stabbing and shooting Travis to death because she was going on a camping trip with six men? Who would do that unless they enjoyed killing once they got a taste of it.

    “There is no proof of this vicious evil person everyone portrays.” Huh? Premeditating a murder and making a man she had just made love to suffer for two minutes before she slit his throat and put him out of his misery doesn’t make her evil and vicious I don’t know what does.

    “People are stupid.” Speak for yourself, Bill.

    He whined about how horrendous it was to find her guilty of first degree murder. He could have gotten out of it by saying he didn’t believe in the death penalty or excused himself in the penalty phase because he couldn’t vote for death like he believed. He didn’t.

    “Sure I want to write about it.” Ah hah. We find the real reason he wanted to serve on a high profile jury. You can bet he is going to be the first juror to pen a tell all book. Fame and money are knocking on his bald head.

    • Hey Observer, I completely agree with you. This guy lied to get on the jury plus he is a fame whore. The only thing that stopped him in his tracks were the other jurors speaking out, who I think came forward before they wanted to so that he would STFU! Well, I guess it’s been long enough now for him to try to get back into the limelight – good luck with your book deal Bill, you may get a publisher to give you an advance, but I’m not betting on people lining up for autographs, even if you were giving it away. Shame on you, you did fail the system by not being truthful from the get go. Oh, and yea, I hope you never serve on a jury again too, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      • Chrissie, he proved his true colors when he broke the promise the jurors all made after the mistrial on the sentencing phase that they wouldn’t speak to the press until the next week. Using his position as the jury foreman, Fame Whore Bill grabbed the spotlight by speaking to all the news stations and newspapers that very night. He babbled on and on about how the media and public were crucifying “the poor girl” who was “a human being” and that it was unfair to expect jurors to decide on the death penalty and that he was upset that the judge called a mistrial. He said he thought the judge would simply sentence her to LWOP or 25 to life.

        From what he has been spouting, it sounds to me like he wanted to be the big hero who saved “a young abused girl” from death. He visioned himself writing a best selling book entitled “How I saved Jodi Arias from death” and was shocked when enraged trial followers called him a “dirty old man” who got taken in by a manipulative young girl with breast implants.

        • Agreed, he also angered me when he stated (paraphrasing here) that there was a hate mob out there and that the people were uniformed. Of course the hate mob being mostly true DV survivors who had never come out of the woodwork before, or others that have or had dealings with psychos. Uniformed? Oh yeah, I forgot he didn’t get to see the interview videos, hear about the forged letters and her behavior with her own counsel, and that’s just a start. He is an insult to all victims and the judicial system.

          • Chrissie you know he saw them before he came on TV to make his little commints. I think he got caught up in her BOOBS, Sex tapes and her age.

      • A majority of the public would NOT buy a book by the arrogant foreman because no one cares what he has to say. No publisher would publish Bill Zervakos either because he is arrogant, self serving, irrational and illogical and holds the minority opinion. Publishers only publish authors who will sell books. Publishers usually publish books written by more than one juror on high profile cases so they have more than one point of view. A publisher would more than likely publish a book by all the jurors or those who voted for death because they are the most intelligent and reasonable. Zervakos would want to brag about himself and no one cares about him.

  4. It bothered me more that he stated that his hand was shaking so badly when he was signing the guilty verdict on 1st degree murder charge. She premeditated the murder! Did he forget the 29 stab wounds and the near decapitation? No way was he ever going to vote death if he struggled with the guilty verdict.
    I believe he made the best decision that he felt comfortable with (I disagree with his decision) but I do not understand why he felt she was verbally and emotionally abused by Travis.The evidence just wasn’t there.
    If the defendant was male and the victim female, he would have had no problem with the death penalty.

    • I absolutely agree + have thought if JA was a male that killed another woman certainly or even a man in such a brutal manner, there would have been ease of solidarity during the guilt phase, a more than likely DP verdict ( unanimous penalty for sure) + we wouldn’t be seeing idiots like Foreman Bill wanting to give her a pass because she “may have been verbally/mentally abused” by the man she slaughtered. Foreman Bill is a ludicrous wingnut I suspect who could have hung the jury during the guilt phase. I’ve intentionally avoided this arrogant, self serving man’s public statements. We got lucky here w/a guilty pre-meditated 1rst degree murder verdict w/this arrogant fool on the Arias jury. God bless the Alexander family.

  5. Just like Jodi he thinks everyone who does not read or see thinks like he does is stupid. How dare he. He did not follow the rules so who really is the stupid one. On this liars say so he believes her family is dysfunctional and on a couple emails or texts out of how many thousand and only one sided he thinks Travis was abusive. He should just shut up He sounds more stupid every time he says anything.

    • How would the forman believe anyone abused Jodi, her parents included. It was only Jodi’s say so and we know she is a liar. Jodi said 1 person saw bruising, then why didn’t person come forward and the defense team would have found the person for sure. The only time her parents talked was at police station when they were intervied and didn’t have anything nice to say about her. Just goes to show you how stupid some people can be!

    • How would any one person know if Jodi’s family is dysfunctional? The only people who talked with them were the police. Even the so called Dr. and the so called Abuse expert testified about Travis and Jodi’s parents. They did not have any facts only Jodi’s mouth. How dare they say anything without finding the truth! Jodi has done nothing but throw her mom and dad under the bus.

  6. Zervakos minimized her crime when he said “She shouldn’t die for being stupid”.
    JA minimized her crime when she said that it was “JUST one day that shouldn’t define the rest of my life”.
    What is the purpose of minimizing bad acts? Is it to try and influence other people into thinking it wasn’t all that important to make such a fuss over? Or could it be that they really don’t feel that it was that significant and therefore, should not be treated as such?

    • Jodi and the foreman minimize Jodi’s horrific murder of Travis for two different reasons. Bill Zervakos wants to believe the world is a safe place where “good girls” only commit violent acts if they are pushed to it by bad men. He believes himself to be a good man so it will never happen to him. He doesn’t want to believe that some women are bad seeds who don’t have to be abused to commit acts of violence. Jodi kicked her mother and the family dog and doors and walls long before she met Travis Alexander.

      Jodi is a psychopath and psychopaths don’t have any conscience, fear or empathy so to Jodi stabbing Travis 29 times, slitting his throat and shooting him in the head was no big deal. The day after she was arrested when she told Flores she witnessed two masked intruders kill Travis she seemed surprised when she described blood being everywhere and Travis screaming “not like a girl but like he was in pain.” She also mentioned in her allocation that she was surprised that she was capable of such violence but then shrugged and said, “But I was” and continued with her speech of all the good deeds she would do while in prison.

  7. I already wondered about this guy as it was obvious from his first interviews he voted for Life. I tried to convince myself the testimony must have looked different in court but each time this guy speaks, I’m left thinking he surely is an idiot and is only interested in fame and fortune from being on the jury. After all, how many crimes, much less 1st degree murders, AREN’T stupid? And I really do not understand what abuse has to do with it. I never believed Travis abused Jodi, but if I HAD thought that, I think I would have been more likely to either find Jodi not guilty or to convict on something less than 1st degree. So I don’t understand his thinking in seeing abuse as a mitigator after he voted for 1st degree, especially since Jodi had to travel hundreds of miles to kill Travis (versus being trapped in a living arrangement with him that she feared couldn’t escape from.) But I’m pretty sure I’d never read a book this guy wrote to learn more about his screwy logic!

    • I have a theory about why Zervakos agreed to both verdicts prior to DP.
      I’ve found this blog a while ago, and really enjoy the intelligence and level of discourse here, but since I’m neither a lawyer nor a Psychologist, I was hesitant to post comments before. But my thoughts on this one subject are so strong, I would like to share them with people who seem quite like-minded and accepting on any new opinion.
      In one of his first interviews, Zervakos said that HE WAS SHOCKED to find out that his ‘Penalty phase mistrial’ did not result in the WHOLE trial being declared as such. I found that one statement extremely enlightening, and very indicative of his intentions towards this case.
      He clearly misunderstood the law, and was certain that if there is a mistrial in the last phase, it will apply to the whole trial, and the Judge will re-try from the beginning. I believe that was the one and only reason he ever agreed to go with the majority of votes in the Guilt and the Aggravation phases.
      He appears to have gotten on the jury with an express purpose to ensure mistrial for Arias, forcing the state to either accept a plea, or pursue a re-trial at a staggering cost, hopefully to the disapproval of the AZ taxpayers.
      I believe that he figured, bases on his faulty interpretation of the law, that all that was required to cause that was a hung jury in the last phase.
      Had he tried to go against the rest of the Jury in the Guilt or Aggravation phases, the outcry would have been overwhelming. He must also have understood that in such case, in face of all the evidence and of JA’s admission of murder, he could not possibly try to get her off. So he figured he will make himself her hero, her savior, by causing mistrial in a round-about way. Thus he went along with the Guilty verdict, and with the Aggravation finding. There was no reason for him to be ‘causing trouble’ at these stages, since he already planned to flip the whole apple cart over in the last one. That’s why he freely voted ‘Guilty’ twice before the Mitigation/Penalty phase, but then ‘suddenly’ developed empathy for JA’s meek, abused little woman act.
      When he voted for mistrial in the 3rd stage, he did not experience any overnight spur of sympathy for the murdering demon. He did not ‘finally realize’ that she was young, innocent and guileless. He already thought all of that when the trial started. He just needed to guarantee himself the longest ride possible; you know – to have a GOOD basis for the book, and he needed to make sure to SHOCK everybody by causing the TOTAL MISTRIAL. That would mean a huge increase in the value of his potential ‘trial memoirs’.
      To me he is worse than a stealth juror, who does not believe in DP, but lies to get on the Jury and then subverts justice by refusing to vote for DP. At least they do so from misguided contention that they are standing up for their beliefs.
      Zervakos – in my mind – did everything he could to get himself on the Jury. He did everything to convince the other Jurors of his reasonable, wise-man nature, to have them vote him Foreman. He carefully adhered to his covert mission’s credo, thru the Guilt and Aggravation phases, voting unanimously with the others, ensuring the maximum potential interest in the case, and thus in his future interviews and book. He set and executed his plan to perfection, all the way to causing the Hung Jury in the Penalty phase. Too bad he was too stupid to verify his facts or too enthusiastic to bother confirming the law.
      Had he been right, we would now be pulling our hair out, screaming in helpless anger and disgust at the resultant MISTRIAL, and the need to re-try the whole thing again, from the beginning, probably adding at least another 2-3 years of delays, counsel changes, made-up science investigations and motions grabbing at any- and everything to ensure as unfair a trial to the victim as could be. After all, our law only seems to care about the rights of the Accused. The Victim loses all his rights the moment they are murdered.
      Had Zervakos not been so certain of himself, his plan might have worked. He thought that voting ‘NOT Guilty’ in the Guilt and Aggravation phases was not necessary, based on his understanding of the law. He fully expected that when his signed form was given to the Judge, with the ‘Unable to reach the verdict’ marked on it, that MISTRIAL will be declared for this phase, and subsequently the WHOLE TRIAL WILL BE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AS WELL.
      I still shake with rage, when I think about how one jerk could have so easily derailed justice in this case. How his greed, fame hunger, and narcissism and self-aggrandizement might have given that crazy monster JA another 3-4 years in a cushy, comfy county jail, awaiting another whole new trial.

      • Polk8dot, I agree with all you said. To begin with, Zervakos knew all-about-Jodi BEFORE the trial. Most likely he saw her “cutie,” “sweetie,” soft spoken interviews (First Edition, etc.) & was taken-in by her then. All the rest follows suit. His main objective was to get her off scot-free or a much lesser sentence (w/possibility of parole!). I thought this with his first interview but gave him his due as a jury member. Now, not. The more he talks, the more info, it is becoming more obvious what he was all about before day 1 of the trial. All for Jodi ~ And she knew it. No wonder she was so confident she would not be doomed.

      • I think you theory is very plausible. Who would suspect he was a stealth juror voting for the first parts then botching the penalty phase.

        Another thing that bothers me is how does this minor radio personality end up having major media people at/in his home for the night. That really seems so odd to me. Once he gave them a statement they should have been gone. It give the appearance of inpropriaty. Did someone pay him to throw the trial for a scoop? A scoop that really backfired I might add. Obviously he fancies himself one of them. Maybe he makes good martinis. Maybe he was looking for a job. The whole thing is strange. Polk8dot what is your take on that?

  8. Bill Zervakos isn’t the only person watching the trial who drank Jodi’s strawberry frapuchino.

    Two callers to HLN today said the state should not pursue the death penalty. The female said Jodi needs to get life so she can teach prisoners to read. The male said Travis may have had a personality disorder that caused him to explode when Jodi dropped his camera and that’s why he tried to kill her and she had to fight for her life and wasn’t safe until he was dead.

  9. I feel very fortunate for serving on a jury that didn’t have this kind of public scrutiny. The comments here are depressing… of people who not only disrespect the juror and the five months of his life he committed to the trial, but who are also clueless about and disrespect the entire jury system.

    People who are speaking as experts who have no clue what it’s like to serve on a jury — let alone one that’s on such a capital case nor one that results in a hung verdict. People who think this is their TV reality show and not real life. People who claim they know the case and the players who have never set foot for a minute in the real courtroom — that’s like saying you know what it’s like to be a football player by watching TV.

    I’m thoroughly disgusted. Shameful, really.

    • Why is it you think because Bill Zervakos served on a jury for five months he is immune to public criticism for the comments he chose to make about Jodi Arias and the trial. Many people serve on juries and they don’t go on national TV and make outrageous statements that make no sense. Zervakos chose to thrust himself in the public spotlight. He deserves any criticism he gets. He could have gone home after jury duty and kept his mouth shut. Nobody would even know his name or how he voted.

    • With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point here. It’s not a general disrespect for jurors in general or jurors in high profile cases. It’s not even a disrespect for the jury system.

      When a juror fails to apply common sense (perhaps that’s an oxymoron), he or she will be disrespected.
      When a juror blatantly disregards the evidence presented, he or she will be disrespected.
      When a juror rushes out to a microphone to call the public stupid…. well, you get the picture.

      • There’s a reason why judges frame a case by what is allowed and what’s not allowed in court. We don’t experience that from behind a TV with a bag of Doritos in our laps. Jurors don’t get a daily six-person panel with the “Brady Bunch effect” offering Monday morning quarterbacking over and over again about what they think about the case, nor TV hosts throwing out their biases and thoughts. Those would all be tainting of the jury (this is why juries get sequestered), but they are part and parcel for what the public gets.

        What you experience in a courtroom is entirely different — from the body language of the witnesses to the framing of the evidence. This is not trial-by-TV as millions are experiencing themselves, and for good reason.

        Point being that none of us outside that courtroom have any real idea if he’s blatantly disregarding the evidence presented: you weren’t there, you were on the court of global television. Not only that, decisions of this type on a jury comes to a personal call of how you see the evidence and the judgments you make. While a murder isn’t the same as voting for a president, people interpret the same evidence differently every time we go to a poll booth.

        I wanted to strangle two other jurors on my jury for totally buying what I thought was a bogus abuse defense. But they had life perspectives of abuse in their lives different than mine and saw things differently than I did. That in itself didn’t make me more “right” than them.

        All this bellyaching about how idiotic some of these jurors are, let’s not miss that the people who know those jurors and their decisions best — the other jurors — are absolutely not throwing the others under the bus as everyone else seems to be freely doing here. If jurors were being absolutely stupid or ignorant with the evidence, we wouldn’t have all the other jurors coming out in this case in defense of their decisions, even if they disagreed with them. They had the most to lose by their difference of their opinions, and they are giving their fellow jurors a far better shake than anyone on these forums.

        • Greg, you wrote, “While a murder isn’t the same as voting for a president, people interpret the same evidence differently every time we go to a poll booth.”

          That presumes voters care about evidence. If they did, we wouldn’t have so many crooked politicians in office.

          Zervakos is entitled to his opinion, you to yours and I to mine. I’m unclear why you feel it’s more proper for you to criticize my opinions than it is for me to criticize his.

          • The point of using the election example is that we have people who choose sides about a candidate based on their interpretation of what’s important, the facts at hand, and what the country needs. And yet the debate easily runs into the “You’re a clueless idiot for voting for that clown” territory — which we are sort of experiencing here on this trial. Though you’re right that people will more often vote by emotional rather than logical appeals.

            What I find deeply troubling is this attitude of “a juror blatantly disregards the evidence presented”. To form that opinion, this requires you personally to believe the following:

            1) That you know as much about the legal contexts of the case — and what’s admissible and inadmissible in court — as much as the judge. Thus discounting all the heresay and evidence blatantly promoted through the media but would get a juror kicked off the trial for having been “tainted” by it.

            2) That you know more about the evidence than a juror (William Zervakos) who sat on the trial in the courtroom in-the-flesh for five months.

            3) Now we know that all the other jurors publicly interviewed about this case have come to the defense of any and all other jurors and how the deliberations proceeded and upon what grounds these decisions were made. Therefore you must know more about William Zervakos, his exposure to the evidence, and the logical and rationale of his deliberation process than anyone else who shared that jury bench and deliberation room with him for five months.

            Do you see how arrogant and egotistical someone would have to be in order to truly believe all the above to be true?

          • I wrote, “Zervakos is entitled to his opinion, you to yours and I to mine. I’m unclear why you feel it’s more proper for you to criticize my opinions than it is for me to criticize his.”

            You did not clarify.
            You did not refute my opinion, merely criticized me for expressing it.
            That tells me everything I needed to know.


        • “none of us outside that courtroom have any real idea if he’s blatantly disregarding the evidence presented”

          Zervakos couldn’t even follow the courts orders. He sent the the verdict form to the court and the other jurors were surprised because they thought it was a question. He deliberate caused a mistrial. He most certainly blatantly disregarded evidence. I would bet if that were his sons death/crime scene pictures he would think differently. and paid better attention. This man could not even be honest with his fellow jurors. re speaking after the holiday I believe once this case is over the other jurors will speak more freely about what really went on in the juror room. What juror comes out and says he wants contact with a gruesome killer…Bill Z did and that shows he had ulterior motives. I don’t think the jurors were idiotic but I do think based on the mis info he gave them, ie telling them the judge would decide their only fault was relying on a foreman who had no clue.

          • I agree. This juror, the foreman, is no idiot. In that, he *deliberately caused a mistrial. It appears obvious he knew what form he was sending to the judge. He knew there would be a mistrial. He most certainly could have duped the other jurors. It is also very obvious that he wanted JA off with a *very light sentence, she is “not a menace to society.” Very “telling,” his hands shaking signing the guilty 1st degree verdict. I didn’t think there could be another as repulsive as Arias & Laviolette…now Zervakos! He so enjoyed being on a very high-profile case, & when elected foreman, thought he had all the power. One reason for the immediate interview & media sleep-over at his home. Giving an “exclusive” interview? And denigrating the prosecution. Talk about “personality disorders!” He-has-a-few. In addition to a “god complex!” The arrogance!

    • Hey Greg,
      Continue to speak for yourself. I’ve served on a jury a few times; most notably on a fairly well known muder trial in Orange County, CA. Although I am well educated, I don’t need to be an expert to determine that Foreman Bill is a self-serving, biased, ignorant idiot.

    • Well, Greg……when did you decide that you have the facts to scold those of us who see the Truth regarding this extremely dishonest foreman? Mr. Foreman has proven to be a liar who took an oath which he promptly ignored in furtherance of his own agenda. Like the murderess that he is so concern for he his arrogance is astounding. He mistakenly believes that he alone can “help” the murderess by reaching out to her for a heart-to-heart. I wonder if he envisions their meeting as an opportunity to compare notes on her stalking abilities and how deftly/covertly he became a “stealth juror”.

      Greg, had the foreman been honest during jury selection he would not have been chosen. Instead, as with JA, he deemed himself above the law and smarter than everyone else. In doing so he became the very thing that our judicial system abhors…..A dishonest “Stealth Juror”! He richly deserves the outrage and disdain the public feels. His behavior was despicable and therefore indefensible.

      • Then why is it that among all his fellow jurors — the people with the most invested in his decisions and the people who say with him for five months and knew him better than any of us — not one of them are deliberately throwing Bill under the bus?

        You have to make the case that the people furthest from the trial, furthest from the people in the trial, etc., are the biggest know-nothing, self-aggrandizing, opinionated idiots on display here. Because if Bill’s fellow jurors can’t realize this, then everyone on the jury are complete morons by that logic.

        • Juror #6, Diane Schwartz, presented her position concisely with dignity + grace.When asked what what she thought of Foreman Bill, she stated his job was to keep them from killing each other, pose questions to the Judge + sign the verdict form. The last two duties he failed miserably on (not seeking clarification on the law regarding no unanimous decision, writing a question on a verdict form + signing verdict form w/no verdict). Ms. Scwartz did not say anything negative about Bill W. on national tv, not because she necessarily didn’t have anything to say. Ms. Schwartz is obviously a lady w/integrity + class. I cannot say the same for Foreman Bill. With that said, I’d love to sit one on one over coffee or a glass of wine with Diane Schwartz now for any jury deliberation/juror/foreman tidbits she might share.

    • Greg….”People who are speaking as experts who have no clue what it’s like to serve on a jury ” Are you calling attorneys who have commented on this case liars and not equipped to have made an opinion or decision? Are you certain many of us have never served on a jury?

      If a person cannot vote for the death penalty for any reason they should should have been honest in the Vior Dire and get themselves removed as they have no business being on a death penalty jury. Zervakos had no business being on that jury because he once he saw Ms Arias his mind was made up and his reasoning is not sound based on the evidence. He intended to hang the jury because it makes good fodder for a book he will write. He in a sense is using Jodi the one he thought he would save from death because he think he can make money off her name and case. His son even said he always wanted to be famous and now he thinks he is.

      People that had watched the proceedings and read all available documents probably has good a grasp as those sitting in the court room. Probably more so because they can see/hear more than some court room spectators can. To assume “People who claim they know the case and the players who have never set foot for a minute in the real courtroom” is not only arrogant but ignorant as well. While I do not agree with you I respect your right to wrong thinking, arrogance and ignorance.

  10. William Zervakos has very similar thinking as Jodi Arias, although I don’t think he is a psychopath. I think they are both narcissistic, both believe they are smarter than anyone else and both believe they are so important that the public wants to hear every word they utter. Like Arias doing TV interviews after her arrest, conviction and while the jurors were deliberating her fate, Zervakos showed up on all the networks right after the mistrial defending jodi and the no unanimous verdict even though the jurors had agreed not to speak until the next week.

    Zervakos sounded arrogant and like a he fancied himself a celebrity when he called Elizabeth Vargas by her first name. I think Zervakos is against the death penalty and like SoCaljoy said he was a stealth juror who got on the jury so he could keep Jodi Arias from getting the death penalty.

    Even when he provoked outrage from the public by attacking the media and public and defending Jodi Arias right after the mistrial, he couldn’t stay off TV. With HLN interviewing the female jurors who voted for death, Zervakos had to jump right back into the spotlight on the pretense of offering them an “exclusive” by admitting he was one of the four who voted against death. That was no surprise to anyone. Like Jodi Arias, William Zervakos knows a majority of the public disagree with him and yet he attacks the public again by calling them stupid. Like Arias, he believes he is right and the whole world is wrong and that negative publicity is better than none. I don’t think we have seen the last of Arias or Zervakos. They will continue to use the media for self gain.

    • Nancy Grace said last night that Jodi will now probably be going to a chusy mental facility that has about 20 people there and may never see a day behind bars. Her team is using the personality disorder to say she is unable to ever stand trial. Don’t know how everyone else feels but I’m SICK!

  11. I want Jodi Arias to get the death penalty. I want to hear the judge tell her she’s irredeemable, she’s shown no remorse, there is no place for her among other living beings, and she deserves death for the cruelty of her actions.

    And yet…I think we’re overlooking an interesting psychological issue at the heart of our outrage at Zervakos. Our positions and his are incompatible for us to judge him. If we want the death penalty for the beast, we’re coming from a place of diluted responsibility while he’s coming from a place where the weight of the decision was impossible to dilute.

    Its well known that when people are in large crowds they have a sense of diminished responsibility. Those of us voting for the death penalty over the internet, along with our fellow bloggers, have no sense that we would be putting her to death. If the sentence were imposed by public vote cast over the internet, I’d vote for death and sleep soundly, peacefully, blissfully, hoping the OTHER votes together with mine would ensure the sentence. My responsibility would be diluted to the point of having no impact on me. I am all for these jurors, this judge, putting that demon to death for me. I just don’t really want to do it personally. (Not that I wouldn’t do it if necessary, just glad I can avoid it in the real world.)

    From Zervakos vantage point, there is no dilution of responsibility for sentencing her to death. There is no escape from the weight that will remain for his lifetime, no opportunity to blend into the crowd, no way to avoid asking if he would be putting her to death for being stupid or lying or an unsympathetic person. We’re bothered by his saying this because we don’t worry about any of that. We’re demanding the death penalty from a vantage point where that kind of heavy introspection is unnecessary for our purposes, especially since we won’t feel any weight of responsibility for the sentence.

    I think its unfair to judge Zervakos harshly without standing in his shoes.

  12. You make good points, @Maria. I’ve agreed with many similar points you and @Lisa K have made in other comments. And on occasion, I’ve made a few of the same points. And yes, @Greg, I have served on a jury—several, in fact. One was for murder/kidnapping. So please don’t keep assuming you’re the only one commenting here who has performed that civic duty.

    But as a “logic” kind of person (versus a more free-wheeling creative type) the foreman’s lack of logic appalls me. If he had said nothing to media or had left it at something like “the DP is such a huge punishment, I couldn’t vote for it in this case because of my concerns about the defendant’s family background and lack of criminal history” I’d not have seen the evidence that way but I’d have respected him. (Given the doubts I’ve developed as I’ve gotten older about the DP in general, I’m don’t think I could vote for it for anyone—but I’d be honest about that during voir dire.)

    But Bill doesn’t leave it there and in defense of his vote, he seems to make up evidence out of thin air and mischaracterize evidence that was presented. He also uses JW’s words/phrasing frequently which makes me think he made up his mind early on. Several trial-watchers reported he often nodded in agreement when ALV testified. (And how anyone could believe her is beyond me!) In his first interview, Bill said he struggled to view “that young girl” as a possible killer. I recognize there might have been some surprise at Jodi’s appearance when trial began (although as 30-something she’s well on her way to “middle age” so a “young girl” she’s not), but for that to be one of his first comments after months of very graphic trial testimony seems odd. Since it WAS one of the first things he said, it sounds like he spent much time musing about that issue during the 5-month trial (and perhaps not fully listening to all the trial evidence.) Sure, there is a presumption of innocence, but once trial began there was no longer any question of WHETHER Jodi killed Travis. She admitted she had done it. The only question for the jury was if it was self-defense. Frankly, Bill’s comments make about as much sense to me as those of the male caller to N. Grace @Observer reported who seems to think without ANY evidence to back it up, that TRAVIS had a personality disorder. Along with wanting to still claim it was self-defense in the face of the 1st degree conviction, that ill-informed caller also seems to think “personality disorder” = Dr. Jekyll/Dr. Hyde (who had multiple personality/dissociative identity disorder.) I’d hoped for more logic and understanding of the evidence from the jury foreman than a caller to Nancy Grace might show but apparently not!

    • I agree with you Lizzie. Bill wasn’t just unable to give the death penalty because it is a hard thing to do. He is making it his mission to try to save jodi Arias from being executed. He spoke to the media again because he wants to stop the state from pursuing the death penalty.

      I am judging him for his irrational logic and reasoning proven by his statements like this:

      “You can’t execute someone for being stupid. You can’t execute someone for lying.”

      “Jodi Arias is not Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson.”

      “Jodi Arias is not a danger to society.”

      “What are we doing people (in pursuing the death penalty)? She will never get out of prison. “

      • Zervakos is also using his position as the jury foreman to imply that he knows more than anyone else what the evidence showed and the punishment Jodi Arias deserves. Eight jurors who voted for death, another juror who was removed after he was arrested for a DUI and two alternates who spoke to the media and 96 per cent of the public who watched the trial saw the same evidence as Zervakos did and concluded Jodi Arias was not abused and deserved the death penalty.

    • All very good points, Lizzie. Thank you. One thing is Zervakos nodding his head when Laviolette was speaking. HLN did say, throughout the trial, the jury was stoic, with little to no reaction, facial expression. JA most certainly noticed Zervakos & picked him out as her target. I noticed she focused on the area where the foreman was sitting. Her head would turn that way, she would stare…& even draw. One time, she was looking, drawing, looking, drawing, the way one does doing a portrait. So the relationship between Zervakos & Arias was developing & ongoing throughout the trial. Creepy, sick. Immoral. But no wonder he wants to visit her in jail. And JA was sure there would be a mistrial & she would walk free!

  13. For Zervakos there was a ‘dilution of responsibility’ for sentencing her to death from the outset – and he is not unique in being asked to put someone, who is deserving of such punishment, to death. Of course it is a heavy undertaking, but if he was of a mind that he couldn’t do so, he had an obligation – and the opportunity – to make that known pre-trial.
    Zerkavos’ major problem is his credibility, and by his interviews post-trial he has very little. On several accounts he has diluted, if not failed, his responsibilities in this trial. How could a responsible and rational person listening to and evaluating the evidence presented during the trial conclude that the accused had been abused by her victim. Yet according to him there was much evidence of it – but he fails to tell us what it was. He states that Arias came from a dysfunctional family – and where was the evidence of that? Again,. he keeps that to himself.
    He states that you don’t put people to death for lying or for being stupid, and that he had to weigh all those things up – did not not weigh up the pathologist’ evidence and the crime scene photos? But then again there was no proof of a vicious evil person – she just became one.
    There could have been no clearer direction that the verdict form was not to be signed unless there was a unanimous decision, yet our intrepid foreman signed it knowing full well the jury was hung. This man is a law unto himself.
    This self-centred, arrogant man could not even keep the undertaking he took with his fellow jurors to not speak immediately to the media, and his desire for publicity has overtaken him again with this ‘exclusive’.
    He hopes it’s his last call to jury sevice – others might pray.

      • Penny, Nancy Grace is full of hot air. Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery said: “The record is very clear that convicted murderer Jodi Arias was found legally competent to stand trial and face the death penalty. Any assertion otherwise is simply inaccurate.”



      • Penny, I’d take that with a grain of hyperbole for now. I saw the program as well and I think NG was making a wild speculation that the Defense team might be trying to get a psych eval to bolster their claim that Arias is mentally ill and therefore should not be executed. If (big if) they are attempting to do that and if (another big if) they get the result they want then they might be able to get Jodi moved from the jail to a prison psych ward. It’s just a potential defense strategy — I didn’t hear NG provide any evidence it’s currently in the works.

  14. Lizzie – I totally agree with your thoughts on the jury foreman, and am convinced that , with the slightest amount of support, he would have found Arias, at worst, guilty of manslaughter – and as you say, there is nothing that he utters that is logical. It was obvious from early on that there was a waverer on this jury, and his admission that he was ‘shaking’ and that he ‘literally had to hold his hand down, had to hold his wrist down’ to sign for first degree murder is a strong indicator that this was so – he just lacked the courage of his convictions, that’s all and like Arias, it is doubtful if he could lie straight in bed.
    But also like Arias, it’s all about look at me – I was the jury foreman!!

    • I think you’re right Don that he wanted manslaughter initially. If you look at the jury questions posted elsewhere in the handwriting of the jurors, you can figure out which ones were from Zervakos. You can compare his handwriting from the verdict form with the handwriting on the questions. One question he asked that chills me to the bone was to an expert asking whether it was possible for the killing to have occurred in order to get out of a violent relationship. Or words to that effect. Looking back, that one chills me that we didn’t get a hung jury.

      • I had the same curiosity when the juror questions were unsealed so I spent some time with a split screen comparing handwriting on the verdict forms to handwriting on the question forms. I’m not a handwriting expert!! It is merely my opinion that Zervakos asked the following questions:

        What pets did you have as a child.  Did you ever intentionally hurt a pet or animal?
        If the defendent feels she has a high IQ – is it possible she would try to out smart psychological tests?
        If something is pre-meditated is amnesia more or less likely to occur?
        Would it be possible to see what Jodi’s hand looks like when draped over a shoulder now?
        Were you paid for the interviews wtih 48 Hours and Inside Edition?
        [a] You testified that Travis gave you the Book of Mormon at Starbucks.  Did you read it thoroughly?  If so, when?  [b] Does the Book of Mormon go into detail regarding the Vow of Chastity?
        You stated you were aware that the police recorded the calls because an attorney told you.  Can you tell us when you were told this and how that subject came up?
        [a] How do you feel events such as incarceration, public accusation and invasion of privacy on a large scale can affect tests such as the MMPI or MCMI?  [b] Is it possible that an individual could score very differently after a traumatic event (such as killing another person) as opposed to prior to the event?
        Given your professional interpretations of the tests you evaluated, do you feel this is an individual that could have killed another to escape a violent relationship?  Please explain.
        Would choking to the point of unconsiousness cause bruising?
        If Dr. DeMarte had additional evidence such as interviews, journal entries, etc to support her opinion of Borderline Personality disorder, would you expect to see that in her report?  Did she include that information in her report?
        [a] Does anyone other than Jodi know about the gun Travis allegedly had?  If so, who?  [b] Was there any record of gun registration under Travis’ name?
        Jodi testified that she helped Travis put some things in the attic.  Did you find anything at all stored in the attic?  Is the floor of the attic capable of supporting boxes?  Could you tell if anything had ever been stored up there?  Where is the opening to the attic located?
        Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking, would you throw out their PSD test if they lied and said it was a tiger?  Wouldn’t they be answering the questions the same regardless of whether they called the animal a bear or a tiger?  Please explain your answers.
        [a] If you assume that Jodi planned to kill Travis, how would you explain, from a psychological perspective, the apparent haphazard disarray in which she left the scene?  [b] If someone planned to kill someone, would you expect a more methodical cleanup?  Please explain.
        [a] In your opinion, did Travis ever sound angry in his journals? Please explain. [b] Did he speak negatively of any of the women he was seeing?  Please explain.  [c] What was your overall impression of Travis, based solely on his journal?

        • I would be very surprised if Zervakos asked Jodi Arias this question : “What pets did you have as a child? Did you ever intentionally hurt a pet or animal?”

          I believe the person who asked that question was familiar with psychopaths and believed she was a psychopath. That question was never asked because if Jodi answered it truthfully jurors could conclude she was a psychopath, therefore a murderer which could be deemed prejudicial. Arias told Flores she kicked the family dog and it was never seen again.

          Of all the jurors speaking out Tara Kelley seemed to have the gall to ask the question and feel the strongest that Jodi is evil and a menace to society. Zervakos shows no awareness that Jodi could be a psychopath. He said she was not a “menace to society” and what she did was” stupid” but she shouldn’t die for it. He refers to Arias as a “normal girl” living a “normal life” until she met Travis Alexander.

          I believe he asked those other questions especially the ones doubting Jodi premeditated the crime and believing Travis was an angry person who spoke negatively about women.

          • Okay, let me play devil’s advocate for a minute and assume that really is his handwriting on the question form — and I’m not at all saying I can’t be wrong. But if it is his question, then is there a discernible reason he would ask it? I say yes, I can think of one.

            I suspect the average, even minimally educated adult knows just from news reporting that seriously disturbed killers often have a history of killing animals. They might not necessarily equate this to psychopathy, but they know the tendency exists.

            So, if I wanted to ask a question that would comfort me Arias was “not a Jeffrey Dahmer,” and to reinforce my belief she was a good person who did a bad thing, that would be the question I’d want to ask.

  15. Juror Diane Schwartz told the media that she didn’t even want to go to court for deliberations on the sentencing phase because she knew it would be hard to come to a unanimous verdict on death because the group had polarized views. She said some didn’t believe Jodi Arias was abused at all, some thought she was emotionally and verbally abused and some thought she was physically abused.

    Although all jurors voted for premeditation, only seven voted for premeditation and felony murder. The foreman told the media that the vote for death was not eight to four at the beginning but some jurors who had voted for life at first changed their mind during deliberations. I suspect that the seven who voted for premeditation and felony murder also voted for death but that one of the five who didn’t believe it was felony murder changed their vote from life to death during the deliberations.

    Jurors Schwartz, Kevin Spellman and Marilou Allen-Coogan all told the media they didn’t believe Jodi was abused and they voted for death but weren’t asked if they voted for premeditation and felony murder. Alternates Tara Kelley and Caroline Gosselink said they would have voted for death and that they did not believe Jodi was abused. Daniel Gibb, who was kicked off the jury after he got a DUI, told Dr. Drew he would have voted for death and he did not believe Jodi was abused.

    I am convinced that nothing would have changed Bill Zervakos mind but if Kelley, Gosselink and Gibb had been on the jury, they might have been able to change the others minds.

  16. Juror Diane Schwartz told the media that she didn’t even want to go to court for deliberations on the sentencing phase because she knew it would be hard to come to a unanimous verdict on death because the group had polarized views. She said some didn’t believe Jodi Arias was abused at all, some thought she was emotionally and verbally abused and some thought she was physically abused.

    Although all jurors voted for premeditation, only seven voted for premeditation and felony murder. The foreman told the media that the vote for death was not eight to four at the beginning but some jurors who had voted for life at first changed their mind during deliberations. I suspect that the seven who voted for premeditation and felony murder also voted for death but that one of the five who didn’t believe it was felony murder changed their vote from life to death during the deliberations.

    Jurors Schwartz, Kevin Spellman and Marilou Allen-Coogan all told the media they didn’t believe Jodi was abused and they voted for death but weren’t asked if they voted for premeditation and felony murder. Alternates Tara Kelley and Caroline Gosselink said they would have voted for death and that they did not believe Jodi was abused. Daniel Gibb, who was kicked off the jury after he got a DUI, told Dr. Drew he would have voted for death and he did not believe Jodi was abused.

    I am convinced that nothing would have changed Bill Zervakos mind but if Kelley, Gosselink and Gibb had been on the jury, they might have been able to change the others minds.

    • Not that I believe any of the jurors *owe* the public an explanation of how they voted, I do appreciate hearing their thoughts and reasoning. I hope someday the remaining jurors will come forward.

  17. Wow, sorry Bill, my family is waaaayy more disfunctional than Jodi Arias’. None of us managed to horrifically murder anyone. Also telling is how it seems he has to remember and force himself to add her last name a couple times while speaking about her. His whole manner of speaking about her is weirdly familiar and creepy. He could have easily avoided the backlash by keeping his trap shut. The other jurors that I have heard are no where near as defensive as he and have perfectly logical explanations of why they did what they did. Him…not so much.

    • You’re right. Zervakos spoke about Jodi Arias like she was his girlfriend or granddaughter and referred to Travis Alexander not by name but as “the dead guy.” While the other jurors who voted for death were concerned about how the Alexander family felt, Zervakos was only concerned about the feelings of the convicted murderess. He said “How do you tell someone you are putting them to death?” He also said he wanted to sit down with Jodi Arias and find out what really happened.

    • Double Ditto! I too graduated from a mightily dysfunctional family w/all layers of abuse + thankfully heeded my own self-awareness call during college + placed myself on a psychologist’s couch for some much needed healing.
      Sandy Arias stated she pleaded w/her daughter to get some help in early adulthood + it appears JA ignored her mother’s pleas, requests from friends + even social cues around her: continued failed relationships, frequent job losses, no further education or career goals. For me, the need for help seed was planted by my own parents @age 16 when I came home high @4am, tripped over a suitcase in the foyer (meant for me) + being driven 5 hours away to a lockdown adolescent treatment centre for drugs/alcohol that included a 5 day “family week”. My Mom would later tell the therapists she thought I was nuts + had no clue that I had a drug problem. We laugh about that now.
      Makes me wonder if JA’s parents had forced some type of psychological or drug (the pot growing) intervention during her minor youth, how that could have helped avoid such a murderous path @age 27. Not everyone in my family got help + were mended after their bright loving choice of putting me in rehab. Even I stumbled a few times + because that seed had been planted early on, when I did trip over myself + addiction issues, I knew where help + better living was/what kind of people could help me get back on track. I’m confident some kind of early intervention (even against her 13 yr old will) would have changed the trajectory of her life; one that would most likely not include murder.

  18. Since Zervakos says he wants to “sit down” with Jodi “to find out what really happened,” is he saying he realizes she didn’t tell the truth when she testified under oath? We do know he has said he doesn’t really hold Jodi accountable for lying but I initially thought he was referring to early lies (I wasn’t there, Well OK I was there but ninjas did it…) but now I’m not sure. Perhaps he meant he doesn’t blame her for perjury and for lying to the jury either.

    I do think he may have had a desire to “save Jodi” (perhaps he saw himself as Henry Fonda in “12 Angry Men”–@Polk8dot also posted an interesting theory which could explain his votes during earlier phases of the trial.) It now appears Zervakos has a desire for fame/attention, but along with buying ALV’s load of rotting fruit, it’s also possible that he had trouble re: the penalty without knowing EVERYTHING. And we all know (many from personal experience) that unlike on TV, jurors NEVER know every detail about the crime charged nor do they know everything about the defendant.

    I have to say, the more WZ talks, the more I fear for our jury system. (And unlike @Greg, my concerns are not assuaged because the jurors who have spoken out– only 3 of the remaining 11 have, I believe–have not publicly criticized WZ)

    I’m not as worried about juries letting the guilty go free—-I don’t like it but that’s the price we pay for our system—but WZ’s emotional identification with the defendant and his willingness to make excuses for her, his apparent willingness to discard out-of-hand some evidence while accepting hook-line-and sinker other testimony, his lack of logic, his parroting of JW’s language during interviews (“trajectory” of Jodi’s life) and his disparging of the prosecutor and the victim (calling Travis “the dead guy”) are alarming behaviors for a juror in a lengthy capital case—and those kinds of behaviors could have easily favored the other side in a different case, leading to an unjust guilty verdict. Don’t like the defense attorney? Can’t identify with the defendant for some reason (age, race, appearance, family background)or have a negative emotional reaction to him/her? Young and cute female prosecutor makes errors at trial and presents iffy evidence that is essentially destroyed during cross by the unlikeable defense attorney? Defendant MUST be guilty.

    • lizzie,

      You echo my concerns when you said, “I have to say, the more WZ talks, the more I fear for our jury system.”

      I remember there was a woman seated on the Casey Anthony jury who flat out said, during voir dire, that she “didn’t like to judge people” and that she was opposed to the death penalty. Upon further questioning (i.e. pressure), she hesitatingly relented she “could” vote for death if she felt she had to. The prosecution tried to get her dismissed for cause but the defense argued that, since she was black, dismissal would constitute racial bias. The judge agreed and the woman was seated. Say what?? This woman clearly should never have been seated (imo) but of course, in the end, it didn’t make a difference to that particular verdict.

      My question is (if anyone knows): Did Zervakos say anything specific during voir dire that might have tipped his hand?

    • Lizzie, You quote Zervakos wanting to sit down with Jodi to find out the truth of what really happened. He said he doesn’t hold her accountable for “early” lying, as she needed to because she was being questioned for murder, & of course, needed to cover-up, Ninja etc. He also questions her need to lie under oath on the stand & perjury. This last brings up remembrance of his 1st interview saying her 18 days on the stand was not a good idea & was horrific for her. (Poor Jodi.) That Martinez was so abusive. In so saying, he seriously, more than implies, that Jodi lied on the stand (& arrogant) because she was so stressed by Martinez. So again…& again…Zervakos excuses Jodi Arias of all. He too feels “it is not her fault,” it is the fault of others. What he did as a juror was criminal, “stealth juror” or not. But as others have so expertly pointed out, for Zervakos to be brought up on charges (if possible), it could be worse for the prosecution…maybe a whole new trial with new *sentencing.

      • I listened to all of the interview tapes and the trial and I myself was ready to pull my hair out (or hers) with her circuitous answers and nonsensical stories. I don’t know how Flores or the woman detective whose name escapes me now did it with out reaching out and shaking her or worse. I don’t fault Martinez for his style or the way he handled her. Sometimes that is the only way to break down their lies is by not giving any wiggle room. . It didn’t take a trained eye, psychiatrist or body language expert to see she was enjoying every minute of those 18 days. Why Zervakos could not see the total demeanor change from mamby pamby drab abused woman to someone who thought she was better/smarter than the prosecutor and was willing to go toe to toe with him is the mystery to me. It was such a clear and almost startling tranformation before our eyes. He should have rationalized that if she could do that then why didn’t handle her so called abuse better with out a gruesome murder. He didn’t. He fell for the cherade hook line and sinker. Is he so used to women lying, stalking, stealing, blackmailing, slashing his tires, crawling through his doggie door, acosting his friends and trying to discredit him with his clergy that he thinks this is normal behavior? He must. The prosecutor did not mis handle this case if anything the defense did. No charges unfortunately will be brought (though I wish there could be) against Zervakos because we would never get anyone to serve on a jury again if that were possible. To me Zervakos was as much a waste of space as Jodi. I think for every devious manipulative abusive women or man there is always someone of the opposite (or maybe the same) sex ready to defend and partake of their fountain of lies. Zervakos is one of them.

      • Tara, the alternate juror, who said she would have voted for death made an interesting statement about Juan Martinez. She said that at first during voir dire she was scared of him. Voir dire as many know is the process where the lawyers ask potential jurors questions to determine if they have prejudices or other issues to decide if they should be disqualified. That’s what’s going on in the Zimmerman trial right now.

        It occurs to me that we don’t know what went on between Zervakos and Juan Martinez during voir dire. If Tara was afraid of Juan, whom she later came to really like, who knows if Zervakos is holding a grudge because he too was frightened by one-on-one direct questions given Juan’s style.

  19. The jury foreman had no clue of who he was dealing with.

    He has no understanding, knowledge, experience of sociopaths and how they operate. That is the greatest loss in this trial–not that she wasn’t sentenced to death or LWOP yet—but that the prosecution’s witnesses didn’t delve into the true nature of Jodi Arias.

    She has borderline traits, but she shows nearly ALL the traits of a sociopath: the manipulation, pathological lying, charming exterior or “mask of sanity”, the pity ploys, shallow emotions (pretending to cry), the character assassination of her victim, (claiming Travis Alexander was a pedophile and abusive), the narcissism (calling herself Einstein)/love for attention from the media, no respect for the authority of the court (constantly drawing), always blaming others and never accepting responsibility, etc. You *NEED* to know who you are dealing with…and a handful of jurors clearly had no idea who they were dealing with—especially the jury foreman—neither did TA up until the very end and by then it was too late.

    Also, for WZ to make comments that “she wasn’t Ted Bundy” etc…shows how ignorant he is who Ted Bundy truly was and how he operated. Ted Bundy wasn’t foaming at the mouth when he lured his victims. In most cases, he pretended to have a broken arm–it would be in a cast–and he would request for assistance. Naturally, the victim would fall for the ploy, because the last thing they’re thinking is “the man with the cast who needs help with his books is going to rape me, kill me, defile my dead body by having sex with it, and dismember my body and hide it in the mountains.” Ted Bundy actually came off charming and “normal”…just like Jodi Arias. He, and also she, wore “the mask of sanity”. Meaning, they look average and normal…but on the inside is ravenous predator waiting to jump out and attack. It’s not a coincidence that Jodi Arias sat there, looking mousy with her fake glasses, quiet voice….the lawyers KNEW someone would fall for her costume, and sure enough, the jury foreman did.

    I’m also greatly disturbed by the fact that as much as she lied…for years about what she did to Travis Alexander with multiple stories…how she constantly lied on the stand….and yet the jury foreman believed her tall tales of abuse. There is no evidence of it at all. There is PLENTY of evidence of how much JA is a liar…and yet he fall for it…..

    He fell for her pity ploy “poor me, I grew up in a dysfunctional abusive family”, although there was evidence that spoke of the opposite… He fell for her mask of sanity…the glasses, the hair…the conservative meek costume Jodi Arias wore to court…He fell for her character assassination/smear campaign of Travis Alexander…William Zervakos was fooled, manipulated, — completely duped and played — by a master psychopath.

    • Thank you Stephanie. Right on! I too have wondered why “sociopath” was not examined by the prosecution, as all definitely knew Arias was. That said, I am sure there was a valid reason, maybe lack of evidence that could be submitted to the court. All Martinez could probably do was play Travis’ tape calling Arias a sociopath. As for Zervakos & Jodi, he was definitely manipulated by Jodi in so many ways. For one, she knew he was for her & singled him out on the jury & “worked him” throughout the trial. Even simple eye contact…continuous…& at key points, is a relationship bond. Zervakos knew what she looked like before, the so-called “blonde bombshell” (NOT). Then seeing her in court so sad & drab, he could have felt so sorry for her, the toll all this was taking on her. Maybe this was one reason he was so shocked when he first saw her in court. This sweet, young woman who made a mistake. And I cannot rule out the sexual Jodi, 18 days of detailed, over-the-top-sex-talk! The very graphic nude photos blown-up on all the screens in the courtroom. The sex tapes. Her ooohs & ahhs. Even in the courtroom, the drab Jodi managed to be sexual with form-fitting tops & swinging her long hair. But then, these latter depended on the “flavor of the day.” What she knew would be brought up in court on that day. Yes, more master manipulation. And I would presume, mainly directed to the male jurors…for a hung jury. Jodi always felt she would be free! And Zervakos said his hand was shaking signing murder 1st degree, & who else I wonder. No, Arias was not a Ted Bundy in that she was not a known *serial killer. But then, Bundy & other serial killers were butchers, but so was Arias. And whatever else happened that day in the killing, we don’t know. We also don’t know of her past. What atrocities could she have committed to animals? And she did appear to know a lot about knives, & when arrested, her auto had a few, in addition to a gun. Who & why would someone travel packed this way? Was someone next &/or did she usually travel this way? Never-the-less, it is known that when someone kills like she did, another is more easy to do. A pattern has been started.

    • Unforutnately you can’t fix stupid. He may or may not be stupid but there is something wrong with his comprehension. He may have other problems like a savior/missiah complex if there is such a thing. I only say this because a normal person once they find out or realize they were mis lead or mis understood what was presented to them and what a huge mistake their choice was would have been mortified and maybe even grieved or been apologetic over their action or decision. Not Mr Bill. He is proud of his actions. Does he cut his wife or family such slack? We will never know. Being a quasi media person himself I have no doubt this man didn’t go home and tune into the daily rushes or HLN or other media re this trial. I don’t think anyone could convince me he stayed away from it all. I still think he deliberately threw this trial out of some false sense of heroism

    • You’re right about Ted Bundy. I went to the same law school he went to probably 20 years after him 1989-1992. I always remembered in a book about his crimes that he went to his contracts study group the morning after spending the night up in the hills with the dead body of one of his victims. He went to the study group in order to look normal and have an alibi. Not foaming at the mouth, no one noticed anything unusual. Gave me the creeps every time I thought about it the fact he had been in the same classrooms I was in.

      • Maria, when I saw Jodi Arias on TV saying, “No jury will convict me. Mark my words” I thought of a clip I saw of Ted Bundy on the courthouse steps saying, “No jury is going to execute me.” He had that same arrogance and the same eyes as dark as his soul as Jodi Arias. Bundy and Arias are both charming, good looking psychopaths who love seducing the opposite sex and then murdering them. If Arias had not been arrested when she was, there would have been more victims found stabbed and shot by the 9 mm and two knives they found in her rental car.

        • Wow, I didn’t remember that. Bundy was tried in Miami while I lived there as a teen. Man he was scary!

          Makes me wonder if Jodi Arias has ever spoken one original word out of her mouth. Every word so far can be traced to imitating someone else.

    • Stephanie, you are absolutely right that Foreman Bill Zervakos has no idea that Jodi Arias is a psychopath/sociopath.

      First of all sociopaths/psychopaths are incapable of feeling hurt, insulted or offended so she couldn’t have been abused verbally and mentally by Travis Alexander. They just laugh at or ignore name calling or insults. Her response to Travis’s angry texts telling her she never loved him, only cried for herself and he was sick of her lies and bullcrap was “whatever”, “be happy”, ” I love you.” Arias knocked on Sky Hughes door and asked her why she and Travis’s other friends didn’t like her and Sky Hughes told her honestly what they didn’t like about her and told her they didn’t want her in their home or around their children.

      Arias didn’t react hurt or run out the door like a normal person. She showed no emotional reaction and just sat there and stared at Sky with those dark scary eyes not saying a word until Sky was so upset she went into the bathroom waiting for Jodi to leave. Instead of leaving, Jodi walked into the kitchen and sat down and silently stared at Holly Medford as she made peanut butter sandwiches for Sky’s children. Holly Medford told her that Sky wanted her to leave her home. Arias didn’t say a word or get up and leave. She sat there and stared at Holly for awhile and then left without saying a word. Holly and Sky were shaken because a normal person would have shown some emotion but Jodi showed none.

      Sociopaths/psychopaths are incapable of feeling empathy, guilt or remorse so she will kill again if given the opportunity the next time Jodi Arias feels she has been disrespected or abandoned. If she is allowed in general population in prison and given opportunity to use a fork or knife in an eating hall, she will stab someone if they say the wrong thing or act the wrong way towards her. She has no respect for rules and doesn’t care about the consequences.

      Even though Martinez brought up in open court in front of millions of people that Jodi Arias should not be tweeting because she was a witness in a trial and that was against the rules, she continued to tweet. In her first post verdict TV interview, she admitted to Troy Hayden that she tweeted and would continue to tweet because she wanted to impart her thoughts and views and if someone didn’t want to read it they didn’t have to.

      In her allocution in court when she proudly displayed her Survivor T Shirt, Arias said she realized there are those who don’t believe she was abused and they are entitled to their opinion. In TV interviews she gave right after the allocution, she was asked if she wasn’t concerned that remark and the Survivor T Shirt might not offend jurors, she said, “I don’t know why anybody should be offended. Domestic Violence is a cause that is very dear to me so why shouldn’t I talk about it?”

      In fact, when Troy Hayden asked Arias why she was speaking to the media before she was sentenced, she replied that she wanted to speak out for domestic violence victims and wanted to tell them to document their abuse in case they find themselves in a similiar situation as hers. She also said she didn’t mean to drag Travis Alexander’s name through the mud but wanted to speak the truth. She said she didn’t look at Travis’s family during the trial because they looked just like him and she didn’t want to look at her abuser.

      Even after she brutally murdered him, Jodi Arias is still enraged at Travis Alexander for seeing she is an evil sociopath and dumping her. She will continue to blame him for her murdering him and spending the rest of her life in prison.

  20. Ditto Gigi! Thanks. Also, when Bill W, said “JA is getting crucified in the media.” The timing of his statement was less than 24 hours after the jurors were released. With the exception of HLN, most news networks only covered the guilty verdict + were non-specific regarding JA. How would he have the knowledge to form such a one sided opinion regarding JA’s media status so early on, when jurors were so recently under the Judge’s admonition?

  21. Hello all. I’m sorry to respond so late. It’s been a hectic week.

    Dawn, I’ve wondered why “sociopath”/”psychopath” wasn’t used during the trial. I really like and respect Dr. DeMarte, but when she stated she diagnosed JA with borderline personality disorder, I felt disappointed. I thought she would’ve diagnosed JA with anti-social personality disorder–umbrella for sociopath/psychopath, and she didn’t. I felt the evidence was there, and even TA calling JA a “sociopath” was very telling. You brought up many solid points in your post. I agree with you that JA singled Zervakos and “worked him” as you put it. The continuous eye contact formed that “bond”, that impeded his judgement. I didn’t know he had seen her in her blonde days—and then comparing her to what she appeared in the courtroom–it most likely had an effect on him as you stated. Oh definitely–the sexual talk, the tapes, all the details—a great ploy by the defense team to focus on that, instead of the actual murder. Exactly–JA isn’t a serial killer, but she is defintely a butcher. I think WZ was thinking “well, she’s not a serial killer”–and yet, she had started honing in on Ryan Burns–most likely her next target. In regards to her past—it came out that she kicked a dog, although I wonder now if she actually killed the dog. Dropping out of school, issues dealing with her parents’ authority, growing marijuana, her father said she lied a lot…I think it’s safe to say that JA had “conduct disorder” which is a precursor to anti-social personality disorder. That always disturbed me that they found all those weapons in her car—similar to how the authorities found all sorts of items in Ted Bundy’s car. I agree with you–a pattern had been totally started.

    Gigi, I agree with you that WZ has a savior complex of some sort. It appears like he is trying to save JA. Most people would apologize if they realized they had been mislead or if they made a huge mistake. Then there are others who are prideful and won’t admit they’re wrong. And yet, others who really believe their own lies to be truth–I think this is the case with WZ. He really believes what he is saying. The fact that he was all over the media outlets right after the mistrial for the penalty phase was called AND the jury had sworn to hold off on speaking about the case–and he broke that promise–says a lot about his character. It is fair to question his character and motives as many have done. I don’t agree with the death threats at all. I do understand the backlash that he received.

    Maria, that is so scary. That’s just so creepy to share the same classrooms he was in…and to know he went to those classes so that he could pull of the whole “I’m normal and lead a normal life” cover-up. He also worked for a crisis hotline with author, Ann Rule. She wrote “The Stranger Beside Me”…this was her first book when Bundy’s murders were coming out. She knew him, worked side by side with him. The book is about Bundy’s murders and also her interactions with him. It’s very scary that the person you think is “normal” is in fact a violent psychopath capable of cruel murder.

    Observer, you hit the nail on the head. She couldn’t have possibly been abused because she isn’t able to feel hurt or offended.
    Just the fact that she sat there, staring at the Hughes, with no emotion whatsoever—this is NOT normal and it’s downright frightening. She was trying to intimidate them as much as possible. I agree with you that she will kill again. I hope she is never released to the general population because she will prey on other inmates. IMO, when she started the tweeting, JA should’ve been placed in 23 hour confinement. All the examples you gave show how sick JA really is. She does not get human emotions, she uses domestic violence to mock the true victims of DV and also attempts to make money off of it.
    I whole-heartedly believe and agree with you that Jodi Arias is furious that Travis Alexander saw through her and saw her for the hideous sociopath she truly is. Sociopaths *HATE* to be called out, have their mask ripped off, and they fear exposure. I believe that is the core reason why she murdered Travis Alexander.

    • I have an even scarier story, Stephanie. Ted Bundy was executed at 7am Florida time on January 24, 1989. That early morning I was a college student (23 years old) and worked graveyard shift in Utah. It was a very cold winter morning. I was going home at about 4:30am, Utah time when I stopped at the 7-11. There I ran into a guy and girl age 19 & 20 whose car had ran out of gas on the highway and had walked to the 7-11 hoping someone would loan them $2 for gas so they could walk back to the highway with their gas can and make it home. They approached me, a stranger, and I gave them $5 for gas and offered to drive them to the highway where there car had been abandoned. Okay, imagine this scenario… They’re strangers, I’m a stranger, it’s cold, its dark.

      As we were in my car driving, I had the news on a particular radio station because I knew Ted Bundy would be executed in Florida that morning and I wanted to hear confirmation. So as we were driving to the car, it came on the news that Ted Bundy was just executed in Florida a minute ago. (7am/5am). In the dark, my passengers and I drove to their abandoned car thinking of Ted Bundy and aware that neither they nor I knew each other and were both taking a risk. When I dropped them off, I waited for them to fill the car with gas and make sure it started, and the girl came back to my window and said to me, “Thank you, you’re a really good person!.” I’m sure we both thought, “I’m so glad you’re not a serial killer!”

      So anyway, I started law school that same fall that’s why I thought about him. But I really only thought about it for the first few weeks before those classrooms took on my own memories.

      I think it might have been Ann Rule’s book that told the story of him going to the contract’s study group after being up all night. I like her a lot.

  22. Maria, that’s really an interesting story and also what a coincidence! It was very kind of you to give two strangers some money and a lift to their car. You’re right though…I’m sure you and the two people involved that you assisted were thankful that you both were normal average people—-and not serial killers. That’s really something that you were all listening to Bundy’s confirmation that he had died via execution–especially considering how many times he played the “friendly stranger” and lured many victims to his car. These days….almost no one stops for strangers anymore… There’s been strangers pulled over to the side on parkways and many drive right past them. After you hear on the news of someone coming to give assistance–and getting robbed and killed…it really gives you pause. Penny’s idea is smart and safe. It’s a very sad day when we don’t feel safe helping others because of the worst possible scenario.

  23. I also meant to add that I like Ann Rule too. Her book about Bundy is the only one I read so far. Very easy to read, and really powerful, considering that she knew him. I’m glad you were able to make new memories during your time in law school and not have Bundy’s presence be a hinderance to your studies.

Leave a Comment