Why Does Jodi Arias’s Defense Team Want to Hear Her Phone Calls?

Jodi Arias’s defense team has been quite busy lately. In the span of just the last few weeks, they have filed multiple motions regarding the next phase of the trial including: attempting to ban cameras in the courtroom, requesting that they be allowed to read the Twitter and related social media accounts of jurors, allowing for the personal involvement of Jodi Arias in the questioning of potential jurors, and asking the judge for a change of venue. 

The most recent filing may be the most interesting. Jodi Arias’s defense attorneys have subpoenaed her phone call recordings from jail between the time period of January 1, 2013 and August 1, 2013.

No one is quite sure about the reason for the subpoena. Some have speculated that her defense team is majorly “dysfunctioning.”

Others believe that her lawyers want the phone records to try to determine if she has been attempting to contact other attorneys or media outlets.

It’s possible that it’s yet another attempt by her lawyers to delay the sentencing proceedings or possibly to get her a new trial.

Some others believe that Mr. Nurmi and Ms. Willmott are doing everything they can to get off the case. Mr. Nurmi has tried, at least five times, to be removed from the case.

Of course, we can only speculate about what the subpoena means.

Update: From the information I was able to gather there was no court hearing and still no information reported regarding the reason for the phone records request. The next court date is scheduled for September 16, 2013.

133 thoughts on “Why Does Jodi Arias’s Defense Team Want to Hear Her Phone Calls?

  1. What a waste of time and money. This is what is wrong with our judicial system — too much BS. This criminal has admitted her guilt in the involvement of Travis’ death. She should be locked up forever or get the DP. All this other extraneous paperwork and court appearance is BS.

    • If they really wanted off this case they need to stop filing motions and get it over with. But they have no say about that do they because Hodi is running the show and they are simply her puppets. She will game the system like we have never seen. She will never just “go quietly into the night” as she likes to say.

      • To Andy Capp – I believe that the defense must file any motion that they can to properly defend their client and not leave room for ineffective counsel. I also believe that Arias is behind every one of these motions knowing that they must follow through. Some motions are automatic, under the law, but most that have been filed by the defense in this case are blatant attempts by Arias to stall, keep this thing going and keep her in jail rather than prison.

  2. I would like to believe that this is a stab by Nurmi and Wilma to prove that their client is out of control, not working with them and trying, in her sick mind, to further delay the proceedings from moving forward.
    I would like to think that all these new motions put forth, at what I believe is at Arias’ insistence, are just too much for Nurmi and Wilma. Enough is enough!
    I believe that they wish to salvage their careers.
    I found it very interesting that in the hearing of last Monday, Arias had a smirk on her face, head held high and enjoying being in court while at the same time there was absolutely NO interaction between her and Nurmi and Wilma. When the hearing was over, Wilma stepped aside and Arias strutted past her and back to jail. No acknowledgement on either side for each other.
    IT SPOKE VOLUMES TO ME and was so blatantly obvious that there was dissention “in the ranks”.
    Arias has been out of control FOREVER! She has ruled the roost of her defense all the while enjoying the attention and not giving a damn about her attorneys or the judicial system and importantly, the Alexander family.

    Hope I am right. We shall see.

  3. Does a judge have the power to set a deadline for all future motions with respect to a pending trial, so that a trial date might be set — instead of reacting to perpetual delays intended to stop a trial date from being set?

    • Yes, the judge can set a date ending all motions. However, that date isn’t always set in stone as life happens and things can get delayed – attorneys have accidents, judges have family crises, and life can happen to witnesses as well.

      Listen, we all know that JA is a liar. My sense would be that Nurmi et al suspect that their client is telling them one thing, or is telling them she’s doing one thing, but they suspect that she’s in fact doing or saying something else to others. The last thing they want is to go to trial with one theory of mitigation to find out that their own client has lambasted that strategy without bothering to tell them.

      I’d assume if Nurmi et al want off the case, a demonstration of a communications breakdown would be the ticket – they can’t prepare a zealous defense if their client not only refuses to aid in her defense, but acts counter to that defense.

      • I think that Nurmi and Wilma (disregarding their courtroom demeanors) have followed what their client has dictated from the beginning to leave no room for her to come back and cry “ineffective counsel” and have everything overturned. They did this even though they were being perceived as being as terrible as Arias. For sure Nurmi has never wanted to be on this case as proven by his many attempts to be dismissed. I do not know about Wilma.

        Her conviction, I believe, will stand.

        They continued with their strategy until these last few motions that I think they believe are bogus. It was evident in the total lack of any acknowledgement and/or communication between Nurmi, Wilma and Arias at Monday’s short hearing.
        Finally, they are now trying to find out just what she has been doing behind the scenes and possibly without their knowledge.

        If it is proven that she has been sabotaging their defense for her own gain, it may delay this new trial to determine the DP or LWOP or LWP but I still believe that her conviction will stand.

        I do not pretend to know anything about the judicial system but I think we are forgetting that despite all of her efforts, there is one person who will speak to all of this (other than the judge). That person is Juan Martinez.

        Arias is not that smart or as smart as she thinks she is. She may be able to stall but the end result will crush her.

        • Nern, to the best of my memory, Nurmi was a public defender who was working on Jodi’s case, but he left the position to start his own practice. The judge forced him to remain on the case to ensure continuity. Or something. I’m sure he was already sick of Jodi by then. His slouching in his chair throughout the trial was a pretty strong hint about his resentment. Far as I recall, Willmott was also appointed by the judge, which means she wouldn’t have had a choice either. It did seem she was taking it pretty seriously during the trial, but she looks weary and disgusted now. Nurmi must be in an “I told you so” mood with Willmott at this point.

          • Uppity, I believe that continuity is important. I also believe that no one saw beforehand the manipulative mind of Arias and probably never dreamed this trial would be going on for now, over 8 months.
            I still like to think that Nurmi and even Wilma did and continue to do, everything that is necessary to avoid any motion from Arias for ineffective counsel.
            Yes, they are both disgusted as evident in their lack of any interaction with Arias at the most recent hearing.
            You can bet your bottom dollar that the moment sentencing is announced, they will be gone – not by Arias’ choice, but by their own.

    • I believe they do. Remember Judge Perry of the Anthony case had got tired of the baloney from the defense and had a schedule set for motions and responses etc. to move the case forward.

  4. Maybe she won’t tell them who is Tweeting for her? They probably want to gain some control back and get to the bottom of who she has been contacting.
    I believe they are all stalling in order to get a better deal for Jodi. The attorneys
    want a deal and Jodi is saying no.

  5. I believe Jodi would like nothing more than to start over with new attorneys. Then the new attorneys could delay the trial for a long long time because they have to be brought up to speed on the case. I’m surprised she hasn’t thought of firing them yet.

    • Sorry to disagree, Uppity, but I believe Jodi enjoys holding the choke chain and yanking on it every time Nurmi tries to bolt. Dance, doggie-boy, dance. Don’t make me kick you.

      [evil streak subsides]

    • I agree Uppity that she would love new attorneys but I venture to guess that she cannot fire them until the entire trial is over. Then she could hire new ones for any appeals.
      If the judge won’t let Nurmi off the case, I doubt very much if she would accept Arias firing them before it is completely settled.

      • I’ve been wondering if these attornies can turn around and sue the court for forcing them to take this case when they clearly did not want to. All this time out of their lives and practices to defend an admitted killer. Would they have to show they or their practice/reputation were hurt in some way because of being made to stay on the case? I’m sure someone whould have taken the case and would not have played JA’s games. I don’t care for the dog and pony show they put on but I do think it absolutely has to be miserable for them to have been fighting this lost cause.

    • …..Or maybe she has thought of firing them AND claiming they didn’t represent her properly. She always blames someone for whatever ails her, and she obviously doesn’t care who she ruins so she can save herself. This would be a blow to their reputation. Jodi’s a blackmailer, we know that about her. I can actually here her saying to them, “Make (fill in blank) happen or I will (fill in blank). So maybe they want to hear her phone calls to see what she has been saying and to whom. She could be talking to another attorney, for all they know. Jodi is not to be trusted by anybody. She is evil and poison all melded together. Anything is possible with this demon. I don’t envy Nurmi or Willmott one bit.

      Whatever the reason for this subpoena, it is certainly amusing Jodi, as she was all wide smiles when she appeared in court.

  6. I think it’s a misinterpretation of the prior motion that Jodi wants to personally question jurors. When Nurmi says “Ms Arias wishes to…” he means Ms. Arias vicariously through her lawyers. It’s archaic legalese but it does not mean that Jodi asking to question jurors herself. It’s like when Juan stands there and says “the Prosecutor” speaking of himself in the third person.

    On the phone records, whoever is saying they think the lawyers are trying to find out if she has contacted other lawyers also misunderstand the law. Lawyers are not allowed to issue subpoenas to find things out for their own personal desires nor to find out if their client has contacted people they do not approve of. If she had contacted other lawyers that would be privileged by attorney-client privilege and even her lawyers have no right to hear those conversations. So it’s irresponsible of whoever is out there spreading speculative rumors like that in place of any real facts.

    The motion is obvious on its face to anyone that knows about trials. They need to hear what the prosecution and state have recorded to be on equal footing on the facts.

    • But if they hear all her conversations, doesn’t it stand to reason they will find out things they aren’t supposed to find out, then, simply by listening?

      That aside, would Jodi be present when her attorneys questioned juror prospects? Because that would be unsettling to the jurors, wouldn’t it? We did hear accounts of Jodi staring actual jurors down during trial. So would these questions be asked in her absence or is she entitled to be present?

      • She’s entitled to be present for the juror questions. She was there the first time too. (Jurors were questioned individually in the Zimmerman trial with George sitting there just as Nurmi is asking in his motion. They too were asked about twitter.)

        Yes, the lawyers may hear things she didn’t expect them to hear, but the state has already heard it. (Except if there were any calls to lawyers which are confidential and not recorded anyway. When I reacted to the rumor that the defense is trying to find out if she called other lawyers, I omitted that not only is that ludicrous but calls to lawyers are not recorded.) It’s in Jodi’s interest that her lawyers hear whatever the state has heard because there might be something that could be used to impeach her or her witnesses. The lawyers must analyze whatever the state has heard. So if she’s uncomfortable, that’s life as a criminal defendant.

        • IIRC, the prosecution was denied a request to hear her phone conversations. IF they had tapes of them, wouldn’t it just be a matter of requesting discovery be shared? I honestly don’t think either side has heard her phone calls. Why the defense wants to… IDK.

          • Discovery is when one side has something you want from them. When a third party has it you issue a subpoena. (It’s also called discovery but not what most people understand as “shared.”) The source of information is always more complete than asking it from the other side if you can get it directly. Its more trustworthy since you never know if the other side will withhold something they have.

            I’ve never heard that the prosecution was denied the right to hear the calls. But the state runs the jail and their job is to monitor the calls, so the state has definitely “heard” the calls. The State IS the prosecution. I don’t buy that the prosecution has been denied hearing the calls. It makes no sense since they’re entitled to any information that would help any element of the case and contradictions or comments by potential witnesses in those calls are relevant. (They might have been denied her journals that were taken from her for some reason. But that’s because it’s private not an open conversation recorded at the jail.)

            That’s what happened with Shellie Zimmerman in her calls with George at the jail. The prosecution checked the tapes to see what they were talking about and discovered they had lied at the bail hearing. This is similar.

    • Everything, absolutely everything the defense is doing is orchestrated by Arias to keep this whole thing going. I believe that she believes if she keeps all of this up, the disgust and weariness of every delay and postponement will work in her favour.
      Unfortunately for her, she far underestimates Juan Marinez and the Alexander family.

  7. When is someone going to rein in Arias…& her lawyers? The longer this goes on, the more powerful Arias must feel. More shuffling-prancing into court with that soulless, smug grin. However, who knows what’s up. For sure more delay, even if Willmot & Nurmi are looking to hit the road. But oh my, can you imagine having Jodi personally interviewing you as a prospective juror? No matter how strong & brave, in the presence of true evil from the depths of hell. Those evil eyes. I would have so many + + + crosses + + + on & stink from garlands of garlic. Yes, I would have peeled a few for extra protection.

  8. Dr K., the justice system gets lost in the protection of the likes of this worthless whore.
    Travis Alexander , who seems to me to have been an altogether decent young man with the normal human weaknesses that most of us have, had his life extinguished in the most horrendous of circumstances yet we must, to the very last, protect the rights of the monster who so callously slew him.
    It is all so incomprehensible that that is the way the criminal justice system works.
    When will the person in charge of this trial call a halt and dispense justice in this case?

    • Don – I absolutely agree. the rights of the defendant seems to take precedent over the rights of the victim and their family to get justice.
      I do not believe that Arias is as smart as she pretends to be. She controls this defense entirely but in her sick calculating mind, she puts forth motions and other junk that are obviously ludicrous but just enough that they are listened to. She continually muddies the waters for her own agenda – to save her life and to get people to see that yes, she is a smart and educated person. Unfortunately for her, everything she does only solidifies in people’s minds that she is an arrogant, narcissistic and well-deserved convicted murderer.
      But it fuels her to be listened to. Whatever the reasons for her lawyers wanting to hear her phone calls, Nurmi and Wilma are so caught up in the Arias machine that they cannot do anything but go forward.
      One cannot tell me that there is not something in the legal system that can stop a defendant from being so in control that delays and postponements are continued. I believe that given the leniency the judge has shown to date to protect the rights of this defendant, her rights to no appeals in the trial and penalty phases has been accomplished. So….hear the motions, rule on them in a more timely manner and get on with this so that it can be over.

      • “One cannot tell me that there is not something in the legal system that can stop a defendant from being so in control that delays and postponements are continued.”

        There is — it’s supposed to be the judge.

        I look to the no nonsense judge in the Zimmerman trial who moved things along (maybe at a bit too hard of a pace) and got the job done. Judge Stevens ‘seems’ to have done the opposite. We’ll have to wait for the appeals process to see if her allowing all of these delays and motions helped prevent any successful appeals or if it’s all been a waste of everyone’s time and energy.

        Either way, my hope is that some victim laws are enacted because of what happened in this case as well as AZ taking a look at some of their laws that have allowed this trial to continue, seemingly with no end in sight.

          • The Zimmerman judge is not a good comparison because Florida has a speedy trial requirement in the Florida constitution that requires trials to be expedited. The judge was only following Florida law. Other states do not. Their provisions allow the defendant to waive a speedy trial.

          • What a crock of BS! A defendant can waive a speedy trial?? Arias’ trial is over and it was not speedy and she was afforded more than her share of rights through it. Sentence the woman – she has been found guilty!

        • Suzee, rewatching on youtube Juan cross-examining Vilette, at one point (actually many times) he asked the judge to require her to answer a question with a yes or no. The judge asked Vilette if she could do that, Vilette replied ‘it doesn’t feel complete’ or some such nonsense, and the judge made Juan ask a different question. I would have thought she would have ordered the witness to answer as requested. But no. And I saw that type of thing over and over. And she spoke so softly to Vilette. Yet I have heard some people say they think this judge is really good. I suppose if you are on the defense, you might think that. I am thinking Juan’s hands were so tied. Also I appreciate being reminded, Linda K, I think it was, about Travis’ lying. According to Vilette, he had a pattern of lying by telling some people, I don’t know who, that he was a virgin. Whoa. In earlier days, guys would lie telling that they had had sex with various and many gals. Yet I can’t get too excited if he did tell people he was a virgin. I will have to re-watch to see if he allegedly would meet a new person, shake their hand, and immediately inform the new person he was a virgin. Vilette seems to try to show that he is a serious loser because he lied about this, according to her readings and shows a pattern of lying. Yet she can’t seem to open her mind to that fact that Jodi is a manipulator and a liar before, during, and after the slaughter. I think if it is left up to this judge, this might come to a conclusion at the end of next year. If Arizona is lucky. The money that will be spent is incredible. And the time wasted. IMO.

          • Nance, the few side bar transcripts released caught a conversation by the judge with the lawyers about Alyce. She told the defense that she’s still not answering questions despite their in chambers conversation about that, and asked the defense to talk to her about answering. The judge said “I don’t want to admonish her in front of the jury.” There’s a good reason for that. If a judge admonishes an expert in front of the jury, it is the equivalent of the judge damaging her credibility. The problem with that is that an appellate court would reverse on appeal because while the credibility of the expert can be impeached by the other side or destroyed by her own behavior and lack of logic, it CANNOT be done by the judge. The judge must maintain control of herself in not showing her frustration at the expert and make no suggestion that the expert should answer differently. Especially in a death penalty case. She did, however, talk to her in chambers several times.

          • Maria, thank you. What you write makes perfect sense to me now. During the trial and now re-watching her testimony, I of course became outraged possibly because I am immature even at this advanced age. But your explanation makes me understand why the judge treated her with kid gloves. And now I will try to be more understanding of the judge’s calls and not blame her for being pro-defense as much as I have in the past. I am also wondering what your thoughts are about when the judge will allow the second phase to begin. I am thinking she will not start the new trial until next year, but I guess we will wait and see. Also I would like to say how much I enjoy this blog site. I have learned so much by reading different postings like your explanation to me. I am going to try VERY HARD to be more intelligent and believe me, it will be hard! hahahaa. I think I am too emotional about this trial. But I am slowly learning the ins and outs of trials by reading some of these comments. Thank you again and also thanks to Nern and everybody else including Dr. R. And one last thought: I am so glad the jury used their common sense in convicting this butcher even if some of them probably believed some of Vilette’s testimony which I believe is made up bull.

          • Thanks for saying that Nance. Sometimes I hesitate to share because I feel it may sound like I’m correcting people, which is never my intention. The ins and outs of legal maneuvers take all of us years to understand and I like sharing where I see things that have an esoteric explanation not obvious to the eye. :)

          • I hope you don’t hesitate. Just learning about why the judge doesn’t command or order the witness to answer made my life easier. I think I must have seen movies where the judge would order the witness to answer. I honestly did not know that the judge really can’t do that because the whole thing would be overturned or whatever you called it made me realize that I need to educate myself on these things and not just react emotionally. I now am wondering what is the responsibility of the judge. Please keep answering our thoughts when we post so that I can learn more. And I feel a little bad thinking this judge was a wimp and pro-defense!!!! Sorry. On the other hand, I will withhold my judgment until we learn what she would sentence Jodi to if it should come to that. I wonder what your thought is on that. Before today’s posting, I would have said life with parole after 25 years which I think if it should happen by the judge or jury would be a horrible thing.

          • I’ve been dying to hear Judge Stephens sentence Jodi. That’s the moment she gets to lecture her on what’s she’s done. I don’t believe Judge Stephens would give her life without a parole under any circumstances. I saw the judge on two occasions roll her eyes (involuntarily), once during an answer Jodi gave to a jury question and another time to one by Alyce. I would love to hear what she’s going to say to her at sentencing. I have a feeling it’s going to be good!

            Judge Stephens, by the way, was a prosecutor Assistant Attorney General for 21 years. She’s not a softie.

          • Maria, one more question. A judge cannot instruct a witness to answer the question period or a judge cannot instruct an expert witness to answer the question posed to him? If the witness refuses to answer the question, as how it was with Juan and Vilette, basically it is just too bad because she would not be ordered to answer the question by the judge. So it is just a battle of wills between expert witness and prosecutor. The judge can’t and won’t do anything about it. Can the defense ask that a witness answer? Would the judge be able to make the witness answer the defense attorney or would that be reversible too? It is so confusing.

          • Yes, the judge can instruct the expert or witness to answer the question. The problem is that with few exceptions she cannot force what the answer should be. Much of the battle of wills between Alyce and Juan was that he asked yes or no questions where she refused a yes or no answer. If its on a fact, the judge has more leeway to instruct her to answer yes or no. Like, for example, “You never testified in court for a man in a criminal case, correct?” It’s either yes or no. But Alyce got away with many long winded diversions on questions that may be interpreted as having an expertise that she would claim cannot be answered yes or no. That’s where the judge had to be careful not to try to force a yes or no because then she’s altering or interfering with the expert’s opinion testimony. It’s frustrating as hell. Alyce abused that distinction every single time, pretending no answer could be yes or no and then giving answers not even related to the questions so she could say stuff she wanted to say.

            But the danger of the judge appearing to discredit the expert was too great. Remember when Nurmi filed his motions for mistrial, each time accusing the judge and Juan? In the last one, he said in oral argument that the judge herself had created an atmosphere of unfairness. He claimed she allowed Juan to intimidate witnesses, including Alyce, and his actions were done with the judge’s blessing. He cited something that happened in the judges chambers with Alcye that he could not openly discuss because it was sealed, and said the judge allowed intimidation of Alyce in chambers. Judge Stephens responded that Alyce had good reason to be upset from what came out in chambers but not because of anything improper by Juan. (Mysterious comment.) And she denied mistrial.

            So that’s what she was dealing with in making sure nothing she said to Alyce in front of the jury could be distorted as her interfering with expert opinions or scolding her to destroy her credibility. I hope Judge Stephens can lay in bed at night with her husband going over this insanity and they can both have a good laugh.

          • I am learning so much. I wish I had been able to talk to somebody like this during the trial but I wasn’t aware of this blog until far in and I couldn’t understand about what I considered fair not being done but I am able to see the bigger picture now. In one posting you say “I don’t believe Judge Stephens would give her life without a parole under any circumstances” so does that mean you think she would give her life with parole? I am not clear. Also – in a second posting you describe the in chambers situation where the judge denies a mistrial request from Nurmi. Will we ever know what Juan might have said to Vilette? I can’t help but think Vilette told a big one and Juan maybe really called her on it. I was watching Vilette on youtube yesterday and it is really out of bounds how during her answers to the jury questions she takes every opportunity to smear Travis even when answering something different. She implies at every opportunity that he was a horrible lying physically abusing womanizing monster and that Jodi is an innocent sweet abused victim who never manipulated or lied to anybody. She brings out that Jodi is a survivor so that’s where that started. Part of the plan. Will we ever be able to know if Matt McCartney was going to lie on the stand for Jodi and if Bobby Juarez was afraid of Jodi and another thing – how could I find out if Vilette was well received on her speaking tour after the trial and has her book sold well, do you know? I have googled but can’t find anything. I call her Vilette because she is so vile and she is not fair at all in her testimony. I also wonder if we can ever find out what she said to Travis’ family member. Anyway, thank you, Maria, for your explanations, which have helped my knowledge so much.

          • Thanks Nance. Oh no, I mis-wrote. I meant that Judge Stephens would never give Jodi Life With Parole! She would give her the harshest sentence available if it comes to that. But I’m hoping to hear what she will say to her if the jury recommends death and she gets to impose death and explain why she deserves it.

            I haven’t found anything lately on Alyce. I think Katie Coolady, who posted here, probably knows what Alyce said to Samantha because she knows them. I don’t think they’re publicly sharing it yet.

            Alyce’s behavior makes so much sense in the context of the radical feminist male hating domestic abuse movement origins. I was watching online last night about how regular fair minded people were driven out by the male haters in that movement in the early days. How DV got highjacked by a militant strain of feminism that preached women were incapable of domestic violence and they are always the victims in any male-female dynamic. Within their circle, these fanatics elevated people like Alyce to prominence despite their “work and findings” being politically motivated rather than research based. Every one of them sounds exactly like Alyce bashing the men and acquitting women completely for any violence they commit. The men are always responsible if a woman turns violent.

            Others like Erin Pizzey who disagreed with that emphasis did more good for domestic violence than these fanatics.

            I don’t mean “Feminists.” I mean the militant, man hating strain of gender feminists. I consider myself an equity feminist, focused on equality not man hating. All of those women involved in the founding of that movement sound exactly like Alyce. It’s a cult.

          • @Maria, you wrote, “I haven’t found anything lately on Alyce. I think Katie Coolady, who posted here, probably knows what Alyce said to Samantha because she knows them. I don’t think they’re publicly sharing it yet.”

            The rumor I heard was that Alyce said something to the effect of, “I want you to know it’s nothing personal.” My vague recollection is this came from someone who overheard it firsthand and gave a phone interview to HLN shortly after it happened.


          • Linda K, I am glad to know this and if this is what the vile creature said to the victim family, for shame on her. Actually she shouldn’t have said anything to them in my opinion. If she said it’s nothing personal, how dare her. It was pure personal the way she slaughtered him a second time in her testimony. I was re-watching her testimony this weekend and at every opportunity she would insinuate (even when it wasn’t the question) what a scumbag he was according to her patterns theory while bluntly stating that Jodi was a good girl always and a victim/survivor. She said the Hughes said he was a bad womanizer and insinuated that they thought he had a bad character and I remember the wife on HLN saying they never said that or thought that. Vilette lied and lied on the stand. Not personal? Another lie. I have to admire the victim family for not standing up and slapping her ugly mouth if she said that to them. I can’t imagine how they felt no matter what she said. It is outrageous and wrong. Another thing I watched was when Nurmi had that witness who said he could see Jodi in Travis’ eyeballs and the judge had the family sit right in front of Jodi to watch the films. I remember thinking how cruel this was that the judge had them sit so close to their brother’s murderer. These people must be incredibly strong people. I could not have sat that close to her. And may I ask what FWIW means? I am not familiar with many of these things.

          • Nance,

            The Alexander family demonstrates pure grace under pressure. As if it wasn’t bad enough to have to listen to LaVi trash their brother, they graciously endured her clumsy approach. And since it was probably just to ease her own conscience (if she has one) I’m glad they told the judge,.And I believe she got reprimanded.

            Then to see her giving the “pity me ” interview was infuriating. WHY give any interview at all if she’s so frightened for her safety?

          • I hope she got reprimanded too. And in her repulsive crying boohoo interview she said she feels so sad not just for herself but for Jodi because people who don’t even know Jodi hate her. What? I wonder if she has enough intelligence to even consider that maybe people hate Jodi for the unspeakable butchering of Travis and hate the act of the butcher. I do not think so. I guess I better shut up about the vile one. I wonder what it is about her that enrages me so much. I can’t help it. Maybe Dr. R can tell me what’s wrong with me!!!!

          • @nance,

            After I posted my recollection, I cranked up the search engines to try to find confirmation from a source worth linking to. The best I could do was come up with some unverifiable internet chatter about ALV having said [simply], “It’s not personal.”

            FWIW [For What It’s Worth]

          • Linda K & Nance, Alyce Laviolette>>I searched & searched too. I could only find what you did, Laviolette saying to Samantha, “Its nothing personal.” Apparently there was some noisy stuff going on in the back of the courtroom, so people could not hear Laviolette. I also read from those in the courtroom, that Lavilette raised both arms, like to shrug. You know, what-was-she-to-do? For she was a defense witness. Oh my, what she did to Travis! And I presume Laviolette ruined her career. She has some serious mental health problems, to put it simply & politely. Nut…& Nasty.

    • I agree Don, it is infuriating. But she has a while to go to catch up with the scum-bag Charles Ng.
      Ng’s trial was lengthy and cost California approximately $20 million. “Justice Denied The Ng Case, The Most Famous and Expensive Murder Case in History” Joseph Harrington and Robert Burger.ether

      I would like to see the two of them celled together. Or she thrown into a Mexican whorehouse al la the kevin Costner movie ‘Revenge’.

      • Thanks, Andy for the info. on Ng. Looked up his history – another monster. Haven’t come across “Revenge”, but Ng sounds like a worthy cell mate for Arias. Can it be organised for her to be sent to San Quentin?
        Actually, I don’t care what sort of an end Arias comes to as long as she comes to an end – sooner rather than later.

        • Don, I have to agree that the sooner she comes to her end and, whatever that may be, the better.
          Although I have engaged in comments for some time, I am with the thought that all this psycho – babble as to why, to label her and those who defend her with some kind of “name” for why they do what they do is getting weary.
          So many people in this world live their lives as they wish, doing no harm to others, as individuals. I believe most are good people. Can there not be those who are just not good and rather just plain bad? Does there have to be a label? Are these labels just to ease minds cause they cannot understand why some do what they do?
          Of course, some are influenced by their upbringing but so many can have lousy upbringings and live their lives doing no harm. There are those whose upbringing is “normal” but they end up doing so much and often unspeakable harm to others.
          Each person on this planet is unique. Why one does one thing and another does another is, in the end, of no consequence when it comes to doing harm. We cannot fix everyone. We can try I guess but are we doing it to find out why or to just ease our minds cause we do not understand them?
          I agree with prevention, if possible, but I also believe that some people are just plain horrid.
          Arias is one of these people and should be held accountable for her actions. She has been convicted by her peers despite her efforts to get out of it. Now she must be accountable and her future must be decided. She is a menace to people on this earth – this has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt and now she must suffer the penalty for her actions. She is the master of her own fate.
          Get it over with.

          • I take this trial very seriously. However, this morning, reading here, I had to laugh. Delay after delay after delay… Visualizing. I pictured the Arias trial still going on decades later. The judge with blue-gray, short curly hair, granny glasses low on nose, curled over the bench, yawns, naps… Willmott, of course in a suit, now hot pink, nails neon, trying to deny aging. “May we approach…?” Nurmi with heavy, steel walker (aluminum not strong enough), shabby, threadbare suit~Oxygen cannula to open nose, sans finger. Still bald. On the dole, as forced to remain Defense. Arias family & friends 3x heavy. All in “Survivor” t-shirts. Mom’s face now set in wrinkled stone. Travis’ family all remain dignified. White haired. Now shielding their great grandchildren from Arias’ ongoing portrait artwork…& tweets. But all more close as a family, as had to move to AZ. Wealthy. Speaking engagements. R.I.P. Travis, ongoing bestseller book sales & film rights. They donate to charity for stalking & abuse victims. And to science, investigating the true presence of Evil. Jodi Arais with close-cropped, stick-out, steel-gray hair. Still trying to “contribute to society” by donating hair to charity. Thick, thick glasses…eyes large saucers of black holes. Still reading, re her book club~ focusing on books about “longevity.” Obese & pasty-pale. Still in 23 hour solitary confinement. No sun, no exercise, with lots of donuts. Awaiting, awaiting sentencing as she continues to peruse law books for delays, delays… Juan Martinez. Spiffy & sprite. Somehow managed to remain prosecuting attorney, although is now Governor of Arizona.

          • Dawn, thanks for my Labour Day laugh. Hope that it is only that and not a look at the future. Maybe not to the extreme that you commented but that this does go on and on for a long time yet.

  9. Nern, how do you know Jodi controls the defense entirely? I don’t know enough obviously to know that this is happening so explain please. I have just assumed it is Nurmi who keeps coming up with all these motions that are delaying the new trial for sentencing like he was always doing during the guilt phase. I agree with you so much when you say it fuels her to be listened to. I was watching Vilette on youtube being questioned by Willmott and I saw that when nobody was talking about her specifically, she seemed rather bored but when her name would be mentioned, she just perked up big time. I think she thinks she is so interesting. By the way, Vilette really came up with some doozies, didn’t she? She tells about Travis having a pattern of lying and Jodi never lied until after the murder. I have to go back and re-listen because I guess I have forgotten what Travis lied about or I maybe missed it during her tetimony during the trial. Please tell me how to look for how Jodi is controlling her attorneys. Thanks, Nern.

    • I’m assuming the same as you Nance, because these motions are routine motions every lawyer would file in this kind of case. How would Jodi know what motions should be filed? She doesn’t.

      Many of the motions are required to “preserve” issues for appeal. The ones challenging prior rulings are in that category. The way appeals work is that the appellate court will not overturn a case on issues the defense did not specifically raise to give the trial judge an opportunity to first address their grounds and arguments. If they fail to do that, the appellate court refuses to review those issues. (Those include the aggravating “especially cruel” issue, media coverage impacting fairness, and others.) Other motions and requests for evidence are both preserving appellate issues and preventive measures to protect against ineffective assistance of counsel. Motions every lawyer needs to file when these issues are present in a case. (Change of venue, specific orders on voir dire, subpoenas for new evidence generated since trial started, etc.) Jodi would not know any of this.

      • Of course Arias knows! What do you think she has been doing for 5 years behind bars? Material relevant to her case is available to her, even behind bars. she may not know all nuances of the motions but she surely knows which have to be filed…….and importantly when.
        She is not a stupid woman, just not as smart as she thinks she is.

    • Well NANCE – I should clarify. When I say that Arias is and has always controlled her defense, it is what I have concluded after watching this whole thing since the trial began and with all the mitigating factors surrounding Arias.

      This person has been in control of what she does and with whom her entire life.
      When she couldn’t control circumstances, she moved on. Began when she left her family’s home and all subsequent “relationships”. She finally honed into Travis and when she lost control of that relationship, she finally took the ultimate step and with massive forethought, she slaughtered him.
      Then, her control continued with phone calls to the police, and contact with the Alexander family. Her arrogance and narcissistic personality made her feel that she could control any interest in her being attached to this horrible crime.
      When finally brought in for questioning, she tried her best to control that and use her feminine wiles on Det. Flores. Her antics caught on tape – flinging of the hair, singing, laughing, doing stretches and wishing she had done her make-up, all, to me, demonstrate that she believed she had control of the situation. Unfortunately for her, Det. Flores was a man on a mission with the evidence to back him up. She was arrested.
      To counter him, she came up with the Ninja story and clung to that for a long time, even giving interviews about this story with a smile on her face.
      So sure of herself she stated that she would never be convicted, “mark her words”, because she was innocent all the while smiling and primping for the cameras. Control – in her mind, she was in control.
      Finally, after Dr. Samuels came into the picture, she saw that control was slipping away, so…….she killed Travis in self defense.
      Moving forward, she wanted and tried to defend herself. Didn’t work and in came the lawyers. Not too sure how many were involved but she ended up with Nurmi. She was well aware that he didn’t want to be associated with the case but had been ordered to remain as her counsel. She had him by the short and curly.
      She kept copious notes throughout testimonies. She was constantly in head-to- head discussions with Wilma during the trial
      But what confirmed it for me was her own 18-day testimony. If there ever was someone who felt she was in control of those 18 days, it was her. No defense attorney, who most often do not want their client on the stand, would not want the adversarial attitude that she displayed with the prosecution. She was in control, in her mind, and could say and act any way she wished. Her continuous looking at the jury when she answered was all pre-planned. She could care less but knew that to keep control and be acquitted, she had to play the game.
      The results of her tests to determine her IQ and whether she was competent to stand trial fuelled her belief that she could control the proceedings and her defense team. Under the law, as I see, she can actively participate in her defense. The only thing she needed the lawyers to do was the talking. I feel that they went along with her wishes for the sake of their careers in the future. If they went against her, she could use that as cause for appeal and/or dismissal and the whole thing would begin again.

      I believe she OK’d ALV and Samuels (even though they were the only ones willing to assist) and then promptly began control of them, manipulating them as she does with everyone to come around to her way of thinking.

      All the objections and motions put forth during the trial were her way of stalling. She continues that today.

      No defense attorney would ever want their client to go on national TV and hear their client state that she felt “betrayed” by the jury. Nor would they want her to lament that she would like death “sooner than later”. For that matter, no attorney would want her on TV at all, but…..Arias is in control.

      Would her lawyers encourage Twitter, EBay and other social media? Absolutely not!

      Nurmi’s demeanor in court is not the most professional but it is an indication also of his not wanting to be there. Very little contact between Nurmi and Arias. It seemed to be only with Wilma. Explains a lot to me.

      So, although I have no cold hard facts to support what I think, I can only form my opinion on what I have seen. I have touched on some of what I saw and heard.

      I believe that she is still running the show but as evident by the lack of any communication at all at the last hearing, her lawyers are almost fed up. These new motions are just more stalling tactics on her part to keep things from moving forward. Continued delays, I think in her mind, will eventually
      lead to death being taken off the table and she will get what she has wanted all along. She would revel in the control she had over this entire matter.

      She is going to lose!!!

    • @nance,

      LaViolette was showing her gender bias that day. She claimed Travis was a liar because he told people he was a virgin… the “pattern” was that he told everyone that. But little Jodi is no liar because she “only” lied about the “killing” of Travis. [facepalm]

  10. Doesn’t Nurmi have a pattern of preparing the motions as if ‘Ms. Arias’ herself is dictating? I just interpret that as his style. She’s not representing herself with good reason. She doesn’t know what she’s doing all the while behaving as the brainy client w/dumb attorneys. Now I don’t regard Nurmi as especially smart. His motions are terribly written.

    Maria, I’m confused by some of your comments. Isn’t it possible it’s nothing more complicated than wanting to be aware of who she’s talking to and why. IMO Juan’s going to focus on her social media and interviews. She’s a liar. They need to know who is her chief commander on the outside. If felon Donavan is still involved they can’t be blindsided in court. She’s still enjoying this, smiling smugly and engaging directly w/cameras. How bad can it be at Estrella ?

    • I’m not sure I understand the question completely. You ask isn’t it possible they want to know who she’s talking to and why. If it was the prosecution that issued the subpoenas that would be legitimate. But its not for her own lawyers because they cannot use subpoenas to investigate their own client. They are the alter ego of the client. Its her interests alone that must drive every motion and subpoena (with the exception of motions to withdraw as counsel). If her lawyers want to know who she’s talking to and why, they need to ask her.

      The only reason to issue a subpoena regarding conversations by their own client is to have access to what the other side has or could use against her–whether it’s what she might have said or what the people she was talking to may have said. I suspect it has to do with witnesses they are considering putting on in mitigation; they need to hear what they may have said over the phone because it could be used to impeach them.

      Subpoenas by her own lawyers would have nothing to do with trying to find out about Donovan or whose helping her on the outside. They can’t issue them to investigate their own client. Again, the subpoenas by attorneys in this case have to be for the purpose of finding information that may be important to this case. The jail listens to her calls so they know everything about her contacts. If a separate criminal investigation of Jodi or Donovan were to take place, the detectives would ask a court (not this court) for subpoenas of evidence. (Non lawyers must ask courts for subpoenas, while lawyers just write, sign and serve them without asking.)

      • Does that mean Nurmi and Willmott can only operate on behalf of Jodi Arias in this current matter before the court? In other words, a hypothetical:

        What would happen if there were to be a separate criminal investigation [perhaps not necessarily directed at Arias herself] during which it was discovered her jail activity put her at legal risk in that matter? Wouldn’t Nurmi and Willmott be forced to handle that matter as well as this so long as they remain her attorneys of record? Or no?

      • So, if I am hearing you correctly, all phone calls are monitored and the state knows who she is talking to and the content of these calls. This may seem a little “out there” on my part, but why then could the postings to social media, which she does not have direct access to in jail, not be stopped? I just do not get it. Why has she been allowed to try and influence the public and subsequently potential jurors for so long and then turn around and want complete control over jurors and their social media activity? I do not get it.

        • I find it almost impossible to understand the laws too, Nern. But I am trying to learn. I had thought that once she was a convicted murderer while still in that jail, she shouldn’t have some of these liberties until the penalty phase is over with. But it didn’t work out that way.

          • Yes nance, it is a learning curve and an interesting one at that. It is just that it is so utterly frustrating and I cannot imagine how the Alexander family is coping. Certainly with dignity, that is for sure.

        • True all jail or prison calls are recorded. Most do not get scrutinized unless something occurs that warrants a look see. This being such a high profile case maybe she was over heard saying something and the defense was alerted. Both sides should be interested in who she is connecting to or conversing with. There could be threats or plans who knows. Maybe they want to see if she is really profiting after her conviction and who is funneling her money or maybe bribe deals. We don’t know what they are looking for or to clear up. It could be something truly simple like does the prosecution have more rope to hang her with. Three way calls usually automaticly disconnect but there may be a way around them. Maybe someone set her up or she set someone up in some way. It will be interesting but I would have thought as you did by now someone should have stopped the tweets and other postings. In Az you can only call as far as I know the people on your visitors list and mailing list which generally are the same on both lists. Maybe they are going after one or more of those people and they want to be able to say she had no part in the postings or tweets I know she is clever at hacking so again who knows what is up..

        • It has something to do with the balance a free society has to have to avoid the abuses of authoritarian regimes. In many places in the world, when people are imprisoned they are cut off from communication with the outside world, especially the media. So if they’re innocent, they have no way of making their plight known to the world, or even family. This happens all over the world. The founding fathers made sure our system of government would not allow this. The only legitimate way for the state to imprison someone must be with due process and without cutting off their access to the outside world to make their case. “Influencing the jury” is not something that Jodi is precluded from doing. It’s the state, the one that holds the power to punish that cannot do things to bypass proving their case in court by tainting the jury. We may get upset at this now, but it only takes looking at what happens in other countries to realize this is the best system possible.

          A good example of these abuses is the Amanda Knox case where the prosecutors intentionally put out false evidence. Then they charged Amanda’s family with criminal charges for speaking out publicly in her defense. I think they may have even charge her with defamation of the prosecution. (Not sure though.) But these are the terrorism tactics of states that silence people charged with crimes so they cannot make known their side or their innocence.

          There are some limits to what prisoners can publicize but it has more to do with security than limiting their expressions about their case.

          • Maria – I believe I knew the answer before I sent the comment. However, this case is so exasperating tht I guess we reach for straws to bring it to a conclusion. I thank you for your answer and of course it is correct,. I only hope that the prosecution uses her antics to rebut the motions before the court. Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.

          • They should have all been shot at dawn and hung at dusk for what they did to Amanda Knox. I don’t blame her one bit for thumbing her nose at their ‘retrial’.

          • I agree Uppity. So evil. In one of the “interrogations” they falsely told her that her DNA blood test had turned up positive for AIDS and they needed the names of every man she had ever had sex with to notify them. She wrote down 7 names. They then leaked it to the media that she was sexually promiscuous and to support their claim this was a sex orgy turned violent. The AIDS claim was a lie. Then they charged her family with criminal defamation for criticizing the prosecution.

            They should be shot, I agree.

          • Maria, I’d like to know your source supporting your statements on the Amanda Knox case, It seems you rely on HLN or CNN without any research of case documentation. If you don’t speak Italian, many key documents are translated to English. I suggest you start with a comprehensive review called the Massei Report, which attaches many source documents. Then we can discuss why you think it’s normal for Amanda Knox’ blood to be mixed with murder victim Meredith Kercher’s in blood drops in their shared bathroom, a partial bloody footprint on the bathmat matching her “boyfriend” of a week, Raffaele Sollecito, and luminol testing revealed her/their footprints in Meredith’s blood. There’s much more evidence but I wanted to confirm that I have read most of it. Amanda Knox on the stand rivaled Jodi Arias. And contrary to your condemnation of their justice system, Amanda Knox was treated with utmost respect and courtesy in the courtroom by judges, all attorneys, and she was provided translators at all times. There was no Juan Martinez to reign her in as she rambled on and on.She stood trial separately for falsely accusing an innocent man. Yeah she ruined this guy’s life and never apologizee.

            You also need to educate yourself about Giuliano Mignini, prosecutor, who cared about justice for Meredith just as Juan Martinez cares about Travis. The Kercher family loves him and he’s respected in his jurisdiction. The abuse of office charges were dropped and he continues in his office. The charges related to wiretapping of police accused in another case. Seriously, you think that’s terrorism? The Italians are proud of their justice system which isn’t as different as you may think. It’s a longer process and allows both defendant and prosecutor to appeal verdicts. What exactly is so terrible about that? There is just so much more evidence, lies numerous alibis. I will follow the appeal hearing next month in Florence. Most people don’t even know the name of this victim who sustained over 43 cuts bruises, was sexually assaulted and left alone to die slowly choking on her blood from a slit throat. Because Amanda Knox is young and attractive, like Jodi Arias, some people refuse to believe they are capable of brutal murder. For me I care about Justice for Travis and Justice for Meredith.

          • Brigid, you wrote: The Italians are proud of their justice system which isn’t as different as you may think. It’s a longer process and allows both defendant and prosecutor to appeal verdicts. What exactly is so terrible about that?

            It’s absolute tyranny of the State to allow the Prosecution to appeal an acquittal — there is no safeguard to prevent relentless prosecution of a “not guilty” Defendant in perpetuity. Surely this is not something we would welcome here in the US.

          • Linda,

            Short quiz. Which Western European country:
            a) heavily influenced our Founding Fathers in establishing our form of government…and architecture?
            b) re-codified its criminal laws in 1988 to eliminate any lingering fascist influence?
            c) does NOT allow “relentless prosecution” of defendants?
            c) is considered “soft” on criminals
            d) has no death penalty?
            d) has maximum sentence of 35 years?
            e) offers an incarceration system to include language classes, gymnastics, guitar lessons, regular visitation and correspondence, all of which applied to Amanda Knox.

            Look, I’m not advocating that we adopt Italy’s justice system. But do you not see the flaws with our own? WHAT is motivating many people here in America to indict a liberal European country’s entire justice system based on the word of Amanda Knox? Or because it’s just different, involving a longer process and its own version of double jeopardy protection.

            The trial in Florence next month is Amanda Knox’ appeal process The High Court reviewed the lower court’s acquittal and found serious legal flaws. The acquittal was annulled not reversed Every presiding judge must submit a ‘motivation’ or sentencing report, justifying rulings. All of these reports are available to the public. We would be well served to implement such a requirement of our own judiciary. I urge you to read them along with her own testimony. Be prepared to encounter the defense template preceding Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias: the “fog,” memory lapses, giggling in court and on the stand, ever-shifting alibis, false accusations. Eerie and disturbing.

          • You read way more into what I said than was ever there. I didn’t indict any country on the word of anyone. I didn’t say one word about the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox. I didn’t say our justice system is flawless. I merely criticized the concept of appealing an acquittal which I feel is archaic and dangerous.

          • Linda K wrote: “It is absolute tyranny of the state to allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal._there is no safeguard to prevent relentless prosecution of a “not guilty” defendant in perpetuity. Surely this is not something we would welcome in the US.”

            Linda, you actually said a whole lot. I understand where it’s coming from. I wasn’t reading too much into it. But the assumptions about Italy are mistaken. There are safeguards. There is no in perpetuity; It’s finite, It’s quite a leap from prosecutorial appeal to a state of tyranny.IMO.. Italy is no longer that country controlled by fascism., not by a long shot.

          • Linda,

            Why the need for sarcasm? I was trying to have an open discussion. When your comments are challenged or questioned, you appear defensive or announce you’re withdrawing from the discussion altogether because you’re misunderstood. .You’re very intelligent, Linda. If you disagree with me, why not engage on points of disagreement? It’s easy to only engage with those who agree with us, right?

          • Brigid, I returned sarcasm for sarcasm and it looks like you’re at it again. You insist on trying to suck me into a discussion of the Amanda Knox case — a case which I know relatively little about, have no opinion about regarding her guilt or innocence, and have no special interest in studying, let alone discussing. All I ever wanted to do was answer your question as to what was “so terribly wrong” with a prosecutor being able to appeal an acquittal. Just so you know, I would have answered the exact same way if it was allowed in the US or anywhere else.

            I do find it interesting you say the Italians have safeguards in place to prevent double jeopardy. Appealing an acquittal is, in itself, a means to inflict double jeopardy.

          • EXACTLY LINDA! Total tyranny of the state to never allow the accused to walk away acquitted! State power destroys the lives of innocent people around the world and has since civilization started. Citizens live in terror when they can never get out of the net. Any system that allows the prosecution to appeal the accused being acquitted is tyranny. The state has endless resources, citizens wear out their lives trying to survive such a system.

          • This is an absolutely horrifying legal concept. I don’t know a lot about the Amanda Knox case in particular however if, as Brigid said, her Not Guilty verdict was annulled, that explains how the Italians get rid of that pesky double jeopardy issue. No acquittal = no trial = no double jeopardy. The legitimate has become the illegitimate and the State is now free to rinse and repeat as needed.

          • Brigid, We can disagree on Amanda Knox. But I’m not going to enter a debate on the evidence here. Please don’t tell me to educate myself on the prosecutor Guiliano Mignini, I’ve followed his “work” on prior cases. He’s nothing like Juan. He begins his cases with a theory and makes the evidence fit. The appeals courts do not believe the forensic evidence is what you’re saying.

            Moreover, for decades Mignini has believed in satanic ritual killings, and conveniently found Amanda’s roommmate’s killing to be yet another one to fit his pre-existing belief.

            He has arrested journalists more than once for criticizing him. Mario Spezi is a journalist he arrested for exposing his fanatical and confused investigations of the Monster of Florence case–another one he botched with his satanic ritual killing theory. Spezi’s account of how he was interrogated is the mirror image of what Amanda says this prosecutor did to her.

            The Italian court found Mignini GUILTY of exceeding the powers of his office in a trial in 2010 related to his pursuit of journalists and police. He had originally been charged with wiretapping office’s and phones of journalist’s and police. They only convicted him of abusing his power, and later an appellate court overturned because it felt the original court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

            Please don’t compare this to Juan Martinez.

    • Brigid, Believing that Amanda is not guilty is not the same as forgetting Meredith. It’s completely unfair and inflammatory to frame it that way. One is not related to the other. Feelings for the victim is not what should drive our analysis of evidence against an accused.

      • Maria, you can call my comments inflammatory all you want. I am quite clear that emotion is not the basis of my opinion. I was neutral about Knox until researching the case. I provided some important links but you won’t discuss evidence. You prefer to rant about tyrrany and make outrageous accusations against the prosecutor without any factual basis. Devil worship. Really Maria? I don’t believe you’ve followed Mignini’s career for years. He’s not widely known out of his region, but that changed when he prosecuted Knox. He’s been ridiculed for being a committed Catholic too. Does that get equated with devil worship?

        I compared Juan Martinez not as sharing personal characteristics. My point is that whatever YOUR personal opinion of Mignini, his work is mostly respected and he is beloved by Meredith’s family.. You can be offended by that. Your prerogative.

        What you are doing here is in fact “inflmammatory.” If you would read court transcripts you would learn that devil worship was NOT even a part of the case against Amanda Knox. There was ample evidence without trumped up devil worship charges. Why try to compare this case with that sexual serial killer in Florence?
        Do you consider many here “emotional” because we are dedicated to justice for Travis? In the same manner I care about justice for Meredith Kercher. You wrote a lengthy post about Knox that came across as purely emotional IMO And you omitted any reference to Meredith.

        I find it interesting that everyone close to this crime believed Amanda was involved yet here in the States people are outspoken in supporting her innocence based on what? How could everyone surrounding this woman and the entire Italian justice system be wrong? Just as everyone pointed to Jodi Arias when learning of Travis” murder, Amanda’s behavior and statements caused friends, roommates, Meredith’s English friends, her Italian boyfriend and his roommates who lived downstairs from Amanda & Meredith, everyone except her family, all of them, to suspect Amanda. Amanda Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder. She may not have delivered the death blow but she’s was there and she cleaned up the crime scene, moved and staged Meredith’s body to look like an intruder rape and murder.

        You refuse to discuss evidence which is fine, Maria. But IMO repeating unsubstantiated Amanda Knox propaganda is all kinds of wrong.

        • I wasn’t refusing to discuss evidence, you told me to get educated. I’m refusing to go into a tit for tat discussion of pieces of evidence of a case that is more complicated than any one with opinions can adequately understand.
          The tone of your challenges isn’t conducive to a discussion of facts. More than once you tell me that I haven’t read evidence or get my information from Anderson Cooper or haven’t followed Mignini’s career. You don’t know what I have read or not read because I haven’t told you. So these comments are unnecessarily hostile.

          I have read and listened to the two journalists Mignini jailed for their criticism of his satanic ring conspiracy in the Monster of Florence case and the men who were arrested for the crimes then released each time it became clear they were innocent. I also knew of those killings before I knew of Amanda Knox because satanic ritual killings (and whether they exist) has been an interest of mine for awhile. You don’t know what I do or don’t know.

          Mignini did claim the Amanda Knox case was a satanic ritual (and the Florence serial killings were satanic) and then he changed the story not to mention it during trial when none of the evidence supported his initial theory of the case. This is documented. To deny this prosecutor has had decades of obsession with satanic ritual killings or that he started this case out on that working theory is inexplicable since the evidence is there from many who dealt with him over the years. If you deny basic things like that, its pointless to go into analysis of pieces of evidence. There are real experts out there that have done the analysis.

          Journalists he jailed have written books about his treatment of prior cases and why he imprisoned them only to be forced to later let them go.

          The inflammatory part was where you argued that Meridith is forgotten in defending Amanda. The man who actually raped and killed her (his semen was found inside her) only got 16 years. (Rudy Guede) His blood, feces and semen was everywhere. What’s been forgotten is that.

          • @Maria, you wrote: Mignini did claim the Amanda Knox case was a satanic ritual…

            You are correct, Maria. I do remember hearing that theory in the initial news reports of the crime and thinking it was odd, wondering what evidence there might have been to support such a claim.

          • Yes, he said it at the preliminary hearing in October 2008. A judge who reviewed all the facts wrote a letter to Obama detailing this. But he’s also not the only source. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ConsularFailureKnox.pdf

            Also before Meredith had even been killed, Dateline and others reported on the strange happenings around the serial killings in Florence and this prosecutors imprisoning of more than 23 innocent people, and going after journalists too. Before the Amanda Knox case had even happened.

          • Maria, it’s reasonable to ask you to provide a single verifiable quote by Giuliano Mignini accusing Amanda Knox of devil worship. The Injustice in Perugia link you provided is biased to the extreme, equivalent to Jodi Arias is Innocent site. Knox needs money since her book bombed big time. Why are you so invested in the Monster of Florence case? It’s unrelated to Knox, unsolved and dates back decades.

            Those unfamiliar with the Knox case can only be confused by linking her case with the investigation of a serial killer decades ago so why are you doing it? To portray the prosecutor as crazed, unhinged and seeking to frame Knox. That’s why.

            The Monster of Florence was a sexual serial killer who left a string of victims dead, the women sexually mutilated. The killer stalked couples making love in their car, shooting them in a blitz attack, leaving the men dead and women sexually mutilated. Mutilation escalated to removal of breast and vaginal area.. From mid-90’s for several years, the head investigator was Michele Giuttare. There had been numerous theories about the murderer. Giuttare suspected the sexual mutilations and missing breasts /genitalia were related to satanic ritual. That’s it. So what’s crazier, a ritualistic, sexual serial killer who took his victims’ sexual organs, or a police chief and prosecutor who theorized that such a depraved killer could be part of a larger satanic ritual?

            Again, please provide dates, times, witnesses, direct quote of Mignini bringing charges of satan worship against Amanda Knox. Following is an informative site.


          • My comments about Mignini and his actions in other cases were in response to your statement that he is like Juan Martinez, passionate about justice, and working ethically in this case. I pointed out that is not the case, he has a long history of abuse of office. Now you feel it’s unfair to give an overview of other cases he’s been accused of botching. Not fair. You’re the one citing him as an outstanding prosecutor like Juan.

            Those other cases are also important to show how his abuses occur. The system he works under, unlike the system Juan works under, allows the prosecutor to investigate and develop the evidence. Prosecutors here have less opportunity for abuse because they are not the investigators nor do they develop the evidence. Detectives do that. The Florence case supports my argument that unlike Juan, he has a history of coming to a case with a theory, making evidence fit the theory and incarcerating innocent people, and further threatening and intimidating people, consistent with what Amanda claims he did to her. It;s entirely relevant because she claims he did to her what scores of people have said in the past he did to them.

            On the Satan quote, as you pointed out to me, I don’t read Italian, so I won’t be able to study the transcript. I can tell you it happened at the preliminary hearing in October 2008, The english translation of what he said is “the crime was a sexual and sacrificial ritual in accordance with the rites of Halloween.” Remember Meredith was killed one day after Halloween on Nov 1st.

            This particular quote comes from a judge in Washington who poured over all the evidence and transcripts because his daughter grew up with Amanda. US judges can lose their judgeship for making false statements of evidence. He wrote the letter linked here to President Obama complaining about the consulate doing nothing and he quoted the translation from a transcript. But he is not the only one. Other reporters and experts reviewing the evidence have reported that they heard or read the same thing.
            He believed the same thing about the FLorence serial killer and botched that case for the same reason. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/ConsularFailureKnox.pdf

          • Thanks for posting these.

            The most dangerous person is the one who is acting under the “I was right all along and persecuted for doing nothing wrong” theory. Though I do not ask any one to adopt my view, I believe the fact Meredith was murdered with a knife the day after Halloween set Mignini’s imagination ablaze and he saw her murder as evidence he had been right about ritualized killings and would now be vindicated. Its hard to walk away with any other conclusion if you believe he told the preliminary hearing court that it was a sacrificial killing according to the rites of Halloween. If you don’t believe he said it then I can see not feeling that way.

            Enough. I’ve been dying to talk about the Robert Blake case since hearing about it again on the news yesterday. Maybe in another thread.

          • One last thing Brigid. You ask why I mention Mignini with the Monster of Florence case from decades ago and say it was someone else who did the investigation and believed it was satanic. You say “That’s it” and deny his involvment. Actually in 2006 Mignini arrested journalists Mario Spezi and Douglas Preston who were writing about his strange actions. They both say he accused them of being involved in the Florence serial murders and satanic rites. And had to release them about almost a month for lack of evidence.

            Part of what they were writing about was how he had exhumed the body of Dr Francesco Narducci in 2002 believing he was involved in the Florence murders, was part of a masonic conspiracy and was not really dead. So he sought to prove the body was not him. I don’t recall all the ins and outs but this exhumation and accusations against the dead man also lead to misconduct charges.

            The journalists wrote a book about it in 2008. So I don’t know if you’re not aware. Your statement attributing it all to Giuttari seems to deny Mignini had much to do with the Florence serial killing investigations or arresting and accusing innocent people of being involved in satanic rituals and being involved in those murders.

            Dateline did a story with the journalists, and you can see Mignini at 33:00 and the journalists telling how “the Judge overseeing the investigation” meaning Mignini (the man shown walking into court at 34:10) in his role as not only judge but one that also investigates, interrogates, accuses, etc.called them in for an interrogation, showed them audio tapes they had planted, and accused them of being involved in the murders. The Dateline show focuses on Giuttari, the chief investigator, but Mignini is the judge the journalists say interrogated, accused and arrested them.

          • Maria, you are entitled to personal opinions, personal judgments as we all are. I’m not happy to be at odds with you about this but now I’m at a loss for a resolution. I believe Meredith Kercher is overshadowed by Amanda Knox, A quick social media search demonstrates the phenomenon. I’m puzzled, Maria, that you took personal offense to the level of calling my d “inflammatory.” To put it within context, dscussion boards can get brutal, with personal insults and worse. We discuss controversial cases here and were won’t always agree. Truce?

            The links I provided contained data, crime scene evidence, judicial motivation reports (Masse, etc), testimony transcripts, photographs. If you only saw “psychological” profiles, you didn’t look at the menu. The Perugia Murder File site is a treasure trove of data. I’ll post the link again.

            You’re giving wrong information. Rudy Guede left no semen in or on Meredith. He left epithelial DNA from digital rape. This was undisputed. You can take offense but I will call you out as you insist on making random statements without any factual data sources. Guede was certainly involved in the assault and restraining Meredith, but he never admitted killing her. He opted for the fast track trial, compromising with prosecution for 30 year sentence that came with automatic reductions for good behavior. IMO the Italian sentencing guidelines are too lenient. He deserves LWOP but that’s not and option.

            My study of the evidence led me to conclude Amanda Knox was involved in the murder, staged burglary, crime scene cleanup and staging of the body,

          • Hi Maria,

            Rudy Guede received the maximum sentence allowed, 30 years. Judge Paolo Micheli presided over the fast track trial, the option selected by Guede. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito rejected the fast track trial, opting for the much longer jury trial process. This is worth repeating because it’s widely reported that he only got 16 years.

            Micheli ‘s written motivation report provides an excellent synopsis of the case, and he came down hard on Guede. The sentencing guidelines provide reductions just as they do here. If Knox had chosen the fast track, and was found .guilty, she’d have had the same sentencing reductions

          • Maria,

            It’s hard for me to keep up with you, girlfriend! That’s my defense for scrambling to respond to the numerous topics you cover related to Amanda Knox. Look, I’m not the official Defender of Mignini. I’m not claiming he’s this pristine prosecutor or human being. It wasn’t my intent to prove any of that.

            I did not follow the case of that sexual serial killer in Florence. To me it’s separate and entirely different from the Amanda Knox trial. The unknown killer terrorized Florence, particularly striking again in the 80s. Knowing only the basic facts, this guy mutilated the female victims and stole genitals, female organs, breasts. Investigators came to theorize there was a more sinister connection to using the parts in satanic rituals. I don’t have further information police may possess about satanic sects. I hate to even contemplate it. But I do know this sounds laughably absurd to some people. I hope police are wrong but I don’t scoff and dismiss the theory.

            I’ll get back to your statements about arrests later. But as for anything Mignini is reported to have said at any time, any discussion, theorizing, speculation, unless it’s officially part of his prosecution of Amanda Knox, it’s irrelevant. It had NO place anywhere in the evidence, the facts, the transcripts, the testimony. So you can dislike him all you want and that creates no conflict for me in my understanding of the case. Fair?

    • My feelings aren’t hurt. I know we feel passionately about our respective opinions. I’ve looked through the website but I see no forensic analysis. The person making the arguments isn’t identified (at least I didn’t get to the bottom of who it is) while he pulls pieces of information to make his case.

      I skipped over all the psychological opinions arguing her guilt because frankly that’s not science. And it would take volumes to get into why “confessions” are routinely pressured and the most unreliable form of evidence. Any one can be pressured to confess to anything. Watch Frontline: The Confessions.

      This website on the other hand has first hand accounts from forensic experts (some FBI people) explaining the luminol and other physical evidence under “Professional Analysis.” http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith.html

    • Okay, Brigid, possibly the DNA inside her body was not semen, but it was his. And there was semen under Rudy’s shoes and on Meredith’s pillow and his feces in the toilet.

      Truce is fine with me. We disagree on our conclusions. I know debates get heated online. I’m trying to be respectful of the fact you see the evidence differently than I do. We get derailed I think in asking the other to prove/support how they reached the WRONG conclusion. This doesn’t lead to meaningful sharing. I’m trying not to tell other people they should believe Amanda is innocent. I’m trying to say I believe her to be innocent and I appreciate those who feel the same way and want to share reasons or links that support what I’m saying. You’re doing the same. But we get nowhere trying to convince someone else they’re wrong.

      When I have more time I’ll look at your links.

      So truce on that is good. I’m not really mad at you.

        • The Honorable Michael Heavey, King County Superior Court, was formally admonished by the Washington Commission for Judicial Conduct in 2010. Judge Heavey is neighbor and friend to parents of Amanda Knox.

          The sanctions addressed letters he sent to Italian judiciary on behalf of Knox. Instead of intervening privately, the judge used (abused) the prestige of his office by utilizing court resources. He used court staff to draft the 3 letters sent on his judicial stationery to the Italian courts.

          A formal stipulation concluded he “used his status as a judge to attempt to influence a criminal proceeding in another country…exploiting his judicial office for the specific benefit of another. ”

          The judge hasn’t complied with the stipulation terms. Abuse of office, judicial misconduct, false accusations, all just another day’s work for this elected official of the Washington judiciary. All for Amanda Knox? Or merely a dishonorable judge seeking the limelight.

          Maybe we’re weary of corruption stories here at home. The Italian judiciary has offered a distraction. Who’s going to bother fact checking assertions about some faraway land? Not many.


          • Brigid, quickly because I don’t have time today… The rule against using official letterhead prohibits using it “to gain an advantage in conducting personal affairs.” Judges routinely use their letterhead and write a disclaimer saying they do not write this in their judicial capacity. He did that in his letters.

            As a matter of interpretation one could determine that still violates the rule. He seems to have concluded himself that it did, and he SELF REPORTED to the commission this violation. It is as minor a violation of ethics rules as they come. Another rule is that judges cannot act as advocates like lawyers in court proceedings while sitting in office as a judge. That rule does not prohibit a judge from stating his personal opinion about facts or evidence or exercising his first amendment rights to say a judicial proceeding violated a person’s rights. The rule is intended to prevent judges from one court in the US criticizing how another judge ruled. It’s a stretch for the commission to feel the rule includes seeking due process overseas by complaining directly to people in authority in courts overseas. But if that’s how they feel, they have the right to see it that way. It does not amount to an immoral act.

            Using court staff…every judge uses court staff to do all sorts of random things including going to the deli for sandwiches. Technically wrong. But a great show of corruption and lack of morality, hardly. These are not ethical violations any member of the bar would even notice in evaluating a judge. Not sure what it means that he has not abided by the stipulation. He has a right to keep speaking out against violations of due process to an American abroad.

            But either way, how could this make him such a “dishonorable judge” when he’s trying to ensure fairness for someone rather than jailing innocent people on trumped up theories of satanic rings like Mignini? So if this judge alarms you, you must be very upset about Mignini, correct?

            I’ll read links another time. Won’t read “motivation” evaluations as that is junk science not evidence. The shoes may not have been found, but shoe prints determined to be Rudy’s on semen they did not test was found. Important mainly to say that is not Amanda. Talk more later, I’m rushed…

          • Maria, you really puzzle me. You’re outraged about Giuliano Mignini, claiming he is a crazed power hungry, deranged abuser of his office, a man without a shred of integrity, prosecuting an innocent Amanda Knox based on lies just because?? I’m still not sure why you believe he singled out Amanda for persecution. But you don’t need to explain further because it’s clear your mind is made up.

            When I expressed concern about a superior court judge way overstepping judicial propriety for Amanda Knox, you launched into a vigorous defense before reading the formal sanction he received by the judicial oversight commission for his jurisdiction. He used the prestige of his office to try and influence a criminal trial in a foreign country. The commission ruled it was serious enough for a written admonishment, had him sign a stipulation to stop the activity. You’ll never persuade me this is no big deal and I.m shocked at your attitude. ,

            Now you’re calling judicial sentencing reports junk science. WHAT are you talking about? You don’t even know what a motivation aka sentencing report is. How disrespectful to speak so disparagingly of another country’s judicial process. Each judge is mandated by law to document the case history and his/her and the jury’s legal reasoning for a verdict. Many of these reports are masterpieces of legal precision. But you are so invested in the cult of Amanda, and so preoccupied by the Monster of Florence, it seems the Italian justice system is lumped into so much junk science. Personally I think the sentencing reports could be part of the solution for our own jury reform.But I digress.

            This is not a productive exchange. I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about anymore. You’ve carelessly made wildly inaccurate statements such as semen at the scene and under shoes that were never even recovered. When I tell you the shoes weren’t recovered and there was only epithelial DNA, well, whatever, you insist there was semen somewhere? And please don’t tell me I only want to be right. It’s about verifiable evidence, Maria. It’s not about me. It’s about Meredith and her family.

          • Brigid, Lets just cut it out here, okay. You’re confused about me “obsessing” about Mignini when I never brought him up in the first place. You responded to something I said to someone else about due process in the Amanda Knox case by stating that the prosecutor is as dedicated and committed to justice as Juan Martinez. This comparison caused me to point out that his long checkered history of abuse of power–and the fact many innocent people he arrested claim he tried to coerce confessions–makes him a completely different kind of prosecutor than Juan Martinez. His zealousness is of another kind.

            The Washington judge, I stand by what I said about the ethics issues. Those violations are MINOR. You don’t know what they mean and are trying to force me to concede that they are serious reflections of his lack of honesty or character. They are not! Nancy Grace has had much worse ethics violations against her. Just look it up. But those are not major issues. If they were he would have been suspended from practice not given a written stipulation which is the procedure for all ethical violation findings, whether serious or minor.

            I told you from the start I do not want to discuss the evidence in the Amanda Knox case. Now you’re upset that my superficial discussion of the evidence in response to you is confusing or not sufficient or spreads misinformation. I’m not going to go over years of evidence in email exchanges when that’s not the subject. But there was semen at the scene which everyone criticized the prosecutors for not having analyzed; and male shoe prints believed to be Rudy’s on the semen on the floor (and semen on a pillow case). If not, then go tell all the reporters and experts who wrote about it that you have evidence it was not there.


          • Ladies! Ladies! Let’s go back to what we all used to be like. And besides, I don’t know anything about this case. (haha) Let’s just all get along.

      • Maria, I’m really glad you’re not mad at me. It’s not fun being in the dog house. I hate feeling I’ve upset you, so thank you for giving me a second chance. :)

        Maria said: “And there was semen under Rudy’s shoes, on Meredith’s pillow and his feces in the toilet.” No, no and yes.

        Rudy Guede left only epithelial DNA in and on Meredith her jacket sleeve. His handprint was smeared on bedroom wall and pillow in Meredith’s blood. He left feces in the toilet of the other bathroom in the house, the bathroom shared by Filamena and Laura.

        Rudy’s shoes were never recovered so I don’t know how his semen could have been collected from the soles. The shoeprints in Meredith’s blood were traced leaving her room directly out the front door. The imprints matched the shoes he was known to wear and he admitted they were his.

        There’s so much misreporting on this case which gets presented as fact. You state that I’m only posting links favorable to my opinion. This isn’t true. Linking PDF format documents doesn’t work on my tablet. Maybe I’ll figure out the secret but until then I link these sites as the only known sources of data and facts. Don’t you want to read Amanda’s testimony? Her statements? Evidence like cell phone pings? Other judges’ motivation reports? To me it’s crucial for understanding this case.



        These 2 sites are dedicated to evidence whether you consider her innocent or guilty. I am familiar with the site you linked the Injusticeninperugia. It’s not a reliable source, being run by Bruce Fischer, comparable to the other ‘innocent ” sites. That’s a whole other story. Expand your horizons. :)

        If you believe Amanda Knox is innocent, we can debate and agree to disagree as we have before. But Maria, I get crazy (lol) trying to respond to rumors and hearsay presented as fact.. If this case doesn’t interest you enough to research and discuss when you’ve got a busy life, I fully understand and respect that too.

  11. I think Knox is as guilty as Arias is always have and always will. I think
    Meridith and Travis are over shadowed by their killers is because the killers keep doing things to keep themselves in the media and soon people forget why they were in the media to begin with. Knox and Arias become viewed like celebrities. It’s sick but there it is.

    PS: I know people think these two and Anthony are beautiful, attractive, and whatever other word etc. but I don’t. Their behaviors/actions were ugly and as my mother would say beauty is only skin deep, ugly is to the bone.

    • Gigi, My mother always said this too, & it stayed in my mind, as I found this to be true: “Beauty is only skin deep.” Inner goodness shines through with a glow, true beauty, no matter the facial features. A Peace of Mind. Joy. Evil is a corruption of the soul…& most certainly does show. Hideous, to those in the know.

      • GiGi and Dawm,

        So much wisdom from a prior generation, including my mom who told me the same thing. I don’t find killers charismatic or attractive or worthy of my sympathy. . All 3 of these women regard themselves as hot stuff. I see vacant, blank stares and arrogant smirks. It’s just crazy to see how similar they are.

    • I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, GiGi.

      Amanda Knox’s parents have used the media to influence public opinion. Most of what Amanda Knox’s supporters like Candace Dempsey and Frank Sfarzo have written about her in the early days are lies and misinformation.

      My heart breaks for the Kerchers who have to witness all this, still waiting for justice to be done.

    • Gigi, I too am old LOL and I heard that a lot growing up. I like the ugly is to the bone and will try to remember it. Another one my grandmother said to me a lot when I was a child is ‘pretty is as pretty does’. I think that saying could be used in the Arias, Sneiderman, and Anthony cases.

    • Hello Don, from what I understand, the Judge is supposed to rule on these motions and set a retrial date for sentencing (on Sept 16th) but there is no guarantee that it will happen. Everyone is hoping so, for the sake of the Alexander family. There are *rumors* that there will be a plea deal but I have seen nothing official. Some believe that the judge continues to delay in hopes that there will be a plea deal but again, there have been no official reports of this.

      • Thank you, Dr K. Yes, the devastation all this must have wrought on the Alexander family is unimaginable, and the personal strain incomprehensible. They are obviously very decent people. What shines through from them is their enormous courage, and their resolve to see justice done for Travis. Let’s trust they get it.

      • I am one of the guilty ones for being long-winded and I will try to cut back on my words. But I don’t see that people are arguing. I see it as discussing different views. I really like to read the views of other people in this case and maybe if it is getting tiresome, don’t read the different postings if it is getting old. I hope people keep posting.

        • Nance, I believe Gigi’s comment was directed to me. I don’t find your comments to be long-winded at all. And I appreciate your open and tolerant mind. Thank you for the support. I know we bother feel strongly about two things: Justice for Travis and JusticeforCaylee!

      • Hi Gigi, no worries, I’ll restrict my participation to other trial-watching blogs. But I’d like to point out that Dr. Randle probably disagrees with some of my opinions yet she hasn’t admonished me for lengthy posts or banned me for “arguing.” And
        it is her blog after all.

        It’s disappinting that some folks expect light chatter on blogs dedicated to topics like psychological issues and current trials. It’s true most here are of the same opinion about Jodi Arias, which would preclude any serious debate…or argument depending on how you view it. I didn’t introduce the Amanda Knox discussion. I responded. And the discussion escalated when facts and evidence were disputed. When I encounter defense of a convicted murderer of the same caliber as Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony (IMO), I will respond. Sometimes there’s so much introduced in another comment, that my responses expand.

        FYI, when I want to lighten up and chat about my interests in cooking, reading, football, I do so on related blogs. When I feel passionate about justice for victims, I do so on blogs like this. I’m not sure why you can’t ignore my comments and introduce your own (brief) interests. Neverteless, my apologies to you, Dawn and any others who were offended. Many thanks to Dr. Randle for an excellent blog and for tolerating folks like me. All the best, Dr. Randle!

        • Brigid…
          Your comments and opinions are valid and I would continue in the same vein.
          I am not interested in the Amanda Knox issue so I ignore the comments and move on to those that do interest me. That is what the “delete” button is for.
          this is a blog that I feel engages people to talk about what is important to them with regard to criminal justice and mental health – just as the title indicates. Some comments get longer than others as one gives background on why they are responding the way they do.
          Again, if not interested in some comments – be they long or short – ignore and delete and carry on.

        • I realize also everyone is entitled to their opinion about any case. It just seemed like arguing which so many nice forums usually end up disasters because of disagreements and the next step is people start taking sides and then it’s a nightmare. I didn’t want to see that happen here. I apologize if what I said came off as scolding. I find the posts very informative especially those that include links and/or I need to refresh on a topic. If I have not said it I agree with you for the most part on the Knox case. I followed it as time allowed. My interest are pretty much the same as everyone elses when it comes to any of these trials, justice for the victims. Work and life doesn’t always allow me to always follow those I am interested in too closely but this blog helps catch me up. So no need to apologize. I don’t really expect light chatter. Crime is never a delicate topic. The jist I’m getting is if I don’t like it read someplace else. That kind of took me back a little bit but I’m over it. I like this blog just fine. What makes criminals tick has aklways been an interest of mine.

  12. Whether Dr. KR ever intended her blog to become a discussion forum or not, I don’t know. But it certainly functions as one. We all have our own opinions and observations. We discuss and discuss and re-discuss and even when we disagree we are, as a general rule, remarkably civil doing it.

    But let’s face it. Each of us has our own perception of what distinguishes a simple disagreement from an argument and what distinguishes a passionate disagreement from a condescending sermon or an outright personal attack. What we hear in our heads as we write may sound quite differently in the head of another reader.

    I don’t see a problem with the length of posts. They often appear longer than they actually are because of the blog format. A reply to a reply to a reply can appear to go on forever with only 5-6 words per line, even if it’s only a couple of paragraphs.

    • Linda K

      I have to agree with you.

      My experience over the years has been that the intent of the writer may be one thing but the reader interprets it in their way. I find this especially true with emails.

      There ARE gifted writers out there who have the inherent capacity to get their message across exactly as they intended. That is why they are successful in their craft.

      But, again, in my experience, too often it is misinterpreted.

      Blogs such as these are great and give one the opportunity to share opinions. They also serve to provide information on topics of interest to those following. It might serve all of us to remember that we all do have that inherent gift to write and have others understand exactly what we are saying. Civility and respect are the keys when responding.

Leave a Comment