02-25-2015, 04:31 AM
I just watched the Spreecast with Jeff Gold and Cathy from Court Chatter and Jen from the Trial Diaries.
http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-almost-cooked
I have to say that I am in disagreement with all three of them in their comments about Martinez's closing.
They felt it lacked punch and the bravado that Juan is known for.
They felt that he did not drive home the pain and suffering that Travis experienced while Arias was killing him.
They feel he made a grave mistake by playing into rebutting in a way, the defense's mitigation factors.
They felt that he should have stressed the dehumanizing way that Arias slaughtered Travis and that is why the jury was there.
Is "blood and guts" the only thing that will convince this jury?
To me, he did exactly what he was supposed to do.
This was a mitigation trial.
It was imperative that he address the mitigation factors presented by the defense.
It was imperative that he rebuke the mental illness defense and he did. He stated, more than once I believe, that Arias knew fully right from wrong.
He stated that she was 27 years old when she committed this crime and not the little girl the defense was presenting. She was 27 with high intelligence.
He showed the jury the deception of the defense's "expert" witnesses and that their testimony was based on what they picked and chose from information to fit it.
He stated that the diagnosis of PTSD was based on a lie and therefore was not to be believed.
He stated that BPD does not lead to murder, it is a personality disorder.
He stated that all the accusations of childhood abuse came only from Arias' mouth.
He stated that she showed no remorse by her vilifying Travis at every turn in this case. He even brought in the letter to the family.
........ and so on and so on..........
He addressed each and every mitigating factor presented by the defense.
that is what he was supposed to be doing.
Arias has been convicted of Premeditated First Degree Felony Murder with the Aggravated Factor of Extreme Cruelty.
The jury goes into their deliberations knowing this and they must remember this in their discussions.
It was not part of Martinez's job to state the obvious over and over again.
What part of Extreme Cruelty is not presented by Martinez when he puts up, more than once, the graphic photo of Travis' gaping slit throat?
He took a picture of Arias when she was small and smiling and told the jury to look at it. Then he put up right next to this picture, the photo of Travis' slit throat and said this is his smile. What part of Extreme Cruelty does this not represent?
I believe Martinez did what he needed to do.
I believe he closed with an impact.
I believe he was following the course of a mitigation trial.
I believe he was speaking to the jury as knowledgeable people who know the task before them.
I believe he addressed all of the issues that needed to be addressed unlike the defense who relied on telling the same thing over and over.
I believe the jury heard Martinez.
http://www.spreecast.com/events/the-gold-patrol-jodi-almost-cooked
I have to say that I am in disagreement with all three of them in their comments about Martinez's closing.
They felt it lacked punch and the bravado that Juan is known for.
They felt that he did not drive home the pain and suffering that Travis experienced while Arias was killing him.
They feel he made a grave mistake by playing into rebutting in a way, the defense's mitigation factors.
They felt that he should have stressed the dehumanizing way that Arias slaughtered Travis and that is why the jury was there.
Is "blood and guts" the only thing that will convince this jury?
To me, he did exactly what he was supposed to do.
This was a mitigation trial.
It was imperative that he address the mitigation factors presented by the defense.
It was imperative that he rebuke the mental illness defense and he did. He stated, more than once I believe, that Arias knew fully right from wrong.
He stated that she was 27 years old when she committed this crime and not the little girl the defense was presenting. She was 27 with high intelligence.
He showed the jury the deception of the defense's "expert" witnesses and that their testimony was based on what they picked and chose from information to fit it.
He stated that the diagnosis of PTSD was based on a lie and therefore was not to be believed.
He stated that BPD does not lead to murder, it is a personality disorder.
He stated that all the accusations of childhood abuse came only from Arias' mouth.
He stated that she showed no remorse by her vilifying Travis at every turn in this case. He even brought in the letter to the family.
........ and so on and so on..........
He addressed each and every mitigating factor presented by the defense.
that is what he was supposed to be doing.
Arias has been convicted of Premeditated First Degree Felony Murder with the Aggravated Factor of Extreme Cruelty.
The jury goes into their deliberations knowing this and they must remember this in their discussions.
It was not part of Martinez's job to state the obvious over and over again.
What part of Extreme Cruelty is not presented by Martinez when he puts up, more than once, the graphic photo of Travis' gaping slit throat?
He took a picture of Arias when she was small and smiling and told the jury to look at it. Then he put up right next to this picture, the photo of Travis' slit throat and said this is his smile. What part of Extreme Cruelty does this not represent?
I believe Martinez did what he needed to do.
I believe he closed with an impact.
I believe he was following the course of a mitigation trial.
I believe he was speaking to the jury as knowledgeable people who know the task before them.
I believe he addressed all of the issues that needed to be addressed unlike the defense who relied on telling the same thing over and over.
I believe the jury heard Martinez.