Table of Contents
Closing Argument Prosecution Day 55
( Starts 32 minutes in )
This individual, the defendant, Jodi Ann Arias, killed Travis Alexander. And even after stabbing him over and over again, and even after slashing his throat from ear to ear, and then even after taking a gun and shooting him in the face, she will not let him rest in peace. But now instead of a gun, instead of a knife, she uses lies. And she uses these lies in court when she testified to stage the scene for you, just like she staged the scene for the police after she killed Mr. Alexander. And this woman, who would stage the scene, has even attempted to stage the scene through the use of the media. She has courted the media. She has gone on national television. You’ve seen the programs and you’ve seen some of her words to the media. She has also attempted or gone out in search of the limelight. She has signed a manifesto, just in case she becomes famous. And to top it all off, she has indicated that she is innocent and that no jury will convict her. That none of you will convict her after she has staged the scene for you. Well, she is an individual, as you have seen, who has craved the limelight. So it seems that it is only fitting that this individual that has craved the limelight, it is really only fitting that she now bask in a different kind of light, the light of truth. And in the light of truth, you can see who she really is. She is an individual who is manipulative.
This is an individual who wants to play the victim, even though there is no abuse, as you heard from those that know her. She is an individual that according to her own statements in an email, on Valentine’s Day of 2007 to Mr. Alexander, said that she was destructive.
She is the individual that talked about what she did to doors, what she did to windows, and she is an individual that does not appear to be very nice to her mother. Because she lashes out at her, and strikes her physically. Additionally, when the light of truth is shining on her, she is somebody who is just an individual that manipulates people. That, for example, when she is speaking to Mr. Alexander during that fateful May 10th, 2008 conversation that she talks about her sister, and says how dumb and stupid her sister is. This is an individual who is manipulative. This is an individual who will stop at nothing, and will continue to be manipulative and will lie at every turn and at every occasion that she has.
One of the examples is the issue of the gas cans. She indicated to you from the witness stand, and looked at each and every one of you, after having taken the oath, and said yeah, I bought the gas can alright and I bought it from the Salinas Walmart. I did buy it from the Salinas Walmart, but you know, after being questioned by the prosecutor, you know, I took it back. And I received cash. Yet, you heard from Amanda Webb, the individual, or the woman who works for Walmart checked each and every single register, even those that were not geared to give refunds; checked each and every single register. And each one of those registers indicated no, there had been no such refund. And of then course, she had the confirmatory action in Salt Lake City, after first indicating that no, I’ve never been in Salt Lake City; I’ve never put gas in Salt Lake City. But you saw the receipts that she had, and not only had she put gas into her car in Salt Lake City, she had two other transactions, one for 5.09 gallons of gas, and then one for slightly under 10 gallons of gas.
She looked at each and every one of you, this person, and attempted to manipulate you. Well, this individual that attempted to manipulate you believes based on what we’ve heard, that even though she may have engaged in actions, she may have done certain things, none of it, absolutely none of it is her fault. Why could it possibly be her fault? If you look back in her history, which is the important part of it, involving her relationship with men, what do you see?
Well, even when she was young, she had this personality of manipulating the facts. Back when she was with Bobby Juarez, what did she tell you? Well, this was an individual that was unfaithful to me. How could he be so unfaithful to me after I have done so many good things for him? I tried to buy him clothing, I bought him food, I even lived in a trailer that was so bad and it was infested. Never mind that the reason that I moved there was because I was skipping school. No, that wasn’t my fault at all, no, no, no. I was doing this for Bobby and how does he repay me even though it wasn’t my fault, well you know what, he goes and he talks, not talks, he sends letters to another woman over the internet. And it isn’t her fault that she found out about it, of course not.
How could it be her fault that she found out about it if the library doesn’t have enough security attached to that particular computer, to have some sort of device attached to it, so that somebody can’t come along and just hit that backspace button so that whoever was using it before, maybe one or two or three or four people before that, somebody can just come along and hit that backspace button. And it is eerily reminiscent of what she told you happened in February of 2007, after she and Mr. Alexander began dating, that she went onto his computer and began to hit that same backspace button. It’s not her fault that computers have not been improved since the 90’s or the 2000’s such that you can’t stop hitting that backspace button. It’s not her fault that that happened, of course not. That’s what she told you from the witness stand. And so according to her, she hits the backspace button, and there it is this conversation between Bobby Juarez and somebody else. But that’s not her fault. But if you remember how aggressively she reacted to that. Nobody was going to do anything to her, or nobody was going to be putting her or slighting her or putting her in a position of uh, feeling inferior, if you will. She immediately went to Bobby Juarez and did something about it.
And there is a pattern because the same thing happened with regard to Mathew McCartney. The person that she jumped to after she and Bobby Juarez started to have problems. And I do say jumped to because when she was dating Bobby Juarez, he moved away to Oregon. And when he moved to Oregon, he started living with a guy by the name of Mathew McCartney. And when this thing soured with Bobby Juarez, she immediately went with Mathew McCartney. And, in terms of that relationship, the reason that broke up, it wasn’t her fault.
Just like it wasn’t her fault with regards to Bobby Juarez, it wasn’t her fault at all that she had these issues with Mathew McCartney. No, she can’t help it if she is a good worker, she can’t help it if she is working as a waitress and people come by when she is working as a waitress and try to tell her things about her boyfriend, Mathew McCartney. She can’t help that. That’s what she wants you to believe. And again, isn’t that reminiscent of what happened involving Mr. Alexander? It seems that this is cyclical, and it seems that the story repeats itself. And it repeats itself because she is lying, and it repeats itself because she is trying to manipulate you through all the days that she spent talking to you from the witness stand after she had taken an oath.
Well, she gets to the point where she moves to Palm Desert in California to be with an individual by the name of Darryl Brewer. And of course when she is there with Darryl Brewer, it’s not her fault again that that relationship is souring, no, not at all. It’s not her fault because, well, Mr. Brewer doesn’t want to marry her. What’s a girl to do? It’s not her fault. She’s got to look for another guy and it appears that he doesn’t want to have any kids and she does. And so again, it’s not her fault. How could it possibly be her fault that somebody has free will? Absolutely not her fault, that’s what she tried to tell you.
But, resourceful as ever, resourceful as she’s always been, this person who is manipulative, she starts looking around for somebody else. And decides that perhaps those boys from the Mormon faith are a pretty good catch because those boys, they have a lot of family values. And these boys, they work, they seem to be very successful, they just seem to have everything that she desires in a husband so that she can breed.
And so, what she decides to do is look for one of those boys and to Travis Alexander’s misfortune, he was that boy. And he was that boy back in September of 2006 when he was at this PPL convention, the yearly convention. Yes, he is the individual that went up to her, and they began to talk, and such is the way that things began between the two of them; she wanting to find a boy just like him because she had an ulterior motive. She wanted somebody that was Mormon. She wanted somebody that could give her a child, and so this seemed like the perfect catch for her. And although she tells you, that well, he kind of was the person that pushed her in this relationship, and that he was the individual that somehow was this person who was so sexually interested in her, and oh by the way, she wasn’t, but it’s not her fault that any of this has happened. Of course, it’s not her fault.
It never occurred to her that in the lexicon of the English language there is a word, it’s called no, that you can use when you don’t want to do something. And yet you can then take the witness stand, however, and say well I do know that word, but just chose not to use it. But it’s not her fault. Again, it’s not her fault. It’s Mr. Alexander’s fault for being interested in her, don’t you see? Can’t you all see, based on those days and days that she was on that witness stand, that it isn’t her fault?
She was thinking no, or least that’s what she told you, this person, who told you also about the gas can.
Over and over again, she kept saying with regard to each and every single repetitious sexual act, with regard to each and every of those, no, I was thinking, no. Really, that’s exactly what you were thinking? Did you ever communicate that to him? No. This woman who is manipulative, this from a woman who pretends to be the victim, even though there is no abuse. And so throughout this early part of the relationship, which some would call a honeymoon portion, during this part, it appears that they do what two people that are young, and are involved in a relationship do. They engaged in relations.
But there is this finger pointing aspect to this relationship as portrayed by the defendant. Can’t point the finger enough at Mr. Alexander, can’t point the finger enough at the fact that he know, he’s a bad Mormon because he’s having sex with her. If he’s such a bad Mormon, then why stay with him? You’re the one that chose him. If he’s such a bad guy, why are you hanging out with him? And to compound things, well, she’s also Mormon, too. Why does she keep pointing the finger at him, when she is just as Mormon as he is; she converted in November of 2006? And according to Deanna Reid, there are many classes that tell you about the Law of Chastity, and they tell about the law involving sexual intercourse. But wait, it’s not her fault. How could you possibly think it was her fault, when those three or two Mormon missionaries that came over didn’t tell her about it? Again it’s not her fault, although there are all these classes where they talk about it. No, let’s point the finger at Travis Alexander. Because, according to her, he’s the bad guy. He’s the one that told her that it was okay, and so she’s going to go along with what he says even though, those in the Mormon church are telling her otherwise.
It is almost unconscionable for her to point the finger at Mr. Alexander when she’s in the same situation as he is. She has the same knowledge that he does. But again, she wants you to feel sympathy because, again, it’s not her fault, don’t you know? How could it possibly be her fault when she was thinking no? Well, luckily for Mr. Alexander, I guess, in the beginning, this relationship was from a distance, and I say luckily because at least when she was in Palm Desert and he was in Mesa, Arizona during that time, at least during that time, she couldn’t reach out and stab him, she couldn’t reach out and shoot him in the face. She couldn’t stalk him, couldn’t come over unannounced, she wasn’t living the ten minutes away. At least fortunately during that time, Mr. Alexander had some extra time to live. And during that time, they were not mutually exclusive, so yes, it is appropriate when they are not mutually exclusive for an individual to send text messages to other women if they are male, or even if they are not. There’s nothing wrong with that. But you see that long finger pointing from the witness stand to him, how could he possibly, when we were together, how could be possibly before we became exclusive, be talking to other women? How could he be on the internet? How could he be sending text messages?
But it’s okay, don’t you see, that when she goes to his memorial service, talking about Travis Alexander’s memorial service after she killed him, it’s okay for her to talk to somebody on the airplane to get a telephone number. It’s not her fault that this guy was trying to pick her up. Of course, it’s not her fault. And what’s a girl to do, after all? The guy that she was involved with up and died after she stabbed him, slit his throat and shot him. What is she to do? Can’t you see that it really isn’t her fault? At least that’s what she wants you to believe.
And during this period, Mr. Alexander did see her and during this period Mr. Alexander did engage in sexual contact with her. There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, important about that as it applies to the killing, other than to try to manipulate you, try to shock you and say, oh my God, look at this guy. He wants to kiss her, and he wants to do other sexual things that other people do in their private lives. And he doesn’t want to talk about it, for God sake, and he doesn’t want people to know what it is that they’re doing. Why would he want anybody to know what he is doing sexually and with whom? Is that something that is courteous in this society to do? It’s just the opposite, but she has now turned the world sideways for you to look at that in an attempt to manipulate you. Well, they continue on with this relationship and she lives out in Palm Desert. At some point in February of 2007, after this issue involving the February 14th mailing that she indicates that she receives, after that they make the relationship, if you will, exclusive. What’s interesting about the email from February 14th of 2007, and you saw that, is that not only does it talk about her violent tendencies, it does talk at length about that, but it also talks about other things.
And you have it there for your review, this February 14th, 2007 email. And one of the things that it doesn’t talk about is the package that she supposedly received in the mail that day. Take a look at the time. It’s around 4:30 – 5:00 in the afternoon. I guess they have mail that’s really slow there in Palm Desert. Never mentions these unholy underwear, these underwear, these Spiderman underwear that so shocked her. She doesn’t mention these chocolates, thank you for sending those to me. Doesn’t thank him at all. The reason she doesn’t thank him, and the reason that she doesn’t mention it, is because there was no such delivery. But of course, that’s something that can’t be verified except that there’s this inconsistency and it starts showing that this individual will make things up. But she forgot, she forgot about that February 14th, 2007 email. And you know, short of the old saying, with the truth you ain’t got to remember nothing, at least you have to give her credit for having an incredible memory. Well, an incredible memory as to the fantasy world that she wants to create for you. Just like that delivery of the underwear, can’t show them to us, why? Oh, she threw them away, but she took pictures of some other things.
And this email was sent out at a time where she would have already received the mail. But after that, she and Mr. Alexander continue on and they, she comes over later on in the month of February, and when she comes over in February, one of the things that happens, is she is extremely happy. Or at least, that’s what she tells you, and she’s happy because one of the things that she now knows is that, well, she and Mr. Alexander are together. If she is so happy, if she is somebody that really wants to be accepted, then why pray tell, does she need to go into his computer, and hit that backspace button, that’s such a .. uuh, .. it’s such an irritation to her that these computers should have this backspace button. It’s not her fault that she can’t keep her hands off of his computer, it’s really his fault. And it’s really his fault because he’s alive, he’s a breathing human being who has social contact with other people, men and women.
And how dare he, when they are not exclusive, how dare he attempt to spend New Year’s Eve with somebody? He should really be alone in his house or in some hut somewhere alone. How dare he do that? But it’s not her fault that she found that out, at least that what’s she wants you to believe. Well, they continue this dating and they continue both involved in this Prepaid Legal. But the story doesn’t get any better. What we are able to glean or find out from the history of it, is that it doesn’t get any better. And, one of the things that starts to happen, according to her, is that she starts feeling something, and of course, her feelings are so important. And rather than talk to Mr. Alexander about it, rather than say, oh, I have these issues, I’m a little concerned, what does she do?
Well, they’re on vacation, and when they’re on vacation, and it depends on the story that she tells, the ones to Ryan Burns, or the story that she told you from the witness stand, take your pick cause there are many to pick from. But it depends on the story that you believe, during that time she goes on and she gets a hold of his text messages and goes through all of them, ostensibly while he is either asleep or taking a shower. Take your pick. And while she’s doing that she goes through it and finds some text messages. But it’s not her fault. She’s not wrong in invading his privacy at all. How could she possibly be wrong about invading his privacy when she had feelings? And those feelings confirmed the fact that he was a social human being. That’s one of the parts that she liked about him, that he was very charismatic, that he was very nice, and that people liked him. That’s part of the reason why she liked him, but oh no, not when it comes to other people. And she talked about him having sexual rendezvous with these other people, but that’s quick, if you will on the sly, and very slow on the facts, very low on the facts. You don’t have any individual that they could even point to a name.
Nurmi: Objection (?)
There was no name that was even pointed out that he even had any sexual contact with at that time. But she felt it, so according to her, that justified it, this person with this borderline personality disorder. And so as a result of that, she says that’s it we’re going to break up and we’re done with this, except that I am so hurt, I am so absolutely hurt, she said. You could almost feel it oozing through those um fake tears that were supposedly coming from her from the witness stand. You could almost feel this and what you could feel was that yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m really hurt except let’s go on vacation, let’s go ahead and go on vacation anyway. Even though I know all about this I’m so hurt that I would rather go on vacation with you and enjoy it. And let’s continue going on vacation, yeah. That’s her way of manipulating him. That’s a way of not letting go of something that she wants. She wants to curb his free will, and when he doesn’t want to do that, well she’s got something else coming for him. She is not going to let him get away that easily. And so she starts engaging in this conduct. So what else does she do? She does what every person who has caught their boyfriend, according to her, being unfaithful. What does she do? She moves close to him, moves from California to Arizona, specifically to Mesa, very close to him after they have broken up in the end of June of 2007. That’s what she does. Well, now this is when this stalking begins. Well, maybe it was a little bit before that when she’s going into his telephone. Or maybe it was before that on the first day that they decided to make this official when she started to go into his computer.
It is clear from this relationship that there was this stalking behaviour from the very beginning. And so she moves here to Mesa. If they are not dating, if they haven’t broken up, why is she here? It’s not her fault, don’t you know? It’s not her fault, because he’s, he’s so persuasive. He talked her into coming out here, that’s why she came out to Mesa. And it’s again, it’s this thing that she just can’t say no. Just like whether or not they’re going to engage in this sexual conduct. She can’t say no, and in this particular case, according to her, and Mr. Alexander’s not here to maybe dispute this, according to her, she moved here because he was the one that told her to do that. Even though, according to her, at this point she had broken up with him. And what does she do when she comes out here? Well, rather than dating, rather than becoming involved in some sort of social scene in the Mormon Church or finding friends and that sort of thing, no. And something else, she begins to be more attentive, that’s the word.
She begins to be more attentive to Mr. Alexander. Perhaps if she is more attentive to Mr. Alexander, perhaps then he will have her come back and will have her be the only one. And the way that she’s attentive, is the way that everybody does it normally. I mean, she goes over to his house unannounced at night, sometime in August of 2007 and this is what everybody does.
And she goes over there and starts peeping in a window to see what it is that he is doing. And she goes over there and by the light of a television, if you remember there was this go around by the light, well it may have been the light of a television, but now it’s the light of truth that we’re looking at things, and what she was doing is she was invading his privacy by coming over and peeping in the window. And that is stalking behaviour, irrespective of what Alyce LaViolette has to say. This individual, Ms. LaViolette, who had the problems with the truth when she spoke to you about how many times she had testified on behalf of men, this individual who, quite frankly, misrepresented that to you when she was testifying. But according to Alyce LaViolette, that was no big deal. Because that’s what a person does. She came over and started to look inside and lo and behold, it’s not her fault that she has vision so she starts looking in there and lo and behold there he is.
Yes, there he is and he’s kissing another woman. Like that’s the end of the world. So what? So what that he’s kissing another woman? He’s not seeing her; he’s entitled to do it. And he’s entitled to do it, he’s in his house, he has the lights off, it’s a romantic evening whether she likes it or not. He’s moved on.
And yet she says it’s his fault, he shouldn’t have been courting me. He shouldn’t have been continuing to have sex with me. She could have said no. She could have left. She could have moved back to California. She could have never come out here in the first place. She’s the person who starts to stalk him, and so she says oh I was so upset and she starts talking about the brassiere and whether it was unhooked or not, and we went around and around about that. So what? Well, don’t you know he’s a Mormon boy; they’re not allowed to do that. What does she care? Is she the Mormon conscience, is that what we have going on here? No, she’s not anything like that. But she wants to make it seem like it’s his fault. She presented it in a way to manipulate your perception because she’s trying to take away from him, with lies, the only thing that he has left, and that’s his reputation. He’s not here to talk about it and so it’s an easy shot for her.
But at this particular point, she’s the person that starts to stalk him. And after she starts stalking him, or after this event of stalking, she doesn’t leave him alone. No, she comes over the next day, because she’s in the right. They’ve broken up and it’s okay if you’re broken up to come over and peep at your ex boyfriend’s house and then in peeping, find him doing something and then wanting to get an explanation. What possible explanation could he ever have owed her at that point? Oh, and, you know, she didn’t write about that’s the first incident of domestic violence, didn’t write about that incident of domestic violence don’t you know, because, well she’s a nice person, and you know, there’s this Secret that she’s watched, this movie involving the Secret, that talks about the Law of Attraction. And this Law of Attraction, says that you lie, that’s exactly they want you to believe. Now they’re starting to justify the lies. It’s okay to lie in the journal, which in a sense, is saying lie to yourself, because the Law of Attraction says it’s okay to lie, absolutely okay to lie. You don’t put down exactly what’s going on and so you don’t write about this.
Actually what’s going on here, is that she is making it up and there’s no corroboration of any incident whatsoever. And so this relationship if you want to call it that continues, and there are more exploitive sexual kinds of things that are presented and that you are regaled with the most intimate details that you could possibly think of. And every time, it was well, I wasn’t comfortable, but I didn’t want to tell him no. I was just uncomfortable. Wait a minute, she also sent some text messages. And those text messages indicated that she was not uncomfortable. She’s the one, and I don’t need to repeat it, you remember those text messages where she’s the one that’s requesting the sexual acts. She’s the one that’s saying to him, if you’re good, this is what’s going to happen, and then I’m going to want something else. So she’s the individual that, if we look at the corroborative, the independent evidence that we have, she’s the individual that’s in this as much as he is.
There’s no indication that he was ever forcing her to do anything, anything at all. But you know, she’s attempting to manipulate you by saying well, yeah, I went along but I really didn’t want to. And with regards to these acts of physical violence, well they weren’t so bad and I didn’t write about them, and with regard to any particular physical acts of violence, there is no one that knows about it. There is no one who has seen any bruises.
There are no police calls to 911 and she has a reason for that. The reason that she didn’t call 911 involving Mr. Alexander is because she had a similar experience with Bobby Juarez and when she had that similar experience with Bobby Juarez, well she called 911, and you know what, those 911 people in California, you can’t trust them because they talked to Bobby Juarez and as a result of talking to Bobby Juarez, well they didn’t come out and so I was so soured by that circumstance that I just never decided to call 911. She’s trying to provide a justification as to why there are no 911 calls. The reason there are no 911 calls is because it never happened. Everything in this case points to the fact that it did not happen.
There are no medical reports, there are no friends. There is no one that can come in and say anything about this. There are no medical records. There is absolutely nothing. To the contrary, what is it that you have, well on that day in March of 2008 when she told Mr. Alexander, according to her, that she was leaving, he turned around and he hit her, and according to Alyce LaViolette he slapped her, but the defendant went round and round and said no it was back of head, the side of the head. It depended apparently on a whim as to where he hit her, but if you take a look at the entry for that particular day in March of 2008, you know I told them, well he was so upset and he didn’t want me to leave because you know, you’re both so in love with each other, is what she writes and then she says oh, he kissed me so tenderly three times. They were such wonderful, tender kisses. Is that what she means when she is talking to you about domestic violence? Kissing? See that’s the problem, you didn’t get it the first time, kissing is domestic violence. Tender kissing is domestic violence.
But then you bring in an apologist like Alyce LaViolette, and you say no, no, no, no … not that’s what it means, you need to go behind this diary here. Those words don’t mean what they say. You need, for example, a little cheat sheet that tells you that under the Law of Attraction, that’s not what it means. Under the Law of Attraction it means just the opposite. It means that he did hit her. Can’t you read that? What is wrong with you, almost is the way it’s being put to you, that you can’t see that, that you can’t buy or can’t be manipulated.
And the other thing that we have is that she claims that on January 22nd of 2008 there was also this act of domestic violence. It matters not what the act was at this point, because there’s no corroboration involving that act of domestic violence either. All we have is a journal entry of January 24th of 2008 and in that journal entry of January 24th, 2008 she writes, you know, as far as January 21st, 22nd, and 23rd nothing noteworthy happened. Not only do we have the diary relating to that it says nothing happened.
But again, you are being asked to take a leap. You are being asked, such as in the gas can example, to think that everybody else is wrong and she’s right.
And in that example, the one involving the 24th, and the supposed incident of domestic violence on the 22nd, you are being asked to say, no, something noteworthy did happen on the 22nd of January. And the thing that was noteworthy on January 22nd, 2008 was that he beat me. And this is the time that I had my hand up and this was the time he came after me, but it doesn’t say that. Not only is there not any corroborative evidence that can be presented, it’s to the contrary. She herself said that it didn’t happen, but she wants you to go back and say well, don’t look at what I wrote. Look at this code, this Law of Attraction. Take a look at that, combine it with my words, combine it with what Alyce LaViolette said, we’ll add that in there, and once you do that, you will be able to see and you will be able to know that, hey, you know what, he did, he did, he did abuse me. And right before she leaves in April of 2008, she says that another incident happened. And she doesn’t tell anybody about it. She still stays at his home and then off she goes.
And what’s interesting about these acts of domestic violence, is that she was very specific as to four of them. But again, you know with the truth, it’s very hard to keep it straight. With the truth, you ain’t got to remember nothing, but if you’re not telling the truth, if you’re trying or attempting to manipulate, you do have a lot to remember. She forgot that there is a psychologist by the name of Cheryl Karp that has previously been involved in this case and has conducted an evaluation of the defendant. And during that evaluation with the defendant she gave many, not four, many, ten, fifteen, twenty incidents of physical violence. Because at that point, physical violence was being used as a predicate, if you will. The seminal act of post traumatic stress disorder, that’s what she was looking at that time, and so of course, let’s have a lot of acts of domestic violence.
Nurmi: Objection, arguing facts not in evidence.
Stephens: Overruled. The jury is directed to recall the evidence presented during trial. You may continue.
And so you now have this … lots of acts of domestic violence that she doesn’t tell you from the witness stand, compared to four that she does tell you. Which one is true? The only evidence that you have indicates that none of it is true, because she can’t keep it straight. And she is attempting to manipulate the evidence to fit the goal that she has at that particular time.
With regard to Cheryl Karp, at that time according to Jeanne DeMarte , one of the things that was going on was that Cheryl Karp found that post traumatic stress disorder of the defendant involved these acts of domestic violence, these many, many many acts of domestic violence, not just four. And so now when they want to talk about this in a different vein, or a little bit differently, it’s not all these acts, it’s only four. And that’s the problem with the presentation and her attempt to manipulate you. In fact, it’s not even an attempt to manipulate you. They’re lies. That’s what they are. And she forgot, perhaps, about speaking to other people in the statements that she made with regard to that. Well, she does move away. And when she does move away, it’s almost if we’re talking like, almost like a ray of sunshine for Mr. Alexander. One can only imagine that his stalker is now far away, because she has done other things while she was here. One of the things that we know is that she would come over unannounced.
One of the other things that she would do is she would get into his accounts, and there’s also this incident involving the Christmas and being underneath the Christmas tree. There are all these incidents. Perhaps Mr. Alexander let his guard down on this particular point, because he really doesn’t have deal with her on a daily basis. And yes, there is some contact between them on May 10th of 2008.
And this is the infamous phone call that involved sex. And actually that telephone call is very important because you can actually hear how she deals with him, even though he doesn’t know, based on everything that’s in the recording, that he is being recorded. She says, no, it was being recorded pursuant to his request, don’t you know? Really? Why was it being recorded at his request? He’s not going to be … he can’t listen to it. So what possible benefit is this call going to be for him? If he is recorded, he’s not going to get it. There is absolutely no benefit to him on May 10th, 2008 to have that telephone call recorded. Yes, he said some things on it, but this is supposed to be from his perspective, a private conversation; never to be released to anybody between him and this woman, that even though she’s moved to Yreka, even though they’ve broken up, even though she’s come over and watched him with another woman, even though all of this has happened, she stalked him. Even though all that has happened, well he’s going to continue talking to her on the telephone and he says, and he tells you the reason why. And the reason why is that he enjoys having sexual contact with her, and he gives you the reasons why. And he talks about some specific features that he didn’t do before and he does now. He talks about how she introduced him to certain things, how that was such a good thing. It kind of opened his horizons with regard to that particular aspect. And so he’s giving her credit for opening his eyes sexually. And there’s nothing wrong with that, and there’s nothing wrong with the conversation. What is wrong, or what appears to be wrong, is, that one of them is recording it without the knowledge of the other.
( Note: Jodi in her interview says there were texts that didn’t come in as evidence proving Alexander did know )
Nurmi: Objection, facts not in evidence.
You’ll be able to listen. You’ve listened to that recording. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you believe he knew, or believed that this is something that was being recorded. She says oh no, I kept hitting the save button, I was the one that did it. And she kept it, and she kept it all the way from May 10th of 2008. But things were not going so well at that point, and in fact, by May 19th of 2008, just nine days after that, Mr. Alexander is on the computer, this instant messaging service, with somebody named Regan Housley. And he’s talking to her and he says I’m extremely afraid of Ms. Arias because of her stalking behaviour. How prophetic of him, back on May 19th. And this is nine days after this telephone call, but he’s extremely afraid of her because of this stalking behaviour. Little does he know that he has less than a month to live. As so, he is aware of it. He knows that he is in the best position to know what is going on between the two of them, because he’s the one that’s going through it. And so when he makes that comment, that comment is indicative of what is going on. You could have people like Alyce LaViolette say it’s not true, and the reason, and you’ll have to give her credit, is that the reason Alyce LaViolette knows that is that she can read minds through the past. She can travel back to May 19th of 2008 and know what Mr. Alexander was thinking. Don’t you know? She’s the apologist for the defendant. She’s the one that can really set you straight. It’s not the defendant that’s manipulating you, no no, no. If you take a look at that statement, Mr. Alexander was making it all up. It wasn’t true, he was just saying it, because, you know in another part of the instant messaging they were saying ah ha, Hi Jodi read this or words to that … or whatever it is they were saying. And so, the defendant doesn’t want you to pay any attention to that, but that certainly goes, and it’s the beginnings of premeditation. Her premeditation to kill him back on May 19th of 2008. He indicates that I’m extremely afraid of the defendant because of her stalking behaviour.
And who would know better than him, especially since he’s the one that’s had to deal with her coming over, peeping in his window. He’s the one that’s had to deal with her showing up unannounced, he’s the one that’s had problems or damage to his car according to Lisa Andrews and he’s the one that has her underneath the Christmas tree, and has had rings … a ring stolen by her. So he would know that. And so then, what ends up happening is that some time passes and May 26th shows up. One of the important things about May 26th is that, that is the day that they break up. And much is made by the defence that well during these conversations, he’s mean to her. Well, why wouldn’t he be mean to her? Yes, there are names that people are being called; that’s correct. There are not any nice names. But he is extremely afraid of her stalking behaviour on May 26th when those names are called, and there is anger that is being exchanged back and forth and he sort of, capsulizes it by saying, or using a term that’s not quite so sexual, but really capsulizes what it is going on here, and how the defendant attempts to manipulate the truth, when he says “I am nothing more than a dildo with a heartbeat to you”. That’s what he tells her, because that’s how he feels. That’s how she makes him feel, and yes, he uses all of those other words, but he is also very derogatory about himself. He knows what’s going on. Every time, that according to that statement, whenever she wants him, the way that she manipulates him is through sex. He made that comment, and that comment was on the 26th of May in that instant message. But you don’t ignore what else is going on, on the 26th of May of 2008. On that prophetic day, he also tells her something else in exhibit 450.
She’s apologizing to him. Again, she’s manipulating him. She says something and she apologizes and everything is supposed to be okay, but by this time, he has had enough and he says, “I don’t want your apology. I want you to understand what I think of you.” That’s what he’s telling her. He’s telling her he wants her to understand what it is that he thinks of her. He says “I want you to understand how evil I think you are.” At that point when he’s writing that, he is extremely afraid of her because of her stalking behaviour. And he does think she’s evil. And how prophetic, looking at the next words, how absolutely prophetic, no one can dispute that that is the truest … those are the truest words that are spoken in this case and they are spoken by Mr. Alexander, even though he is not here, through his writings. “You, Jodi Arias, are the worst thing that ever happened to me.” Any doubt that that’s the truth? Do we need to look at the picture of his gashed throat? Do we need to look at the sort of frog-like state that she left him in, all crumpled up in that shower? Or, do we need to look at his face, where she put that bullet in his right temple to know that what he says there is true. “You are the worst thing that ever happened to me”. He’s telling her enough is enough.
And yes, he’s angry, absolutely angry after everything that she has done to him, and you have seen the manipulation, as she has tried to manipulate you with what she has told you, and the prime example, is these gas cans.
No one can argue that she lied to you. Well, he’s had enough and yes, he says “you are the worst thing that happened to me”. And then he says in this exhibit 450, “you are a sociopath”. No, he does not have a psychology degree, but that certainly expresses a feeling about what she says and what she does, and how she deals with him. How she is always manipulating him; that she teases this anger out of him and tries to mix in the sex and he says, “You only cry for yourself.” Well, you saw her crying on the witness stand. Can anyone debate the reason she was crying, was because she cries for herself? After all, she never intended to be caught. She said that so herself after she lied to the police. Oh no, I was saying that because I did not want to be caught, and so “you only cry for yourself’. And then he says “You have never cared out me “, supposedly that could be “for” “and you have betrayed me worse than any example I could conjure”. She has betrayed him, for whatever reason he believes that she has done something that is absolutely horrific. And he’s telling her, “I’ve had it, I’m done with you”. And again, this is May 26th. He’s done with her. “You are sick and you have scammed me. “ Again, she has scammed him. Are you going to allow her to scam you, is really the question from this text message. Are you going to buy her lies, are you going to believe what she tells you. And so we get to May 28th, just two days after this, just two short days afterwards, she begins to plan, if you will, to kill him, and the planning takes preparation.
And there’s no doubt that this woman is a very intelligent woman, and she tries to cover all her bases. And yes, she could go out and buy a gun, but you know if you buy a gun, one of the things that she indicated in California, was that there was a waiting period and they take your name. According to her, that’s something that she knows. Well, let’s get a stolen gun. She lives with her grandparents in Yreka, and she knows that her grandfather has guns, and she knows where he keeps them. And so on May 28th of 2008, she starts the planning. She starts the actual steps or begins the actual steps to this journey that will take her to Mesa, Arizona to kill Travis Alexander.
There is no other explanation than that she’s the one who stole that .25 calibre gun, this very small gun that according to her looks like a toy. This small gun, and on May 28th at a time when she is living there, there is a burglary that is reported at her grandparents’ house. And lo and behold, it’s so amazing, and again, because this is the manipulative aspect of this case, and the defendant.
It is so interesting that this burglary is kind of weird, it’s kind of strange; it’s kind of special because these burglars were meticulous. They wanted to leave the impression that this was a burglary throughout the house, so they went to four rooms, and from each of the rooms, only one item was taken. And where the guns were? You saw, there was some money there. These burglars didn’t want money, they just wanted a gun. And they didn’t want any kind of gun. They wanted a special gun, a small gun because there were rifles there. If a burglar comes in, he’s not going to be very discriminating. Uh, you know, yeah, I’m going to this little gun. I don`t want to take the money, it may be too heavy. These other guns are too big, I`m not going to be able to carry them down the street, that`s not the way a burglary happens. And oh, after I`ve taken one item from here, I`m going to go ahead to go another room, and after looking in this other room, I`m going to take one item from there, and then I will take a total of four items. If you`re going to do that, if you are a burglar, then why, why would you even waste the time on committing a burglary? The only thing that makes sense, with regard to the burglary is that the burglar, the person who went in there, is right there, it’s Jodi Arias. That’s the burglar, and she needs a gun. And she needs a gun to kill Travis Alexander, and she gets it. And guess what? It can’t be traced. There’s this burglary report out there. No one can say it’s her, well, at least not initially no one can say it’s her.
And on May 28th, she begins to take these steps after he has told her in that May 26th, 2008 text message that he had enough of her. And so what does she do as part of that, well she then says, if I go to Arizona, you know money is tight, there’s an issue with money, one of the things I’m probably going to have to use my credit card if I go to Arizona, if I fill up with gas so I’ve got to make sure that people don’t know if I’m going to carry this out that I’m going to be in Arizona, because I can’t be linked to Arizona in any way, shape or form. And certainly using a credit card, at a gas station is going to link me to Arizona. And so, well, why don’t I call Darryl Brewer? You could tell from the time that he testified that he still had feelings for her. In fact, when he was asked about this issue about the gas cans he actually paused, if you remember, and he gulped, and he said oh yeah, she did call me. She called me at the end of May. May 28th is the end of May when this gun is stolen by the defendant from her grandparents’ home. Yeah, she did call me then and she told me she was going to Mesa, she was going to Arizona. And Alyce LaViolette has the same thing in her notes, that according to Darryl Brewer, the defendant called him at the end of May and she was going to Mesa, Arizona and needed gas cans. And Alyce LaViolette even in her notes, indicated I thought that this was an unplanned visit. Even in her notes, there are issues. But, the defendant is attempting to manipulate the truth.
But there are issues with regard to this, because she’s telling Darryl Brewer that she’s going there, even her own experts says, um, there’s a little bit of an issue here, there’s a problem for me, because I thought you said that you were not going to Mesa that you were going to Utah. Or is Utah just not anything else other more than a ruse? You could say you’re going to Utah; you can have a sexual dalliance, not an extreme one, but a sexual dalliance with Ryan Burns. You can adjust him and nobody will be the wiser, because nobody will ever know that you were in Arizona because, guess what? You never filled up anywhere. You never put gas in the car. Well, okay, that’s what she does. She calls Darryl Brewer at the end of May, the first part of June, and she gets these two containers, two five gallon cans for gasoline and they were empty. It’s not like they were full. And he lives in the Monterey area and she leaves on June 2nd. Well, when she leaves she doesn’t take her car.
She decides to rent a car, and she has told you, well I rented the car out of Redding, California and the reason that I rented the car out of Redding, California which is approximately ninety miles south of Yreka, is because Priceline did not offer the same deals in Yreka. Priceline only offered it in Redding and that’s why I went ahead and it did that way. It wasn’t that I didn’t want people in Yreka to know what kind of car I was renting because, Heaven forbid, if they knew I was renting this car, they could, it could come back to me.
And of course, I don’t want to be identified in killing Mr. Alexander so I’ve already made provisions for the gas cans, and now I got to make provisions for the car.
And so she says that’s the reason why she goes to Redding, California. Except that the documents show something else, exhibit 523, is the statement from Washington Mutual from June 1st, of 2008 to June 30th, 2008. And this is the statement that she, the defendant, authenticated on the witness stand. And in fact, what we have here, is the Budget Rent-A-Car, you see it June 9th Budget Rent-A-Car in Redding, California. That’s what we’re talking about. But if you also remember, after she killed Mr. Alexander she came to the memorial and she flew down here. And if you take a look at down here, there it is, see that, she paid two hundred forty-six dollars and ninety-nine cents and that was to Priceline.com and it says air. Hmm, this Priceline, they have to get their act together here, yeah, yeah, at one point when it comes down to the flight, yeah, yeah, they … I pay them, but when it comes to the car even though I go through Priceline, I’ve got to pay for the car, then how is Priceline ever going to get paid if they don’t take their money upfront for the rental car? That’s how it works. They get their money up front.
Nurmi: Objection, arguing facts not in evidence.
They get their money up front, and that’s how it’s solicited in these documents, so that we know whose getting the money. Otherwise, if it were left to Budget then you’re imposing upon Budget, if Priceline is involved, another accounting step for them to pay Priceline and it may be a situation where Priceline never pays them. So by this document right here, when the defendant tells that, hmm the reason that I went to Redding was because of the Priceline connection, she lied to you, unless of course, Washington Mutual made this up. Maybe Washington Mutual also subscribes to the Law of Attraction, and they don’t want to put anything negative here. Maybe, it could happen that way, right? That’s what they want you to believe. Don’t believe what’s written down, believe what I say. That’s the same situation here as it is with those diaries. They want to believe not what the diary says, what she tells you. They don’t want to believe what that document says, they want you believe you says.
So now we know that she goes to Redding after she’s made provisions for the gas cans, she goes to Redding so that people will not recognize her because she is going to kill Travis Alexander. There is no other explanation for making up all these stories that we’re talking about here. There is no other explanation. Contacts Darryl Brewer, now has the gas cans, now has the car rented and, still this car, it’s in Redding where people are not going to know her, and in fact, it’s at an airport.
By definition an airport is where people come in, and they leave, they’re travelling. Those are not the kind of people you’re going to run across at the supermarket. And so it’s a way for her to hide. And she shows up there, and Mr. Columbo says to her got this nice little red ditty for here for you, nice little red car that you can drive on your way to Arizona, no, not Arizona, just drive around. And by the way, where are going to drive? Oh you know, just around town, that’s ..that’s all I’m going to do. Why did she lie to him? Why did she make that up to him? Because she didn’t want to tell him that she was going to Mesa, Arizona like she already told Darryl Brewer, because then again, that would connect her. But why not take the red car? Well, you know, according to her, red cars call the attention of the police, and she certainly doesn’t want that. She doesn’t want the police to find out about her because she’s on a mission. She’s on a mission to kill somebody. Why would you take a gun if you are going to go on this trip other than to kill this guy? And she says, oh you know, I didn’t know that I was going to go there, even though I told Darryl Brewer, I didn’t know I was going to go there. Keep in mind, that this is a rental car and one of the things that she says as she’s pointing the finger at Mr. Alexander and how viciously sexual he is, do you remember what she claimed that she was doing in that office?
Do you remember she said we were down in that office and I had brought over some CDs from the trips that we had taken with some photographs? Do you remember that? And she said I had scratched it, for whatever reason she had scratched those CDs, and he got mad and he threw that CD, cause you know that guy he gets mad at everything, and so I then had to have intercourse with him to calm him down. That’s what she said. If she’s not going to visit him, if she’s not going … thinking, or if she hasn’t already made up her mind to leave Yreka and visit Mr. Alexander in Mesa, Arizona why, why take these CDs of the trip with her? Why take these CDs? Who is she going to show these CDs to other than him? And she’s in a rental car, so that requires a volitional movement on her part to take something from inside the house or her car, whatever, whichever one she does, but it requires a volitional movement to get those CDs into her car and drive down to Redding, California and then put them in the rental car. There is no other explanation for those CDs to be in Mesa, Arizona other than that she knew, she absolutely knew and had already planned it. She knew she was going to kill him. Why else take the CDs? Do you think that Joe Columbo wanted to look at them? Do you think that her family in Redding cares, the ones that she claims took her to the airport? Nobody cares about that. It’s a good way to disarm, if you will, or it’s a good excuse to show up unannounced somewhere. Look, you know the only reason I’m dropping by, just like I did back in August of 2007, the only reason I dropped by was to show you these. It’s not my fault if you haven’t seen these, and it’s not my fault that I haven’t been able to get them to you. Not my fault at all, not at all. But you know, I’m making it up to you now.
She left Yreka, California with those CDs, but she forgot about it as she attempted to manipulate the story from the witness stand. She forgot about it. It’s those little details that she forgets, and so, she brings those CDs.
She doesn’t want the red car, and the reason she doesn’t want the red car, is because, well, the police will see her. She doesn’t want to be stopped by the police. And actually it’s foretelling of what happens later because she’s stopped in West Jordan, Utah by the police, for a different reason, but she is stopped by the police, and she is right. A red … according to her mind, a red car is more significant or stopped more prominently or frequently by police. She doesn’t want to be stopped, because what if she stopped in a place that shows that she’s going to Mesa? She wants to hide the fact that she’s going to Mesa, Arizona and, the only reason to hide that fact, is because she’s going to kill him.
It isn’t like the Bishop is going to be upset if she shows up in Meza, Arizona, it’s not like her family is going to be upset if she shows up in Meza, Arizona, she’s and adult. It’s not like her friends, whoever they may be, because we don’t know who they are. They’re not going to be upset if she shows up in Meza, Arizona. The only reason to keep this whole thing a secret, which is what she tried to do, because she was going to kill him, and she’s making preparations.
And she’s very good at making these preparations. You do have to tip her hat, your hat to her; first of all, the burglary. She does a burglary, there are no suspects. The only thing, one of the only things taken is this .25 calibre. It’s lost; it’s out there, this .25 calibre handgun.
Then she rents this car, and then takes the white car. And the white car does have some floor mats in it, and she takes this white car and says I’m only going to drive around here. Again she lies, makes that up. It’s like a field of lies that has sprouted around her as she sat on that witness stand. It’s every time she spat something out, another lie, another weed would grow around her.
And so she gets in that car heads out and sleeps the night at Matthew McCartney’s house.
And the next morning, June 3rd, of 2008 she then shows up over in the Monterey area … shows up there in the morning, and sees Darryl Brewer. And yes, she now has two gas cans, and the only reason to get these gas cans is to put gas in them. There’s no other reason why anybody would get a gas can to go on this trip. Well, the ostensible reason to get these gas cans is perhaps gas is cheaper in Utah, or maybe gas is cheaper in Nevada than it is in California. And that’s one of the reasons that is given, but if gas is cheaper in Nevada, or Utah and she does fill them up in Utah, why then, why would she fill them up in Pasadena? Why would she fill up these three gas cans in Pasadena? The only reason she would fill these gas cans up in Pasadena was because she was going to take the drive to Mesa. And sure enough, there is no evidence that she ever was in this area through this, by purchasing gasoline. Everybody that travels in, they stop somewhere and use a credit card; it’s easy to trace, but not if you don’t stop anywhere.
And so she picks up these two gas cans and begins to drive, and after she begins this drive, let’s take a little detour. And this little detour is after some thought because this is a meticulous approach to premeditation. This is a meticulous approach to killing.
Again, why stop in Salinas, California at a Walmart to buy another five gallon can? Because she’s been thinking and she thinks, you know, ten gallons, let’s say maybe thirty miles to the gallon, that’s only three hundred miles, need another five maybe that gives me another one hundred and fifty miles. That’s four hundred and fifty miles. That’s get me through Arizona and into Nevada. So she stops at the Walmart and she stops at the Walmart and she does buy a gas can. She admits it, so when you look at this receipt two thirty-seven point zero zero eight, and you look at it the bottom item there for twelve dollars and ninety-six cents is the gas can. I guess that’s the price of premeditation these days, twelve dollars and ninety-six cents. And she admitted, yeah, sure did, under cross examination about that gas can, but, and she was very specific, I took it back to this same store twenty-four fifty-eight on that same day.
Nurmi: Objection, facts not in evidence.
You remember what she said on cross examination, when she was asked, where did you take that gas can back? And on cross examination she said specifically, she said I took it back to the same store that I bought it from.
Nurmi: Objection, mischaracterizes the testimony.
Stephens: Overruled. The jury is directed to recall the evidence.
And do you remember at that time that the question was followed up was would it surprise you that that store in Salinas doesn’t have any record of that? And her answer was, yes, it would surprise me because I got money back, I got a refund. That’s the way the exchange went. And your notes should reflect that so, she didn’t take it back there did she? But she told you that. Why did she say that? Why did she tell you that? Because that’s just crushing, if you will, in terms of whether or not this is premeditated.
And it is premeditated; she was coming to Mesa with a gun and a knife. This knife appears from somewhere so she had to have brought it up. Knives are not in a bathroom.
So, she stops there after thinking about it and now has another gas can which gives her a further range, of at least thirty miles per gallon, we’re talking about an extra four hundred and fifty miles.
Well, one of the other things that she does as part of this premeditation or part of what’s going on is, if you want to do something like this, it’s a good idea that when you show up that people not recognize you at the place where you are going to commit this murder. And so if you have blond hair and you saw the photograph of her with the blond locks and the black dog and when they told you that that’s the same colour, do you remember that line of questioning that went on with Lonnie Dworkin, their expert on computers. The question was asked, well, do you think that this hair here with the dog looks the same as the one where’s she laying back, do you remember that line? Like he some sort of expert on hair colour. You don’t need anybody to tell you what the hair colour was when she was there with the dog. You can see for yourself. You don’t need the prosecutor or anybody to tell you. But you do know one thing, you were also shown photographs that were also taken on June 3rd of 2008 about this same time and you saw the hair colour, didn’t you? Are you going to believe Mr. Dworkin and the defendant or are you going to believe your eyes?
Maybe the Law of Attraction tells that you should believe Mr. Dworkin, because again, you can’t believe the text messages, you can’t believe what’s written down on the receipt and you can’t believe what’s in the journals because of this Law of Attraction. Now you can’t even believe your own eyes, because if you do believe your own eyes, you know she’s premeditating the murder. She’s thinking about killing him. That’s all that’s required. The state doesn’t even need to prove a whole plan such as this. All the state needs to prove is that the defendant thought about it, the killing before she actually carried it out.
And this is an extensive amount of planning, days, six days in advance, six to seven days in advance of her killing him, a week or so. And so, she stops there, makes those preparations and now she can freely drive through Mesa, with these, with enough gas so that she doesn’t have to stop anywhere.
More thinking that goes on. And she tells you, well, I ended up going to Arizona. I hadn’t even thought about it, but Mr. Alexander, that guy, always guilting me. You know, that guy is like a bad disease, this guy always guilting me. You know, it’s not my fault. That’s what she’s telling you, it ain’t my fault. I told him I was going to Utah and he was a little bit suspicious about why I was going to Utah. But why don’t you stop here in Arizona, you can stop here in Arizona, that’s what she told you that he said, or that he implied, that he wanted. She could say no, you’re going to come up to see me after your trip in Cancun; it’s okay. Well, the problem is that it’s her word. Do we really know, based on all these lies, that that’s what he told her? Or was there just a call to try and find out what he was doing? Does he have a visitor there? Does he have somebody there, what about his roommates? Are they going to be there when I arrive? What is the situation there? Are you going to take her word for that? Is there any indication anywhere that Mr. Alexander even knew that she was coming down there. You have her word. You know in cases that are minor to you; not even important cases are you going to take her word? And remember this individual has no problem with telling lies. You’ve seen throughout this whole trial. Well, she does say that she has this conversation with him, and in fact, the phone records do bear out that there is this conversation, but the content of the conversation is still in doubt.
And I would only have to point out as far as the May 10th, 2008 conversation in terms of showing that she has no problems lying on the telephone where she says well yeah, I was faking it and you know what she said she was faking, even though you heard her squealing like a cat. No, no, no that’s just me faking it and you know why? Because I need two hands, that’s why she was faking it. Okay, if you can lie on May 10th of 2008 on the telephone to Mr. Alexander, what makes us think that you can’t lie about what you and he talked about on June 3rd, 2008?
And remember she’s got this history, all along not only of lying outside of the courtroom, but she has sat on witness stand, the place where you have taken an oath, a place that’s sacrosancted by telling the truth, has sat on that witness stand, looked at each and every one of you in the eyes and lied to you. Specifically the gas can, specifically about Priceline, and to another extent, the finger.
If you remember, she said, oh, you know, he was starting to kick me, he broke my finger. I didn’t get any medical care, but he broke my finger. Or alternatively, I actually was working at Casa Rama’s before I went and when I was at Casa Rama’s, or Margaritaville, one of the two, you take your pick, because that’s what she told Mr. Burns, and either I went up against one of the edges, the metal edges and it cut me, or alternatively it was a margarita glass. And now she takes the witness stand, well in terms of the damage to the finger, I actually damaged the finger when I was at Mr. Alexander’s home on June 4th of 2008, with the glass, that’s how it happened. What story are you going to believe from this individual? And that’s the issue here as to when she tells you something what are you going to believe?
And so she leaves that area and off she goes. She drives to Pasadena. We know that the telephone calls from Mr. Alexander are after that, but she drives to Pasadena and then something that is so bizarre happens to her. It seems that there’s this coincidental hoard of skateboarders in Pasadena. That’s the way the kids are in Pasadena, they go in hoards, these skateboarders. And this hoard of skateboarders well, they carry screwdrivers. That’s one of the things, if you’re going to be in this hoard of skateboarders, you have to have a screwdriver. That’s what you got to do, or else you’re not allowed in this particular club out in Pasadena. And you can get a strawberry frappuccino, or whatever it is that you get at Starbuck’s when you go there. Be careful, because when you go in, to get this strawberry frappuccino, things are going to happen to your licence plate, if you run across this hoard of skateboarders with this screwdriver. And so when she was questioned about that in cross examination, one of the things that she said, was well, yeah I was pulling out after stopping there, and I was pulling out and I saw something flat on the ground, and when challenged on that if you see something flat on the ground, what makes you think that you can go and pick it up? What in God’s name would ever motivate you to go and pick this up? Especially if you were afraid of this hoard of skateboarders in Pasadena, cause she did say she was concerned for her safety. Why even get out of the car? If you don’t even know what it is and if you don’t even know that it’s related to the car? And she said, I didn’t know it was related to the car. I didn’t know what it was, and she’s having problems with the truth there because remember, she’s got to remember, she remembers that she’s got the licence plate in the back, that’s she got to deal with this issue involving the licence plate in the back and whether or not they’re connected. And she says, oh I didn’t even know what the licence plate was; I didn’t even look in the back. When challenged further she said, oh wait a minute, no, no it wasn’t flat it was actually standing up. And it was standing up and I was able to reflect and realize that it was not square, she corrected the prosecutor, rectangular, remember that? It was a rectangular object that she recognized as a licence plate. And if you don’t have any suspicion whatsoever, that it has anything to do with your car, why then, why would even get out of the car, and go look when you’re scared to get a licence plate? Why on God’s green earth would do that? When you’re lying that’s when you would do, that’s exactly when you would do that. And she says, oh you know, I went and got it and I really couldn’t tell the numbers and I didn’t compare it to the back.
So now you’re a thief? Somebody else’s licence plate is sitting out there, you don’t know it’s yours, potentially, if it’s not yours, it’s somebody else’s and they may potentially come back, so what are you doing? You’re stealing it; you’re depriving them of the opportunity to have the front licence plate which is obviously required in the state of California because this car had two of them. So that’s what you’re doing then, because she didn’t check to see if it corresponded with the one on the back. And the reason that she’s having problems with that is because as you know that in West Jordan, Utah the one on the back is upside down. Like somebody took it off and like somebody put in the back seat of the car when they arrived at Travis Alexander’s house, so that the car wouldn’t be able to be identified to them. Just like that … that’s … you know, but she can’t admit that, and that’s why she’s having problems with this licence plate that’s out there in this parking lot. And she ends that conversation with the prosecutor during cross examination by saying, oh well you know I didn’t see numbers or whatever, because you know what? I can’t see, I needed glasses back then, so I really couldn’t see, so I just grabbed it and it had bugs on it and so I thought it was mine, so … without any regard to whether or not it really is hers, throws it in the back seat of the car. Who does that? No one does that. She’s making it up and she’s making it up because she got stopped in West Jordan, Utah and has to explain how it is that the front licence plate got into the car. Because this hoard of skateboarders from Pasadena, they can’t get into her car. So she has to be the one to do it, and the only way that she can say that she’s the one to do it, is to make up a story. And she made up a story about these skateboarders, this wild hoard kind of thing where you have to have a screwdriver, they’re the ones that did it and, you know, she’s making that up. She’s lying to you about it and the reason she’s lying to you is because in West Jordan, Utah that licence plate was found in her car. So one of the other things that she does …. okay we can stop.