Becky Sharp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 849
- Reaction score
- 10
Mr. Juan Martinez is my next guest on True Crime Radio Thursday March 24th
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
TrialWatcher
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2014
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 168
Great interview. Hatfield - superb questions outlined. One of the best Juan Martinez interviews. Well done Tricia. A respectful interview which conveyed how loved Juan Martinez is by the public.
TRANSCRIPT (MOSTLY) OF JM’S INTERVIEW WITH TRICIA ON TRUE CRIME RADIO, Part I, through minute 11-12 of 43.
Intro- Tricia reads from JM’s book, his description of how he thought of her- a bad waitress in a dive, giving awful service and “dreaming of a different life.”
T- Thrilled to have JM with us. Thanks for being here.
JM- Glad to be here.
T- (Gives brief overview of the murder of Travis), “a wonderful guy,” brutally murdered “because he didn’t give her what she wanted and because Jodi is just downright evil, IMO.”
T- JM put on a “hot fire of a prosecution” and “for the first time in Jodi’s life she really, really had to face the truth and the consequences for her actions.” We watched in amazement as JM quickly brought out the true Jodi Arias.
T- Mr. Martinez, I literally have hundreds of questions from people all over the world who watched you prosecute JA, but before I get into those I wanted to ask you-how are you doing? With everything that has happened, how are you doing?
JM. I’m doing well. I can say there’s been a lot of, an outpouring of affection, and it’s been a period of my life where, it just makes this whole thing seem worthwhile.
T- That’s good to hear. A lot of members and a lot of people have asked me and I wanted to ask you, because we feel like we know you and we were worried about you, and wanted to make sure you’re OK.
Before we get started with the questions, is there any misconception you’d like to talk about or clear up?
JM- No, not really. There’s been a lot of criticism about why I employed the tact I did in cross examination, some people thought perhaps I was disorganized, didn’t know where I was headed, the one is that I was just being strident for its own sake. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I knew she was someone who if you approached her directly she would give you many different answers to what was obvious to everybody. So, I’d just like to put that out there, that it wasn’t that I was unorganized, it wasn’t that I was just trying to be mean, it was just what I thought was the best approach under the circumstances.
T- Well, it worked, obviously, you caught her in so many lies. That’s interesting that people are criticizing you for that, that they said you were mean, to me it just looked like you were passionate, and you wanted to get the truth, and this woman wasn’t about to give it to you.
JM-That’s true, and I was sincere in my approach, it wasn’t that I was being, if we’re going to use the word mean, it wasn’t that I was being, in their word, mean for its own purpose. I was using that approach because that’s the approach that was the best in approaching someone who had a very difficult time in telling the truth and who was deceitful if it served her purposes. (4:26).
T- That’s the truth, and boy was she ever deceitful. OK, I’m going to get to some of the questions here, we have so many.
You’ve said that writing the book was more difficult than the trial. Why is that? It seems like the trial would be a nightmare and the book would be a piece of cake.
JM- No, the book was much more difficult, and the reason for that is there was so much material. We have to remember that the trial started in December 2012 then finished up in May 2013, and that there was a second trial that was involved. And before that there were years of investigation and interviews that took place, so condensing that and summarizing it in a way, or picking up the high points, was very difficult.
It could be that if I started emphasizing something at a certain point it could be that it would have taken away from the story. So that’s what made it difficult. I wanted to make it a story that people could follow, I wanted to make it a story people would be interested in.
A lot of people had actually seen what had happened in the courtroom, so I wanted to take them one step further, into what I was thinking and why I was doing certain things. I didn’t just want to bore the reader, if you will. (5:43)
T- Well, the book certainly isn’t boring, I can tell you that much. Mr. Martinez, we’ll be back in a moment with more questions, and coming up I’m going to talk with you about evidence that happened on June 4 that wasn’t presented at trial. We’re going to get to all the WS ers questions and more in just a little bit. Now, I want to tell you, this book, you should get it, Conviction, by JM, (T mentions Kindle, etc. where it can be bought).
T- And we’re back, at TRC. Talking with prosecutor and author, Juan Martinez. The book is a MUST if you’re even remotely interested in the JA trial, because it really does open up the curtain and show you the behind the scenes, a lot of stuff that was going on we had no idea about, and it really may change your mind about a lot of things.
We spoke a moment ago to Mr.M about people accusing him of being mean, and I want to go back to that for just a moment, if I may, Mr.M.
JM- Sure.
T-I remember watching that and thinking, and maybe even said, I wonder if him being mean like that is going to backfire on the jury. Now, did anyone raise that concern with you in the office, did you have to say, I mean, what you did was right, it worked, but did any one cause you grief for that at all?
JM- No. The way that I prosecute cases is that I do them by myself, I don’t have co-counsel, so any decisions that are made are just mine alone, and we are entrusted with those cases in this office, and there really isn’t anybody that is sort of looking over your shoulder, and saying, perhaps you should do it this way or you should do it that way.
Of course, if you had co-counsel you could bounce ideas off them, but in this case the responsibility was mine, and whether the strategy succeeded or proved unsuccessful, that would be something that I’d have to deal with, so, and, I was in the best position of anyone, I think, to try to see what was going on with her, and how she sort of, um, just twisted the truth. If there was any answer that was obvious, she would avoid it, even as to things that didn’t matter, so I decided the best way to do it was to expose her, and if I had to ask her YES or NO, then, so be it.
T- There you go. And again, if you read Mr.M’s book you’ll get the insight that you didn’t have in the beginning or during the trial. (9:23).
T- Another question from one of our listeners and WS members, and trust me, Mr.M, everyone cares about you and this is one of those questions.
There were some hurtful comments or criticisms said about you by the media. Did that bother you, was there something that was really hurtful, that you know, you just wanted to throttle the person who said it?
JM- (laughs) Well, I can’t really sort of manage my life by what the media may say and it may be hurtful. It gets to the point where there were some statements about how tall I was. In other words, they said I was short, which is true. They also talked about my voice, everyone is hearing it tonight, and that’s the voice I was given, and that’s the voice I’ve always had, and there was criticism of that. The criticism was so profound at some point that it seemed unfair.
But I stepped back and I decided that if someone took the time to criticize those things, then clearly I must be doing a good job, or else they would have criticized that. Criticism is one thing, but once they started going after you personally like that, then it appears to me they don’t have anything left to say, other than to make it a very personal, sort of ad homonym kind of attack.
T-Exactly, they can’t go after the big stuff you’re doing and accomplishing, so they go after something they hope will get to you. I hear you there. (10:52).
T- Again, I have a zillion questions from people. One, this is very interesting to me, Nurmi said he was surprised that you didn’t use recorded tapes in trial. Now apparently J’s recorded phone calls in jail with her mother and others, it made her, she came across as nasty and awful and horrible in those recorded phone calls. But you didn’t use them, um, when you were trying to get the DP. Was there a strategy behind that, because it seems like nasty phone calls would be a great thing to use.
JM- Well, I don’t take advice from, um, Mr. Nurmi. Never have, never will. (I had no problem?) in regards to that. So, that’s his opinion, and I’ll only remind people that he’s the individual, the defense counsel, where his client was convicted of first degree murder.
T- There you go. (11:42).
Intro- Tricia reads from JM’s book, his description of how he thought of her- a bad waitress in a dive, giving awful service and “dreaming of a different life.”
T- Thrilled to have JM with us. Thanks for being here.
JM- Glad to be here.
T- (Gives brief overview of the murder of Travis), “a wonderful guy,” brutally murdered “because he didn’t give her what she wanted and because Jodi is just downright evil, IMO.”
T- JM put on a “hot fire of a prosecution” and “for the first time in Jodi’s life she really, really had to face the truth and the consequences for her actions.” We watched in amazement as JM quickly brought out the true Jodi Arias.
T- Mr. Martinez, I literally have hundreds of questions from people all over the world who watched you prosecute JA, but before I get into those I wanted to ask you-how are you doing? With everything that has happened, how are you doing?
JM. I’m doing well. I can say there’s been a lot of, an outpouring of affection, and it’s been a period of my life where, it just makes this whole thing seem worthwhile.
T- That’s good to hear. A lot of members and a lot of people have asked me and I wanted to ask you, because we feel like we know you and we were worried about you, and wanted to make sure you’re OK.
Before we get started with the questions, is there any misconception you’d like to talk about or clear up?
JM- No, not really. There’s been a lot of criticism about why I employed the tact I did in cross examination, some people thought perhaps I was disorganized, didn’t know where I was headed, the one is that I was just being strident for its own sake. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I knew she was someone who if you approached her directly she would give you many different answers to what was obvious to everybody. So, I’d just like to put that out there, that it wasn’t that I was unorganized, it wasn’t that I was just trying to be mean, it was just what I thought was the best approach under the circumstances.
T- Well, it worked, obviously, you caught her in so many lies. That’s interesting that people are criticizing you for that, that they said you were mean, to me it just looked like you were passionate, and you wanted to get the truth, and this woman wasn’t about to give it to you.
JM-That’s true, and I was sincere in my approach, it wasn’t that I was being, if we’re going to use the word mean, it wasn’t that I was being, in their word, mean for its own purpose. I was using that approach because that’s the approach that was the best in approaching someone who had a very difficult time in telling the truth and who was deceitful if it served her purposes. (4:26).
T- That’s the truth, and boy was she ever deceitful. OK, I’m going to get to some of the questions here, we have so many.
You’ve said that writing the book was more difficult than the trial. Why is that? It seems like the trial would be a nightmare and the book would be a piece of cake.
JM- No, the book was much more difficult, and the reason for that is there was so much material. We have to remember that the trial started in December 2012 then finished up in May 2013, and that there was a second trial that was involved. And before that there were years of investigation and interviews that took place, so condensing that and summarizing it in a way, or picking up the high points, was very difficult.
It could be that if I started emphasizing something at a certain point it could be that it would have taken away from the story. So that’s what made it difficult. I wanted to make it a story that people could follow, I wanted to make it a story people would be interested in.
A lot of people had actually seen what had happened in the courtroom, so I wanted to take them one step further, into what I was thinking and why I was doing certain things. I didn’t just want to bore the reader, if you will. (5:43)
T- Well, the book certainly isn’t boring, I can tell you that much. Mr. Martinez, we’ll be back in a moment with more questions, and coming up I’m going to talk with you about evidence that happened on June 4 that wasn’t presented at trial. We’re going to get to all the WS ers questions and more in just a little bit. Now, I want to tell you, this book, you should get it, Conviction, by JM, (T mentions Kindle, etc. where it can be bought).
T- And we’re back, at TRC. Talking with prosecutor and author, Juan Martinez. The book is a MUST if you’re even remotely interested in the JA trial, because it really does open up the curtain and show you the behind the scenes, a lot of stuff that was going on we had no idea about, and it really may change your mind about a lot of things.
We spoke a moment ago to Mr.M about people accusing him of being mean, and I want to go back to that for just a moment, if I may, Mr.M.
JM- Sure.
T-I remember watching that and thinking, and maybe even said, I wonder if him being mean like that is going to backfire on the jury. Now, did anyone raise that concern with you in the office, did you have to say, I mean, what you did was right, it worked, but did any one cause you grief for that at all?
JM- No. The way that I prosecute cases is that I do them by myself, I don’t have co-counsel, so any decisions that are made are just mine alone, and we are entrusted with those cases in this office, and there really isn’t anybody that is sort of looking over your shoulder, and saying, perhaps you should do it this way or you should do it that way.
Of course, if you had co-counsel you could bounce ideas off them, but in this case the responsibility was mine, and whether the strategy succeeded or proved unsuccessful, that would be something that I’d have to deal with, so, and, I was in the best position of anyone, I think, to try to see what was going on with her, and how she sort of, um, just twisted the truth. If there was any answer that was obvious, she would avoid it, even as to things that didn’t matter, so I decided the best way to do it was to expose her, and if I had to ask her YES or NO, then, so be it.
T- There you go. And again, if you read Mr.M’s book you’ll get the insight that you didn’t have in the beginning or during the trial. (9:23).
T- Another question from one of our listeners and WS members, and trust me, Mr.M, everyone cares about you and this is one of those questions.
There were some hurtful comments or criticisms said about you by the media. Did that bother you, was there something that was really hurtful, that you know, you just wanted to throttle the person who said it?
JM- (laughs) Well, I can’t really sort of manage my life by what the media may say and it may be hurtful. It gets to the point where there were some statements about how tall I was. In other words, they said I was short, which is true. They also talked about my voice, everyone is hearing it tonight, and that’s the voice I was given, and that’s the voice I’ve always had, and there was criticism of that. The criticism was so profound at some point that it seemed unfair.
But I stepped back and I decided that if someone took the time to criticize those things, then clearly I must be doing a good job, or else they would have criticized that. Criticism is one thing, but once they started going after you personally like that, then it appears to me they don’t have anything left to say, other than to make it a very personal, sort of ad homonym kind of attack.
T-Exactly, they can’t go after the big stuff you’re doing and accomplishing, so they go after something they hope will get to you. I hear you there. (10:52).
T- Again, I have a zillion questions from people. One, this is very interesting to me, Nurmi said he was surprised that you didn’t use recorded tapes in trial. Now apparently J’s recorded phone calls in jail with her mother and others, it made her, she came across as nasty and awful and horrible in those recorded phone calls. But you didn’t use them, um, when you were trying to get the DP. Was there a strategy behind that, because it seems like nasty phone calls would be a great thing to use.
JM- Well, I don’t take advice from, um, Mr. Nurmi. Never have, never will. (I had no problem?) in regards to that. So, that’s his opinion, and I’ll only remind people that he’s the individual, the defense counsel, where his client was convicted of first degree murder.
T- There you go. (11:42).
Becky Sharp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 849
- Reaction score
- 10
Zing!! :laughing: (Thank you, Hope. This is very much appreciated!)
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT, PART 2. (11:42- 20:16)
T-Let’s jump back to the actual events that happened on June 4. Was there any evidence that wasn’t presented at trial because you couldn’t, or because it was just too much, is there anything you can tell us now that wasn’t presented?
JM-No, not really. You know, in every case that you have, and in especially with this type of investigation, this was the most voluminous, I mean, the most in-depth investigation that I’ve ever been associated with. So that there is so much out there, that you can always say that about every case, that I didn’t present this, I didn’t present that.
And that was true about this case. So I can’t say there was something out there I thought, oooh, I really want to be included as part of the record that I..somehow there was a ruling and I didn’t get that in. It wasn’t like that at all. My focus always was on showing that she had planned, and beyond that, had premeditated the murder, so that, um, I always sort of focused on that, and, I know there were some comments, for example, that were made by acquaintances of Mr. Alexander that were made at the scene where they called her a stalker and were claiming that sort of thing, but in and of itself that didn’t prove much, and it sort of went to character, and I didn’t want to get into that.
I just wanted to get into the facts and show what it is she did, because it was much more powerful to show that she had stabbed him approximately 29 times, slit his throat, then shot him in the face than to start talking about what kind of person she was. At that point, I didn’t care. (13:19)
T. Well, there you go, exactly. Just putting it into those few quick sentences really paints a picture of what an animal JA is.
T- So, are you saying in retrospect there really isn’t anything you’d do differently?
JM- No, I can’t think that there is. Part of it is, its just a philosophy I have when it comes to cases and perhaps with regard to life. If I were to spend my life thinking about things I could have done differently, that would be living in the past, and I don’t offer advice to other people because I don’t know their circumstances, but if there is any advice I could give to perhaps your listeners, yes-to take a look at the past every now and again, but you can’t live there, you have to be in the present and look to the future, and you’ll be much more successful that way than to worry constantly or look back and say, I should have done this, I should have done that.
T- That’s great advice, actually. Travis’s family, I mean, our hearts were broken for them. Are you in communication with them, and, if you are, are they upset about the book, are they supportive, what is their position? If you know.
JM- I’m not in contact with them TOO much, um, I haven’t spoken with them in quite some time, but I know through their lawyer that there was never an indication that there was any opposition to the book. They knew about it. I let every one of them know I was going to write the book. (14:50).
T- Now, we all watched the trial on TV. I’m sure everyone listening to this at some point gave up hours and hours of their life to watch it. What is a Perry Mason moment that we perhaps we weren’t aware of that you can reveal now? Were there any Perry Mason moments there?
JM- There was one for me in this trial, and I can say that in all my career there has only been one, and it was in this case. A Perry Mason moment is one where there is a great revelation coming from the witness stand which is undisputed and settles the issues in the case. In this particular prosecution I had I had this knowledge, that the defendant had asked her boyfriend..
(Note: not transcribing this portion about JM putting the gas can puzzle pieces together, and his explanation of the significance of the gas cans evidence (that it demonstrated premed) as he’s said the same thing in his book, and in most his other interviews.
The full gas cans section runs from 15:40 to about 18:10 or so. Picking up towards the end of that…
JM- (She had) enough gas to get her through AZ undetected, so that she could look at anybody and say, I was never in AZ, knowing full well, couldn’t prove it, because she hadn’t stopped anywhere for gas, which is something that was necessary. Except, I knew about it.
(Describes what she knew when she took the stand, and that she didn’t know he knew about the 3rd can, his challenge to her on the stand--and his Perry Mason moment-- if no 3rd gas can, then how was it you used one in SLC? (17:53)
(… so, she looked at me for a moment as if she didn’t know what to do. But as I’ve said, she was always resourceful, and so she said, I was never in SLC. Although I had the receipt to prove she had been there. It was undisputable, and it was at that point it was clear that JA would never tell the truth even if she was confronted by incontrovertible evidence.
I suspect we could analogize it by saying the sun rises in the east, and she would talk about the earth’s curvature, and whether or not it was winter or spring as to where the sun rose.
T- That’s the truth, you’re right, she would never ever tell the truth. You could have a videotape of her doing something and she would deny it. It’s that crazy.
Which leads me to JA herself. I don’t know how much you got into the actual diagnosis of JA, but don’t you think she has some kind of personality disorder? Was that ever revealed to you in any psychological testing?
JM- Yes, the expert I retained, Dr. DeMarte, diagnosed her with something called BPD. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t know right from wrong, or that’s she’s not intelligent, it just means the way she resolves conflict is something, that leaves something to be desired. For example, she reacts in a childish fashion. In our case, with regard to Mr. Alexander, she wanted him to be with her so she switched religions. Those sorts of things. It’s sort of her coping skills that are described by this BPD. (19:40).
And being a BPD person, I’m sure a lot of you out there, and you, MrM, you must run into this all the time with your job, basically, if you know a person that whatever group they are involved with...wherever they go, they cause trouble, they’re lying, people are talking about each other behind their back, it’s total chaos. That can be a sign of a BPD, and that’s what JA did. She created all kinds of chaos and problems not just for Travis, but for the people in Travis’s life as well. (20:16).
Next: the sidebars…..
T-Let’s jump back to the actual events that happened on June 4. Was there any evidence that wasn’t presented at trial because you couldn’t, or because it was just too much, is there anything you can tell us now that wasn’t presented?
JM-No, not really. You know, in every case that you have, and in especially with this type of investigation, this was the most voluminous, I mean, the most in-depth investigation that I’ve ever been associated with. So that there is so much out there, that you can always say that about every case, that I didn’t present this, I didn’t present that.
And that was true about this case. So I can’t say there was something out there I thought, oooh, I really want to be included as part of the record that I..somehow there was a ruling and I didn’t get that in. It wasn’t like that at all. My focus always was on showing that she had planned, and beyond that, had premeditated the murder, so that, um, I always sort of focused on that, and, I know there were some comments, for example, that were made by acquaintances of Mr. Alexander that were made at the scene where they called her a stalker and were claiming that sort of thing, but in and of itself that didn’t prove much, and it sort of went to character, and I didn’t want to get into that.
I just wanted to get into the facts and show what it is she did, because it was much more powerful to show that she had stabbed him approximately 29 times, slit his throat, then shot him in the face than to start talking about what kind of person she was. At that point, I didn’t care. (13:19)
T. Well, there you go, exactly. Just putting it into those few quick sentences really paints a picture of what an animal JA is.
T- So, are you saying in retrospect there really isn’t anything you’d do differently?
JM- No, I can’t think that there is. Part of it is, its just a philosophy I have when it comes to cases and perhaps with regard to life. If I were to spend my life thinking about things I could have done differently, that would be living in the past, and I don’t offer advice to other people because I don’t know their circumstances, but if there is any advice I could give to perhaps your listeners, yes-to take a look at the past every now and again, but you can’t live there, you have to be in the present and look to the future, and you’ll be much more successful that way than to worry constantly or look back and say, I should have done this, I should have done that.
T- That’s great advice, actually. Travis’s family, I mean, our hearts were broken for them. Are you in communication with them, and, if you are, are they upset about the book, are they supportive, what is their position? If you know.
JM- I’m not in contact with them TOO much, um, I haven’t spoken with them in quite some time, but I know through their lawyer that there was never an indication that there was any opposition to the book. They knew about it. I let every one of them know I was going to write the book. (14:50).
T- Now, we all watched the trial on TV. I’m sure everyone listening to this at some point gave up hours and hours of their life to watch it. What is a Perry Mason moment that we perhaps we weren’t aware of that you can reveal now? Were there any Perry Mason moments there?
JM- There was one for me in this trial, and I can say that in all my career there has only been one, and it was in this case. A Perry Mason moment is one where there is a great revelation coming from the witness stand which is undisputed and settles the issues in the case. In this particular prosecution I had I had this knowledge, that the defendant had asked her boyfriend..
(Note: not transcribing this portion about JM putting the gas can puzzle pieces together, and his explanation of the significance of the gas cans evidence (that it demonstrated premed) as he’s said the same thing in his book, and in most his other interviews.
The full gas cans section runs from 15:40 to about 18:10 or so. Picking up towards the end of that…
JM- (She had) enough gas to get her through AZ undetected, so that she could look at anybody and say, I was never in AZ, knowing full well, couldn’t prove it, because she hadn’t stopped anywhere for gas, which is something that was necessary. Except, I knew about it.
(Describes what she knew when she took the stand, and that she didn’t know he knew about the 3rd can, his challenge to her on the stand--and his Perry Mason moment-- if no 3rd gas can, then how was it you used one in SLC? (17:53)
(…
so, she looked at me for a moment as if she didn’t know what to do. But as I’ve said, she was always resourceful, and so she said, I was never in SLC. Although I had the receipt to prove she had been there. It was undisputable, and it was at that point it was clear that JA would never tell the truth even if she was confronted by incontrovertible evidence. I suspect we could analogize it by saying the sun rises in the east, and she would talk about the earth’s curvature, and whether or not it was winter or spring as to where the sun rose.
T- That’s the truth, you’re right, she would never ever tell the truth. You could have a videotape of her doing something and she would deny it. It’s that crazy.
Which leads me to JA herself. I don’t know how much you got into the actual diagnosis of JA, but don’t you think she has some kind of personality disorder? Was that ever revealed to you in any psychological testing?
JM- Yes, the expert I retained, Dr. DeMarte, diagnosed her with something called BPD. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t know right from wrong, or that’s she’s not intelligent, it just means the way she resolves conflict is something, that leaves something to be desired. For example, she reacts in a childish fashion. In our case, with regard to Mr. Alexander, she wanted him to be with her so she switched religions. Those sorts of things. It’s sort of her coping skills that are described by this BPD. (19:40).
And being a BPD person, I’m sure a lot of you out there, and you, MrM, you must run into this all the time with your job, basically, if you know a person that whatever group they are involved with...wherever they go, they cause trouble, they’re lying, people are talking about each other behind their back, it’s total chaos. That can be a sign of a BPD, and that’s what JA did. She created all kinds of chaos and problems not just for Travis, but for the people in Travis’s life as well. (20:16).
Next: the sidebars…..
Nosey Parker
A Brit in Canada
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,335
- Reaction score
- 25
Thank you sooo much for doing this Hope, and all the other time you have donated to WS, transcribing texts, etc. You are such a generous person (and smart too :heart.
.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 28,813
- Reaction score
- 43,681
Yes Hope, Thank you. The help you gave me was invaluable. It's not easy typing transcripts so thank you for taking the time so others can enjoy the interview.Thank you sooo much for doing this Hope, and all the other time you have donated to WS, transcribing texts, etc. You are such a generous person (and smart too :heart
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,920
- Reaction score
- 42,009
I heard part of it and will be checking it out again now that it's archived. Thanks for posting your transcription!
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION, PART 3. (20:16- 29:36 )
T- Let’s talk about the sidebars. There seem to have been an awful lot of sidebars. And, it appears that the judge really bent over backwards for the defense. What do you say to that?
JM- Well, there were plenty of sidebars, and they were necessary, because there were issues of law that needed to be discussed. The judge did what her job was, which was to rule on issues involving the evidence, and whether or not something would be introduced or not, so I have no criticism of it. I have nothing but high praise for the way the trial was run, although she doesn’t need that, she doesn’t need to hear that from me. So, I can’t say I have any criticism of how the judge may or may not have ruled. (21:05)
T- Did the prosecution ever use social media to its advantage during the actual trial? Twitter, FB, Websleuths, anything along those lines?
JM: I will say that I do not own a computer, so I can say that’s not something that I used to my advantage. It was something I was aware of, and that if something came up or an issue was raised that involved SM I would have people research that issue, but I myself would not do it.
T- OK, I’m going to bring you into the 21st century sometime in my life, Mr.M (JM laughs, heartily), I swear it’s my goal. (21:51)
(brief break, T encourages book again)
T- Mr. Martinez, again, so many questions to get to, and I’m going to run through as many as we can right now. And I want to thank a lot of WS members, Hope4More, Audrey, Hatfield, Snow Hughes, PocketAccent…who provided this great question. And this is the detail that our members get into as far as the JA case.
Now, JA stopped at CVS in Pasadena on June 3, 2008, and during the trial you folded the CVS receipt in half so we couldn’t see any details on the receipt. You stated in your book she purchased OTC medicines and water. What kind of medicine did she purchase? Now, the guesses that they have come up with have been condoms, KY, NoDoze, Benadryl, it runs the gamut (JM laughs, heartily, as Tricia names the guesses). Now, can you let us know what she purchased? (23:21)
JM- Yes, it was just an OTC pain-type of medication. That’s it. And since they weren’t important to the case, the reason why I folded it was so we could focus on the date and time, and not be worried about something I considered to be inconsequential.
T- There you go. Thank you. OK, Well that settles that, everybody.
(Note to Tricia: LOL. If you believe that, you obviously haven’t visited the JA threads often enough.).
There weren’t any condoms or anything like that. Just plain old medicine.
T- Let’s talk about these jailhouse messages. The story of her secret jailhouse messages. What’s behind all of that?
JM- Well, actually, from my perspective that was actually one of the more interesting aspects of the case. At that time there were some letters, it was being debated as to who had been the author of those letters. The defendant alleged that Travis Alexander had written them. It was my position, based on my review, and I’m not a handwriting expert, but I had seen some of his other writing, and the way that he wrote them. They were probably not written by him.
And so I had gone to the jail after I had seen a number of things that the jail personnel had confiscated from her during searches. So I went back to see if they had anything else, and as I sat out there with the intelligence office who was assisting me, we were just sitting there talking in the waiting area.
And, an individual that I recognized from court that always showed up and that supported Arias throughout the trial, and who would show up at pre-trial hearings, walked in. She walked to sign in, and as she walked to sign in, she looked to my left, and, she saw me. And one of the things that caught my eye was that she looked at me, and sort of held my gaze, and kind of smirked at me, and then continued on with what she was doing.
And experience has taught me that when somebody does that sort of thing, it’s just body language, I’m not saying that I’m right all of the time, nobody is, but it occurred to me that she was up to something. So I turned to the officer there and said, you know, they’re doing something. And I may have used an expletive (Tricia: No! really? Tricia and JM chuckle together); they’re up to something, but there’s not a darn thing we can do about it. There’s just nothing we can do about it.
I don’t know if it was a result of that, or perhaps they were watching anyway, but when this visitor got in to visit Arias, Arias, as required by policy, wanted to turn over a couple of magazines over to this woman. And as required by policy, she had to turn them over to the guards first, so they could inspect it, to make sure there wasn’t any contraband there.
Initially, they looked through them, and nothing fell out, so there was no contraband. And they looked at them in the office where the lighting wasn’t that good, and they didn’t see anything. So they turned the light on a little more and still couldn’t see anything. Finally, they took the magazines over to another room before they were turned over to this other person, and in looking at them in a better light, they noticed they were in pencil. And, what’s interesting is that inmates are only allowed what are pencils; they look like golf pencils, that’s how big they are, and they don’t have erasers, and so in pencil Arias had written certain messages. (26:44).
And she was attempting to turn those magazines over to a visitor, and each of the magazines had been addressed to her by the publisher at the Maricopa County jail. And, the messages were in random order, and all over the page. And so when they wrote them down, they really didn’t make sense. The first one was “you messed up.” Well, she used a different word for messed up, but, you messed up, That’s the first one we saw. So we put them together, but it still didn’t make sense.
There was another magazine, a second magazine, and when we looked at the last pages…and. when I said” we,” I really had nothing to do with it. They were the ones that actually did all this work. Because when they showed them to me after they had done all the work, I still didn’t know what they were talking about, that’s how well hidden they were.
T- WOW.
JM- What they finally showed me on the last page of the second magazine, there were page numbers, in a coded fashion, and when they put the pages together in the order that was presented in the second magazine, it made a message. And the message was-you messed up -or words to that affect, you need to come see me ASAP so we can straighten out what you said, because it contradicts what I’ve been saying to my attorney for over a year.
T- Oh, wow.
JM- So, clearly she was attempting to influence someone outside, so they could tailor their testimony to something she’d been saying for over a year. If she was telling the truth, then why would she need someone to tailor their testimony?
T- Of course she wouldn’t.
JM- Right, so that was really very interesting, not only the way they were found; quite frankly, Providence intervened, I just happened to be there, and then the good police work that was done, and because of that we were able that show, once again, she wasn’t going to sit pat with the hand that she had been dealt with, that maybe, perhaps, she was going to try to fudge it a little bit.
T – And that is another quality, if you will, of a borderline personality. They’re never wrong. And everything they do is correct, to hell with the rules, they have to get what THEY want, because it’s what they want, and therefore it should be OK.
It’s amazing to watch her try to control things, when she has absolutely no control, other than what she did, which was to murder Travis Alexander.
(break, Tricia indicates one more segment will follow, with more questions answered, asks JM to think about this question for when they resume:
What evidence was considered too prejudicial to be admitted, and thus was never allowed into trial, and why? (29:36).
T- Let’s talk about the sidebars. There seem to have been an awful lot of sidebars. And, it appears that the judge really bent over backwards for the defense. What do you say to that?
JM- Well, there were plenty of sidebars, and they were necessary, because there were issues of law that needed to be discussed. The judge did what her job was, which was to rule on issues involving the evidence, and whether or not something would be introduced or not, so I have no criticism of it. I have nothing but high praise for the way the trial was run, although she doesn’t need that, she doesn’t need to hear that from me. So, I can’t say I have any criticism of how the judge may or may not have ruled. (21:05)
T- Did the prosecution ever use social media to its advantage during the actual trial? Twitter, FB, Websleuths, anything along those lines?
JM: I will say that I do not own a computer, so I can say that’s not something that I used to my advantage. It was something I was aware of, and that if something came up or an issue was raised that involved SM I would have people research that issue, but I myself would not do it.
T- OK, I’m going to bring you into the 21st century sometime in my life, Mr.M (JM laughs, heartily), I swear it’s my goal. (21:51)
(brief break, T encourages book again)
T- Mr. Martinez, again, so many questions to get to, and I’m going to run through as many as we can right now. And I want to thank a lot of WS members, Hope4More, Audrey, Hatfield, Snow Hughes, PocketAccent…who provided this great question. And this is the detail that our members get into as far as the JA case.
Now, JA stopped at CVS in Pasadena on June 3, 2008, and during the trial you folded the CVS receipt in half so we couldn’t see any details on the receipt. You stated in your book she purchased OTC medicines and water. What kind of medicine did she purchase? Now, the guesses that they have come up with have been condoms, KY, NoDoze, Benadryl, it runs the gamut (JM laughs, heartily, as Tricia names the guesses). Now, can you let us know what she purchased? (23:21)
JM- Yes, it was just an OTC pain-type of medication. That’s it. And since they weren’t important to the case, the reason why I folded it was so we could focus on the date and time, and not be worried about something I considered to be inconsequential.
T- There you go. Thank you. OK, Well that settles that, everybody.
(Note to Tricia: LOL. If you believe that, you obviously haven’t visited the JA threads often enough.
).There weren’t any condoms or anything like that. Just plain old medicine.
T- Let’s talk about these jailhouse messages. The story of her secret jailhouse messages. What’s behind all of that?
JM- Well, actually, from my perspective that was actually one of the more interesting aspects of the case. At that time there were some letters, it was being debated as to who had been the author of those letters. The defendant alleged that Travis Alexander had written them. It was my position, based on my review, and I’m not a handwriting expert, but I had seen some of his other writing, and the way that he wrote them. They were probably not written by him.
And so I had gone to the jail after I had seen a number of things that the jail personnel had confiscated from her during searches. So I went back to see if they had anything else, and as I sat out there with the intelligence office who was assisting me, we were just sitting there talking in the waiting area.
And, an individual that I recognized from court that always showed up and that supported Arias throughout the trial, and who would show up at pre-trial hearings, walked in. She walked to sign in, and as she walked to sign in, she looked to my left, and, she saw me. And one of the things that caught my eye was that she looked at me, and sort of held my gaze, and kind of smirked at me, and then continued on with what she was doing.
And experience has taught me that when somebody does that sort of thing, it’s just body language, I’m not saying that I’m right all of the time, nobody is, but it occurred to me that she was up to something. So I turned to the officer there and said, you know, they’re doing something. And I may have used an expletive (Tricia: No! really? Tricia and JM chuckle together); they’re up to something, but there’s not a darn thing we can do about it. There’s just nothing we can do about it.
I don’t know if it was a result of that, or perhaps they were watching anyway, but when this visitor got in to visit Arias, Arias, as required by policy, wanted to turn over a couple of magazines over to this woman. And as required by policy, she had to turn them over to the guards first, so they could inspect it, to make sure there wasn’t any contraband there.
Initially, they looked through them, and nothing fell out, so there was no contraband. And they looked at them in the office where the lighting wasn’t that good, and they didn’t see anything. So they turned the light on a little more and still couldn’t see anything. Finally, they took the magazines over to another room before they were turned over to this other person, and in looking at them in a better light, they noticed they were in pencil. And, what’s interesting is that inmates are only allowed what are pencils; they look like golf pencils, that’s how big they are, and they don’t have erasers, and so in pencil Arias had written certain messages. (26:44).
And she was attempting to turn those magazines over to a visitor, and each of the magazines had been addressed to her by the publisher at the Maricopa County jail. And, the messages were in random order, and all over the page. And so when they wrote them down, they really didn’t make sense. The first one was “you messed up.” Well, she used a different word for messed up, but, you messed up, That’s the first one we saw. So we put them together, but it still didn’t make sense.
There was another magazine, a second magazine, and when we looked at the last pages…and. when I said” we,” I really had nothing to do with it. They were the ones that actually did all this work. Because when they showed them to me after they had done all the work, I still didn’t know what they were talking about, that’s how well hidden they were.
T- WOW.
JM- What they finally showed me on the last page of the second magazine, there were page numbers, in a coded fashion, and when they put the pages together in the order that was presented in the second magazine, it made a message. And the message was-you messed up -or words to that affect, you need to come see me ASAP so we can straighten out what you said, because it contradicts what I’ve been saying to my attorney for over a year.
T- Oh, wow.
JM- So, clearly she was attempting to influence someone outside, so they could tailor their testimony to something she’d been saying for over a year. If she was telling the truth, then why would she need someone to tailor their testimony?
T- Of course she wouldn’t.
JM- Right, so that was really very interesting, not only the way they were found; quite frankly, Providence intervened, I just happened to be there, and then the good police work that was done, and because of that we were able that show, once again, she wasn’t going to sit pat with the hand that she had been dealt with, that maybe, perhaps, she was going to try to fudge it a little bit.
T – And that is another quality, if you will, of a borderline personality. They’re never wrong. And everything they do is correct, to hell with the rules, they have to get what THEY want, because it’s what they want, and therefore it should be OK.
It’s amazing to watch her try to control things, when she has absolutely no control, other than what she did, which was to murder Travis Alexander.
(break, Tricia indicates one more segment will follow, with more questions answered, asks JM to think about this question for when they resume:
What evidence was considered too prejudicial to be admitted, and thus was never allowed into trial, and why? (29:36).
Well, it's giving me a good excuse to spend more quality time with JM.
Seriously, though, what a great reply to the coded magazine question!! JM gave more (fascinating) detail in this interview than he has ever given, anywhere else.
Seriously, though, what a great reply to the coded magazine question!! JM gave more (fascinating) detail in this interview than he has ever given, anywhere else.
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,920
- Reaction score
- 42,009
Well, it's giving me a good excuse to spend more quality time with JM.
Seriously, though, what a great reply to the coded magazine question!! JM gave more (fascinating) detail in this interview than he has ever given, anywhere else.
I have to say, this is probably the best WS show ever. The questions submitted for this program were impressive and Juan did not miss a beat.
Wing Ding
Trial Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 770
- Reaction score
- 298
Well? WELL???
That's the one and only thing I've ever really, really wanted to know since her sentencing. Even more than any of the sealed stuff. And the answer is...??? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller?
I'm down to the last 7 minutes of interview, have covered the prejudicial question , am on when she began planning to murder Travis. Will post part 4 in about an hour.
pocketaccent
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,119
- Reaction score
- 18,891
I agree. Thanks button is not enough.:cupcake::yourock::heartbeat::thewave::bowdown:
Thank you Hope4More for all you do!
Wing Ding
Trial Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 770
- Reaction score
- 298
I'm down to the last 7 minutes of interview, have covered the prejudicial question , am on when she began planning to murder Travis. Will post part 4 in about an hour.
I see. I've fallen so far behind lately that I don't know what is what, or if there's a link to that or where that link may or may not be.
Thanks so much, Hope, for all of the work you do for those like me who might still be out here in the weeds trying to solve a problem like Jodi. Your hard work IS appreciated.
#WeedsMatterToo
Edited to add: thanks to some recent posts on the subject, I can safely assume Arias never registered her Goddess-mobile in Arizona (too much time, money and trouble to spend just for a new license, registration and insurance). So even if she began plotting her pre-meditation as early as April as she crossed the Arizona/California state line on her way back to lovely Yreka, she wouldn't have had any Arizona plates to use when she returned to kill. I always assumed she "borrowed" a set of Arizona plates from another car once she crossed the state line back into Arizona, but maybe she already had a second set of California plates at the ready for the plate switch-a-roo.
coeurfragile
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 747
- Reaction score
- 50
I did enjoy the program, but Mr. Martinez is such a professional that I knew we wouldn't get much out of him that he hasn't already said [emoji12] I would like to know about any prejudicial items that couldn't come in (he didn't really answer that question, just pointed out he wouldn't have brought in the sex tape). I feel he may have a lot more to say once the lying murderess' appeals are exhausted.