Talk:Murder of Travis Alexander/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jurors

I may be seeing this incorrectly or not calculating it right in my head (I have some brain damage) BUT, If there were 12 Jurors, why does this say "On April 12, "Juror 11" was excused for health reasons, leaving the jury with "eleven men and six women"?? Does that include the Jurors that were excused or something? Sincerely, Marie H Peoria, AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.190.59 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There were more than twelve jurors. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay that is where I was confused. The article says there were 12. I know the verdict read and asking of each juror came out to be 18 also. THANK YOU for the answer.  :)

I think that there were 18 jurors in total (that is, 12 who would eventually serve as the "real" jurors and an "extra pool" of six alternate jurors, just in case more were needed as the 12 got whittled down for various reasons). Eventually, three were removed, leaving a total of 15. From that 15, 12 served as jurors; the extra three alternates were not needed and were not utilized. I think (but am not 100% sure) that this was the course of events. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds right to me... good memory. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of stab wounds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the current article makes clear the number of stab wounds is a matter of considerable dispute. I should state my non-neutral POV here, which is that based on the autopsy report, photographs, Horn's testimony that the back wounds were "shallow" and the generally accepted definition of a stab wound being deeper than it is wide, the number of stab wounds was in fact just three. Now, I know perfectly well that news reports do not support this number, but I expect that in time some news or opinion organisation will pick up on this, and there may be eventually be reports of just three stab wounds. I simply want to track how the number comes down over time. In the mean time, the article should reflect the different news reports that exist, and make it clear that these are reports, not facts. Geebee2 (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, new to this article, but with the NPOV flag, I thought it would be fun to add in reaching consensus on certain issues in the air. I agree with Geebee2 on this one. There is some dispute about number of stab wounds vs. lacerations. I thinks that his content changes are more factual for now. My concern with the change is that, you left out phrasing that it is unclear from the diverging media sources exactly how many stab wounds the victim sustained. I think if you add this it will be helpful, or if it is agreed, I can add it.Gray106 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add it. I am reluctant to make edits myself, as my neutrality has been questioned. Geebee2 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, the neutrality tag was actually placed on the article by an editor who felt the naming of the article was not a neutral point of view choice. We're still sorting that out. If either of you have any interest or want to contribute your two cents to what the article name should be, please check out the section Talk:Killing of_Travis Alexander#Rename above. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just three stab wounds? Bogus! Geebee2, I'm fed up with your biased, irrational editing of this article. It's been proven on this talk page that you are a die-hard Jodi Arias supporter who will bias/misrepresent sources and remove reliable sources to cast Arias in a better light. I already had to revert the hatchet job you did to this article. Now I and others have had to revert or tone down the vague "more than 20" piece you keep adding.[1][2] Saying "more than 20" is what sources say when they don't clarify that they mean "27" or "29," which are the number of stab wounds that most sources report Alexander to have received. That is not "considerable dispute." The sources are not debating the number of stab wounds. The sources are mostly reporting one or the other, 27 or 29. Even HLN, who report that Alexander was stabbed 29 times, sometimes say "more than 20 times." But your use of "more than 20" is a transparent way of trying to artifically cast doubt on the number of stab wounds. Similarly, using the word "many" for "27," but not for "29," when just as many sources (maybe more) have reported "29," is your way of trying to make it look like the lesser number "27" is reported a lot more than "29" regarding Alexander's stab wounds. Previously on this talk page, I brought up how "29" is the number reported in the autopsy report, which does make it the official number. There's no good/rationale reason to use the vague "more than 20" text, when the autopsy report is not vague about the number of stab woubs and most sources say either "27 or "29." The way that you have included "more than 20" is misleading and WP:UNDUE. You apparently haven't read WP:UNDUE. You need to read it because that is exactly what you are doing by the way you have added "more than 20."

AzureCitizen, if we're talking about the same editor who started the "NPV Issue" section higher up, his issue with the title is that he believes that Jodi Arias should have her own article. Read what he said in that section. That is a totally bogus reason to add the neutrality tag to the article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My analysis of the autopsy report is as follows:

1 deep incised wound to the neck ( slit throat ) 1 deep stab wound to the chest ( 3.5 inches deep, 1.5 inches wide ) 2 other stab wounds to the chest 5 incised "defensive" wounds to the hands 12 shallow wounds to the back and neck - chop or slash wounds 2 incised scalp wounds 2 roughly triangular defects of the right and left portions of the skull calvarium corresponding to these scalp wounds 1 other incised scalp wound of the head 1 deep incised chest wound 2 incised wounds to the right shoulder 1 "blunt" wound to the neck. The well-accepted definition of stab wound (as per Horn's testimony) is a wound that is deeper than it is wide. On this basis there were just 3 stab wounds. Geebee2 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Though this section was closed by Darkness Shines, I edited it to fix Geebee2 cutting my comment in half, and to reply. Geebee2, your analysis doesn't matter. And, anyhoo, Horn has said that there are 29 stab wounds. Your "more than 20" addition is bogus, per above. And you were just reverted by another editor after I reverted you.[3] Stop crapping over things to advance your pro-Jodi view. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So you think mouthing obscenities and shutting discussion down is a way to win an argument? Do you have an anger management problem Jerk1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is material about post verdict interview with Arias not included?

Why is the material about post verdict interview, by Fox News, with Arias not included? It was there last week and is now removed. Would it not be a major item in the media section. With a summery of her comments.

If you think material should be included in the article, try writing it up, and posting it here on the Talk Page. If it fits, editors will make sure it gets put in. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree, it must be included as it directly impacted the timing of the aggravation phase and resulted (per reports on HLN and elsewhere) in Arias being put on suicide watch. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

it is not so urgent that anyone will die if it is not entered in the next 5 minutes, or hour, or week. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not obvious, but what about Jodi? if this might have influenced the hung jury somehow, there is evidence they use the internet during the trial to keep up with things. Anyway, would you like to do the restoration, everything I restore gets ruthlessly removed again, so no point me doing it.Geebee2 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Aggravation phase result

Just seen on the news today that the result of the aggravation phase was that the murder was with cruelty and that it will move onto the penalty phase where she could be put of for the death penalty if the jurors vote unanimously for the death penalty. May want to add this at the end of the Trial section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.63.218 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Media circus" reference in the lead

The paragraph about the "media circus" in the lead is compromised by the use of weasel wording, lack of sourcing, and the fact it is not discussed in the actual media section. Needs revision or removal per WP:NPOV. I personally agree that it was, but NPOV demands such statements be backed up by cited facts. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"the entire case devolved into a circus-like spectacle " is right there with sources in the media section... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the redundancy from the lead.[4][5][6] We shouldn't mention twice in the lead that the case attracted a lot of media attention. And I removed "trial by media" because it's not supported by info in the media section (when, per WP:LEAD, it should be), is non-neutral because it suggests that that's why Jodi Arias was convicted of murder, and it exists already in the see also section. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2013

Title and cause of death throughout article should now be changed from "killing of Travis Alexander" to "Murder of Travis Alexander" now that a conviction has been returned. 173.166.20.11 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. The murder conviction is already in the article. His cause of death is already described and those facts don't change because of the conviction. RudolfRed (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The original poster is asking for the title of the article to be changed. To the original poster, please see this exact topic being discussed above (on this Talk Page, in the section entitled "Rename"). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Locks of Love

Please add that she would contribute to society if given a life sentence by donating her hair to locks of love. Under "trial" it states at the end "On May 21, 2013, Arias pleaded for a life sentence, contradicting earlier statements that she preferred the death sentence, claiming that she would improve society if she were to live by implementing recycling in prisons, and would make donations to victims of domestic abuse" but no mention of donating her hair. 71.51.178.143 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the reference to Locks of Love. I looked the reference from USA Today, and it only mentions that "would sell her hair to charity while in prison" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcclos (talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The referenced article [7] states "She also said she would SELL her hair to charity while in prison, and had already done so three times while in jail." However, this was not true, in her allocution she clearly stated she would DONATE her hair to charity ( [8] 6 minutes 20 seconds in ). How should this be resolved?Geebee2 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made the substitution "sell" => "donate" given the clear primary evidence, and that following the link, we find "The organization accepts donations of human hair and money..."Geebee2 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Defense Counsel payment

My limited research suggests that Ms. Arias primary trial counsel was not a Public Defender at the time of trial (and well before trial), and that her attorneys have not been paid $1.4M. I think she has court appointed counsel as her primary defender, with a Public Defender attorney as second fiddle. And I think the entire defense effort (experts, etc.) has amounted to a $1.4M tab. In short, I think the assertion that the Public Defender has been paid $1.4M is doubly inaccurate; they are secondary to the defense, and her defense attorneys combined have not been paid (or billed) $1.4M.Eggioto (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened is set out in this minute entry - [9]Geebee2 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Social media

I propose a section on the social media aspects of the trial. This would cover the various supporter sites, facebook, twitter and perhaps the "electronic" warfare that was waged (perhaps not a good description), amazon reviews, etc. I'm not sure yet how this will be sourced, it may be a bit early, this is just advance notice. Geebee2 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. Per RS GNG BLP and a host of others, if you have a supporter site (though how anyone can support her is beyond me) which is sourced to a reliable source then maybe, but you then need to take into account DUE weight. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean based on articles like this [10] Arias has hundreds of supporters (my site alone has 45 members as of now), but they have been heavily outgunned by many thousands of HLN viewers and the Time Warner brands, amateurs versus professionals, David and Goliath, if you will. It may not mention specific sites.Geebee2 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly that JodiAriasisinnocent.com is not a viable source. The Social Media section has a 'quote' from a 'supporter' linked from this site, again an unreliable source. The individual quoted has no credibility. Furthermore this section speaking to the 'negative treatment' or 'threats' of supports shows only one side of the social media aspects of the trial. Should this quote and/or the link to this site remain there needs to be information demonstrating the other side of the coin, ie the treatment of pro-Travis supporters. Should 'negative' behavior be displayed from the 'pro-travis' camp, the 'negative behavior' from the 'pro-jodi' camp should also be shown. I will remove this section again if there are no issues. Wanderingchilde (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No jury is going to convict me ...

I feel this is given undue prominence in the current article. I don't propose a remedy at this point, just ask that this should be considered.Geebee2 (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved by edits to the trial section.Geebee2 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an important facet of the article. It should not be removed. Please restore it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that it is still there in the media section, so has not been removed entirely, just prominence reduced. I know that 48 hours have commented that it is the first time one of their programs was used as evidence in court, so that seems notable, will think about how to incorporate that. I believe that the media section is the appropriate location for thisGeebee2 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Have incorporated info about 48 hours being using as evidence. Having trouble finding secondary reference for Inside Edition stuff beyond the quoteGeebee2 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have also restored detail about early Arias testimony. I have not yet restored this: <<However, upon cross-examination, the prosecution countered that Arias's statement in the original interview was that "no jury is going to convict me ... because I am innocent".>> this was apparently unsourced, and if it is to be included, it should perhaps be in a section on cross examination. My POV is the article should concentrate on issues that survived to closing arguments, and I don't believe this is such an issue, I'm not sure.Geebee2 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree. She gave the interview. That speaks for itself. In the interview, she claimed that "no jury will convict me". The defense "spin" on it is her claim that what she meant was her intended suicide. The prosecution "spin" on it is that she specified her innocence in making the original claim. In order to maintain NPOV, we cannot present solely the defense version, explaining the quote away. We have to include the prosecution counterargument to her claim. We can't include one, while excluding the other. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing the prosecution side, while presenting only Arias's version. The appropriate procedure is to request a source, not to delete information. Particularly, information that is hardly in dispute. Please stop being POV in pushing the Arias defense agenda, while trying to minimize the prosecution side. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see new talk section below "The Trial". The problem is finding a reliable source, but I will have a look. Geebee2 (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, using HLN source. Ok? Geebee2 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that appears fine. It is more impartial, more balanced, and more neutral. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PS I was attempting to follow the header of the talk page which says : "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.", but apologies if I erred in protocol.Geebee2 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we need to adhere to the header. Correct. However, the "warning" in the header refers to contentious material. That the prosecutor made these comments in open court as part of his case is not in contention at all. We all agree that he did that. Also, the header refers to (potentially) libelous material. Again, a prosecutor's arguments in favor of his case in open (public) court do not amount to (potential) libel. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, as the "reliable" source showed, the prosecutor did not make a statement in open court, he showed a video, again. Thus it was not the semantic point that was contentious, but the way in which you were presenting it, without giving a reference. I was erring on the side of safety, as the header seems to encourage.Geebee2 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, citing a reference is good (and it is certainly better than deleting the information). This is why I added the "citation needed" tag to that statement in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro. I'm so tired of your crap, Geebee2. You shouldn't even be writing this article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No jury is going to convict me ... part 2

So, where is this stuff in the article? It keeps getting added, deleted, added, deleted, and so on? We need to agree that either it stays or it goes. Which, I thought, we agreed that it stays. Where is it now? Where does it keep going to? Why does it keep disappearing? Who keeps deleting it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, theoldsparkle did a big cleanup 18:40, 28 May 2013‎. It looked at pretty good job, there were some things I would object to ( some significant semantic content lost re surrebuttal ), but generally I think he did a good job, looked like a very experienced editor so I didn't oppose any of it. Check the history of that clean up.Geebee2 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I didn't have time to look through the history and edit logs. I just happened to notice that the info was gone. So, I posted that message above. Thanks for the info. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As Geebee2 said, I cleaned up part of the article on May 28, mostly to try to organize the information better. I'm happy to discuss anything I removed or any of the other changes I made. If I understand correctly, your objection here is about my removal of this:

On February 28, Martinez concluded his cross-examination by replaying a television interview in which Arias said, “No jury would convict me,” and she noted that she said this because she was innocent, which contradicted what she said during direct testimony. Arias claimed during direct testimony that she said no jury would convict her because she planned to kill herself before the trial began.[48]

I removed it because when I read it, I thought (focusing on the second sentence) that it was repeating the same information that was included two paragraphs earlier. Looking again, I see that there's an issue with the prosecution and defense disagreeing on the meaning of Arias' words, which may be worth including, but I'm still not sure I understand. Is this the correct course of events?:

1. Arias says in an interview that "no jury would convict me."
2. In court, Arias says that she lied to police about her involvement because she was going to kill herself and thus did not fear the consequences of lying.
3. In court, prosecution plays the interview and says that Arias' meaning was "No jury would convict me, because I am innocent."
4. Arias says her meaning was "No jury would convict me, because I would not be alive long enough to be convicted by a jury."

If this is correct, I don't really see why #1, 3 and 4 are significant enough to discuss here. Everyone's in agreement that Arias lied initially, right? Is the prosecutor's point just to emphasize that she was lying and pretending to be innocent in the interview? For full disclosure, I know almost nothing about this case outside of what I've read here on Wikipedia, which is why I'm motivated to try to ensure that someone like me can come and read about the case and actually understand what they're reading. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, thanks for your efforts in this article. To answer your question ... well, yes and no. Your understanding and synopsis is close, but not quite 100% correct. (Your #2 bullet point above is the most problematic, and contains the most "misunderstanding" on your part.) This is what happened.

1. Before trial, Arias gave a TV interview. She said, "No jury is going to convict me ... because I am innocent. You can mark my words on that."

2. At trial itself, during the defense presentation, Arias said that what she meant (when she said "no jury will convict me") was "I intended to commit suicide. So, I did not plan to be here at trial. So, I did not think there would ever be a jury. That is why I said that no jury will ever convict me." In other words, Arias tried to "explain away" her silly statements from the TV interview, and she used this ridiculous cover story.

3. At trial, during the prosecution presentation, the prosecutor rebutted Arias's statements (in bullet point #2 above) when she said "No jury will convict me because I had intended to kill myself before trial." The prosecutor pointed out that her words in the TV interview actually were: "no jury will convict me because I am innocent." So, the prosecutor was rebutting her silly cover story when she attempted to "explain away" her silly TV interview comments.

That is the gist of what happened in court. Now, on to Wikipedia ...

There were times, in this article, that editors presented Arias's side of the story (that she intended suicide), yet they left out the prosecution rebuttal to that cover story (that she actually said "No jury will convict me, because I am innocent of killing Travis"). Whenever an editor added the defense version of events, I also added in the prosecution’s side of the story. Things kept getting added and deleted. I thought we ultimately decided that: (A) the "no jury will convict me" TV interview and statement was important to the trial and to the story as a whole, and, therefore, to the article; and (B) when presenting the defense version, we needed to also include the prosecution version, to maintain NPOV.

This (above) is what transpired before you did your major cleanup of May 28. Subsequent to your major cleanup, I noticed that the defense version explaining the TV interview was still present, but the prosecution version was eliminated. So, that is the background and "history". Does this clarify matters? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to leave in "the defense version" while eliminating "the prosecution version". My intention was to leave in the first part that said Arias said she was planning to kill herself, while taking out the second part that (to my initial reading) said again, in a longer and more convoluted way, that Arias said she was planning to kill herself. I've now realized that there was another point to the part that I took out, and apparently there's a consensus to keep that point in the article. (Incidentally, the major reason for my confusion was probably that before I edited it, the article quoted Arias' response to Martinez, without mentioning it was a response to Martinez, and then two paragraphs down discussed Martinez asking Arias the question and Arias giving the response. I mean, that's confusing.) I've edited the article again to restore the context for Arias' statement at the trial; I think it now contains pretty much the same info about this that was there before I started editing it. Is the revised version okay? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm protesting! Can I first state what actually happened. Martinez played the video before Arias testified. Arias testified (explaining she planned suicide). AT the end of his cross examination, Martinez played the video again. The article should reflect this. It did at one point, when I first put the cross section in, as requested by Joseph. Please restore to reflect this. Here is a reference for the first time the video was played, on 10 Jan. [11] and here is the source for the cross exam replay [12]. Please review these sources if you don't believe me! Theoldsparkle is correct when he points out this is all rather silly, but Joseph is claiming this is sufficiently notable to include it. I guess we need to reach some kind of consensus here. I'm basically with Theoldsparkle, but I'm also happy to include it as it shows the vacuity of what Martinez really had, viewed objectively.Geebee2 (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into semantics and minutiae. This is my opinion on the matter, which is two-fold. One: The "no jury will ever convict me" statement and TV interview comments are relevant to the case and to the article; they should have some mention within the article. Two: If we mention the defense "spin" (Arias claims that the interview comments "meant" her intended suicide), then we also need to mention the prosecution rebuttal to that claim (i.e., Arias's exact words were "because I am innocent"). We include both or we include neither. Those are my two points. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to 'spin', the neutral word is 'testimony'. I propose <<'On Jan 10, Martinez played an Inside Edition interview with Arias recorded at the Maricopa County Jail in September 2008, when she stated, "No jury is going to convict me ... because I am innocent and you can mark my words on that. No jury is going to convict me." Arias later testified "I had plans to commit suicide. So I was extremely confident that no jury would convict me". At the close of Arias' cross examination, Martinez replayed the video to rebut Arias' claim.>> to be inserted at the appropriate chronological point or points in the Guilt phase section. I nominate Theoldsparkle to carry out the edit, I'm certainly not willing to do it myself given the attacks HaloJerk1 has been making on my good faith.Geebee2 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Joseph A. Spadaro. And if Geebee2 had actually been making good-faith edits, there wouldn't have been any "attacks" on Geebee2's good-faith. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, after another round of feeling very confused about what happened and what everybody wants to say about it, I took another shot at trying to explain the events in a clear fashion. I'll copy it here for convenience:

During Arias' direct testimony, she addressed comments she made in a September 2008 television interview that had been played earlier in the trial. In the interview, Arias had said: "No jury is going to convict me ... because I am innocent. You can mark my words on that." Discussing the statement during her testimony, Arias said, "At the time [of the interview], I had plans to commit suicide. So I was extremely confident that no jury would convict me, because I didn't expect any of you to be here." At the close of his cross-examination of Arias, Martinez replayed the video and affirmed that Arias had said prompted Arias to affirm that she had said during the interview that she would not be convicted because she was innocent.

Is it okay yet? (Also I'll mention now that I am unlikely to be on Wikipedia over the weekend, FYI; if this remains unresolved I'm happy (well, sort of) to keep talking about it on Monday.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty close, but it's Arias that does the affirming, not Martinez. I just checked what was said in court after the video was played[13]: M. And that's you right? A. Yes. M. And that's you saying that not that you're going to not be convicted because you're going to commit suicide or anything like that, isn't it? A. That's correct. M. You're saying that you're innocent, right? A. Yes. M. And you believe that no jury would convict you because you are going to lie your way out of it, right? Objection, argumentative (Nurmi) Sustained. (Arias said No at same time); cross exam moves on. Apologies in advance if posting transcript is not allowed or anything. There is also the possible objection that the text is supported by a primary source rather than by the secondary source?? But I leave that to you. Also, I fail to see why this is notable, there is nothing going on here other than the (I suppose somewhat subtle) distinction between what she said (literally) and the reason she said it (which is that she expected to have committed suicide - left unstated).Geebee2 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

He affirmed it by making her confirm it. I've revised it here and in the article. Frankly I don't really get why it's so desperately important that we say that Martinez played the video a second time and re-stated the quote that we just quoted, but you all are the ones deciding what's important, I'm just trying to make it coherent. Anyway, I'm done for now. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that above wording seems fine to me. It covers all of the points in a clear way, I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree with the wording now. Thanks. Geebee2 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Trial

The defence case (crime scene) is currently not described in any detail ( that she shot him accidentally, he then said "FKYB", after which she remembers nothing ). There should be a news source for this somewhere. If not, I suggest deleting the bit about anal sex and just leaving it as she testified that she killed him in self-defense. Obviously there are difficulties summarizing 18 days of testimony succinctly and in a neutral way, but the current text just doesn't work.Geebee2 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

News sources for the detail of the defence case appear to be minimal to non-existent, so I put in a minimal summary. Geebee2 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Various things outstanding. A section on Arias cross-examination? DeMarte's testimony? Also, some of the most interesting testimony was crammed into the very long day on May 2, especially concerning the gunshot, however I cannot find any secondary references, the longest day seems to have gone largely unreported, perhaps because all the reporters had gone home!?Geebee2 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The minute entry for May 2 is here : [14] Geebee2 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly the highlight of the whole trial for me was when Horn claimed that even though the Autopsy report said the Dura Mater was intact, that was just a typo. But you will never find a secondary source for that, and I guess the jurors had gone to sleep by that time. Try googling for "dura mater typo" you will find loads of "unreliable" sources. That is people who actually watched the trial.Geebee2 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Cost of trial

If this is to be documented, I think it would be better in it's own section. The current cost information disrupts the normal flow of the article as it is read. I don't think the cost is particularly notable in any case, the trial is obviously long and complex, so costs will inevitably be high. A counter-argument might be that the cost may turn out to be unprecedented, and thus notable for that reason. Your views?Geebee2 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Third 5-gallon "gas" can purchased from Walmart

The reference for this is a youtube video clip, with title "Prosecutor Juan Martinez's "Perry Mason" Moment - Busts Jodi Arias For Lying About Gas Cans", which suggests it may not be a reliable source. The text says "Receipts presented at trial also showed that Arias had purchased a third 5-gallon gas can", whereas the receipt actually shows the purchase of a Kerosene Can. I'm not sure what should be done to the article. Geebee2 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For reference (considering the article has a somewhat dubious reference), my research on this is here: ..link removed.. Geebee2 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what I propose is to incorporate the testimony about the third gas can into the Trial. This will take some time, it was introduced in cross-examination, then Amanda Webb testified in the rebuttal phase. I will be using this as a source : [15]. The third gas can, specifically whether it was returned to Walmart was I think the only clear factual issue in the trip to Mesa that Martinez referred to in closing arguments, so it is significant.Geebee2 (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's tricky, because the HLN report on the rebuttal is all screwed up... How the heck could Arias have returned it a week later? Hmmm. Now what.Geebee2 (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I decided to omit the screwed up part.Geebee2 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think the gas can testimony is now properly sourced. Of course Arias did actually return the gas can (IMO), but the defence didn't manage to refute Webb in court. They did file a motion, to preserve this for appeal, but I'm not sure there is any news source for that.Geebee2 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable! The gas can info should be added back. And stop linking to your Jodi Arias website and Wikis, in the article or on the talk page. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok link removed.

Now, the next question is whether it's appropriate to include information about how long the Walmart employee had worked at the store (5 months) and that there had been a major upheaval in 2010. A source for the latter is [16] ( note:"Location: 1800 N. Main St., Salinas, Calif. Formerly located at 1375 N. Davis Road"). This is in my view very notable ( or significant, or whatever the correct word is ). Also that there was no cross examination of the Walmart employee. And there is more... but let's start with this.Geebee2 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced that I must be a complete moron, because I have no idea what the relevance of the gas cans is. That's why I removed the two items about the gas cans from the article when I worked on it last week. I've looked at the citation, at least the one that's in there now, and I still can't figure out what the significance is. Can someone please explain this to me? Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, deep breath, I will try! I should really reference Martinez' closing argument, but for now I will give you an approximation. The prosecution implied that Jodi Arias was attempting to conceal her visit to Mesa (Nurmi called this her "secret mission" in closing arguments, arguing it made no sense). The claim is that she used the gas cans so that she wouldn't need to buy gas, leaving a paper trail. ( The prosecution also pointed to unusual gas purchases at Pasadena and Tessoro, I won't go into that here.) But the upshot is that if she had a third gas can, she could have filled all the cans before leaving Pasadena, and not bought any gas until she got to Mesquite, where she bought an item or items totalling $46.11 ( bank/cc statement ), no evidence this was or was not gas. The defense gave numerous arguments why this idea of a secret mission didn't make sense. One being that this was not an alibi, another that she could have used cash, another that she would always be suspect #1, another that if she needed the third gas can as part of her secret mission, why did she keep the receipt and not chuck it in the bin? Another is that it was a Kerosene can not a gas can, as the receipt clearly shows, which is a different colour, and which gas station staff should not have allowed for putting gas in. Well, it goes on and on. What they did not manage to explain is why the Walmart witness could not find the return, in fact Nurmi mumbled something that wasn't quite right, and seemed a bit lost on this point in closing. After several weeks puzzling over this, I reckon I found the answer, which relates to the Salinas Walmart reorganisation in 2010 (which the jury could not have had any idea about from the trial testimony, I don't think anyone at all knew about this at trial, or at least there is no evidence for that). Phew! Anyway, it was the only really solid piece of evidence for the prosecution by the end of the case (IMO,of course,I know this is very much a minority point of view). I have done a preliminary analysis of closing arguments that supports this idea, which of course I will not reference here, but you may google for Jodi Arias wikispaces. Thus the return of the third gas can is central to the prosecution case, IMO. If she did return it, Martinez' gas can theory collapses, if she didn't, it lives, and proves she lied (but why would she lie,I wrote a commentary on this HuffPost piece "As for the gas can, what was the point in saying she'd returned one and then being contradicted by a witness?". There was a great deal of cross examination, and Martinez argued it strongly in closing arguments, and brought in two rebuttal witnesses (Walmart lady and Tessoro lady) If this all seems surreal to you, the jury foreman would agree.Geebee2 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That evening, at an ARCO gas station in...

This is misleading, because there was a third purchase at ARCO. I'm reluctant to do anything with this whole discovery and investigation section, because it is couched in the language of fact, whereas the "suspicious facts" evolved dynamically during the trial. Moreover these "facts" are stated without giving the defense explanation, which seems unfair. The problem being that without referring to primary sources (which I'm not allowed to do despite the fact that this section DOES refer to primary sources) I may well struggle to find sources for defense explanation. For example Arias testified that she was probably "topping up", as the reason why there were 3 purchases at both ARCO and Tessoro, but I doubt there is any secondary source for that. This illustrates why I find this section fundamentally unfair, it is casting suspicion without allowing a response. So - which is it to be - do we allow primary sources or not? If not, much if this section needs either to be deleted or re-sourced.Geebee2 (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We can bring this back later, but I think one gas issue is probably enough, and the Walmart return was the one argued in closing I believe.Geebee2 (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually both were argued in closing... I should not have implied otherwise, honest mistake.Geebee2 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Level of detail in Trial

Are we going to go to detail level of cross-exam,redirect,juror questions? For each witness? Article may become very long. Perhaps just for Arias. Before doing that, I think the major witnesses for the defense should get some mention (Samuels,LaViolette) I think there could be short sections on rebbuttal,surrebuttal and super-surrebuttal (this last I don't know the technical term).Geebee2 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are only suggesting that to keep details that you don't like out of the article. There are Wikipedia trial articles a lot longer than this one. All of the details can be summarized appropriately without the article being too long. WP:SIZE is the guideline to follow for this, but it's not binding. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Title / Infobox again.

I'd like to raise a comparison with the page on Debra Milke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Milke Until quite recently, her status was a convicted murderer on death row in Arizona. However, she is given a page in her own name, with no infobox (and this has been the case since before recent events). Perhaps it is too early, but at some point I would wish: (a) To have an infobox of type "person" (b) For the page to be renamed "Jodi Arias" or "Trial of Jodi Arias". I believe this is appropriate for a person whose trial is not yet complete, and who has only just starting her appeal process, where her chances of success look excellent.Geebee2 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, and we won't be renaming this article to either of your suggestions. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Who are you claiming to speak for? The last rename had a section "(interested editors, please insert rationales and policy-based arguments here)" which had nothing in it, and despite that, this was the option chosen, which is puzzling. The vote was rather close, and there were also suggestions it would be reviewed later. Please make rational arguments rather than blank assertions.Geebee2 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"We" are the editors who helped form WP:Consensus in the "Rename" section that this article should be titled "Murder of Travis Alexander." The weight of the arguments mostly shouldn't be about votes. That's why WP:VOTE was noted. And Arias doesn't deserve her own article because of WP:BLP1E. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistrials

There were a large number of motions for Counsel for the Defendant Withdraw and for Mistrial, etc. Some had a full hearing, others were denied a hearing, etc. I think this would be best summarised at the start of the appeals section, perhaps a single summary paragraph, something like "During the case, defence attorneys constantly filed for mistrial", giving a list of references ( I think there would be at least 4 or 5, maybe more ). Any objection to this?Geebee2 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Facebook

In the Social Media section, there is a May 28 statement from Facebook about changes to their policies and practices. What does this have to do with the Arias trial and with the murder of Alexander? It seems like it is totally disconnected and has nothing to do with this article at all. If indeed there is some connection, that connection needs to be spelled out more clearly. Thoughts? Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair question. There is a connection, in that I believe a significant number of complaints from Jodi's supporters have contributed to this, and the supporters site has welcomed this development ([17])- I have personally reported a facebook page as being unacceptable, and was turned down. But can I prove it with a "reliable source", I have to concede no. Organisations campaigning for something like this tend not to want to be linked with a figure who has been the target of a lynch mob, and now convicted of 1st degree murder. So I will remove it at least until I can substantiate the connection better, which may well turn out to be impossible.Geebee2 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there is (always) the issue of reliable sources. But also, as I said in the above post: If indeed there is some connection, that connection needs to be spelled out more clearly [in this article]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Conflict of interest editor

"Focus on content and not the contributor" is negated for this subject of Geebee2's editing. Geebee2 has a conflict of interest. She runs jodiariasisinnocent.com, the famed Arias support site, which is bias that has affected Geebee2's editing of this article. Geebee2 biases/misrepresents sources and removes reliable sources to cast Arias in a better light. Several editors have said this. See Geebee2's talk page, how it is at this moment (also showing that Geebee2 biases/misrepresents sources and removes reliable sources to cast other accused or convicted people in a better light),[18] and five sections in particular of this article talk page. These five sections are the "Removal of reliable sources" section (where even Jimbo Wales admonished her), the "Comments on new contributor" section (especially the collapsed comments by 67.10.111.105), the "Restore the article to the condition it was in before its gutting" section, the "Number of stab wounds" section," and the "No jury is going to convict me ..." section. Some recent examples of Geebee2's biased editing: Geebee2 recently removed info about the number plate,[19] info about Arias saying she planned suicide and her comments about anal sex with Alexander (calling it "unbalanced details"),[20] and info about the gas cans and purchases.[21] Geebee2 is also known to add links to her advocacy sites (again look at Geebee2's talk page). Today, I removed Geebee2's link to jodiariasisinnocent.com, which was added to a quote mentioning jodiariasisinnocent.com,[22] and a link Geebee2 added to Arias's Twitter account within a quote.[23] For one, it's Geebee2 promoting. It also doesn't heed WP:External links and WP:Manual of Style#Linking.

Since Geebee2 has repeatedly shown that she can't edit this article neutrally, I propose that Geebee2 be restricted from editing this article anymore (similar has been done with a lot of WP:Conflict of interest editors regarding articles they have a conflict of interest with), and be regulated to suggesting proposals on the talk page instead. However, Geebee2 should stop making excessive sections on the talk page. For example, there isn't a need for two "The Trial" sections on the talk page. We shouldn't be making new sections when what we want to say fits well in one of the new sections that already exist. I am also interested in reporting Geebee2 at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, if Geebee2 keeps editing this article. I don't trust Geebee2 editing this article, and I don't think most others who usually edit or watch this article do either. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are not accurate. The change concerning anal sex was posted to talk in advance of the change, and no objection was raised. Ask the other two editors if I have acted in bad faith re gas cans, and "No jury is going to convict me..." I strongly dispute that. In return you have used foul language repeatedly towards me, words like "crap". I suggest it is you who has the less NPV and should be restricted. You are the only person who has raised objections and made accusations of bad faith.Geebee2 (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My comments about you are accurate, and there are links to prove it. Read WP:Assuming good faith. It is not assuming bad faith when you have repeatedly made bad-faith edits to this article. You shouldn't be editing it at all, and I'm not the only one to say that (see your talk page). Several people have raised objections concerning your edits to this article, including Jimbo Wales, and including your recent edits to this article (for example, the "No jury is going to convict me ..." section). You can suggest that it is me who has a NPV problem until you're blue in the face, but it is you, not me, who has shown NPV problems on this article. I call your edits crap when they are, and most of them have been crap concerning this article. Posting something to the talk page and waiting a little bit before adding it to the article also doesn't show NPV. I also didn't request that you remove this[24] section. If it's not duplicate text, you could have moved it to a section that already exists, which was my point about having two identical titles. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I had (and have) a dispute with Mr Wales, concerning the reliability of sources that are subsidiaries of Time Warner, especially HLN, given their considerable financial motive to hype the case up, I make no apology for that. That's on the record, and he can speak for himself. You are quite wrong about "No jury is going to convict me..." I have made no recent edits on since TheOldSparkle's cleanup inadvertently caused some problems. I have merged the talk sections, but if inadvertently creating a duplicate talk section is grounds for being banned, well... let's see what others think about that. You seem determined to launch ad-hominem attacks on me, rather than discussing content.Geebee2 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your reliability issue violates WP:Verifiability/WP:Reliable sources when you apply that issue to this article or to other articles. I'm correct about the "No jury is going to convict me ..." section. I said that section is proof of your bias and that objections were made to your edits in that section. That's correct. Joseph A. Spadaro, for example, said, "Please stop being POV in pushing the Arias defense agenda, while trying to minimize the prosecution side." Why do you think he said that? Because he, just like several others here, are familiar with your type of editing of this article. Duplicating talk page headings is not the focus of this section, and you know it. Trying to throw attention on me by unduly focusing on that or calling legitimate criticism of your edits to this article "ad-hominem attacks" is as transparent as your intentions concerning this article. I've shown that I'm interested in discussing content of this article, so it's not like you are my main interest at this article. But I'm also not interested in working with you on it, and you have no one but yourself to blame for that. Shown higher up, there are solid reasons that I and other editors don't trust you editing this article. And don't ask who are these "other editors." You know who they are. I've pointed to them by pointing to your talk page and by pointing to sections above. You should heed WP:Conflict of interest. I haven't seen any true evidence that you can edit this article neutrally. If you do so at all, it's for show. What if we weren't here and it was only you? This article would be suffering from your POV. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And before you suggest that it would be suffering from anyone's POV if they were the only one working on this article, if you were going to suggest that, I disagree. The other usual editors of this article have been neutral with their editing of it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I heartily concur with Halo on this. ArishiaNishi (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with Halo here. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am a newbie here and I see the blatant pro-Arias bias Geebee2 puts on this wiki. Plus I've seen Geebee2 post about the edits on the Jodiariasisinnocent site Twiztedtrav (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I also am new, but have been tracking this article and it's talk page. IT is clear GeeBee2 has bias and the edits made reflect this bias. (returned to add signature) Wanderingchilde (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it is clear that this editor has no respect for the editing processes or rules set forth by wiki. Reading her talk page shows clear instructions to wait and ask before edits be made and this is not being done. Further, hypocritical editing practices are strong given the request to 'wait a day' before edits are made, yet this is not done by the editor in question. Seeing the repeated edits and reversion practices enacted surrounding this editor and the biased content put in place by them, I would like to see this editor restricted from making further edits. Wanderingchilde (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

911 call

The "911 call about Travis Alexander" is a primary reference ( a youtube video ), not secondary, which is not acceptable as I understand it. It needs to be made clear that the tyre slashing was not put before the jury, in contrast to the other evidence introduced by the prosecution in this section. I suggest moving tyre slashing to the media section. A suitable reference is this article [25] which states "Jurors will likely never hear about the call to police, at least not in the guilt or innocence phase of the trial." This relates very much to the trial by media aspect (which is the reason the article exists, by notability), and the question of the broadcast of prejudicial material, especially in the context of an unsequestered jury. For example, in the UK, it would certainly not have been broadcast until the trial had concluded.Geebee2 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that info should remain in the "Discovery and investigation" section. Not hidden away in the media portion. It's supported by an ABC News source, and there are a lot more reliable sources on the web that support that info. You know that some unsourced or dubious things you have removed are easily sourced, but you've removed them because it conflicts with your beliefs about Arias. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these things happened, but (a) making it clear that they were not heard by the jury and (b) the selection of issues not heard by the jury should be neutral (balanced). (c) How to present this in the article. I am thinking about the best way this might be achieved, for the moment I will simply add (not heard by the jury) and change the reference to support that.Geebee2 (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Things that are a part of the discovery and/or investigation should stay in the "Discovery and investigation" section.[26][27] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that, I just think it leads to a rather "spotty" article, since each evidence item in this section will end up being discussed in at least two places. Essentially "investigation==prosecution case", which can be regarded as the opening of the trial, up to the point where the state rests it's case. YMMV. Incidentally, the one sentence that is currently not part of "discovery and investigation" is the sentence "Two years after her arrest, she stated that she killed Alexander in self-defense and she was a victim of domestic violence." Perhaps this could migrate to the "pre-trial" section somehow where it logically belongs ( not a major issue for me, just pointing it out).Geebee2 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not spotty to me. The "Discovery and investigation" section is essentially the "Evidence" section. So we provide that for the readers without it being mixed up with the testimony. We leave the testimony about that evidence in the "Trial" section. I don't consider the "discovery and investigation" information as the opening of the trial. That's muddying waters, in my opinion. The "Two years after her arrest" sentence is a part of the "Discovery and investigation" section. Was it a mistake that you said it wasn't? It fits better there to me. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you were saying that it doesn't fit there? I think it does because the discovery and investigation led to her being charged. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Defense response to some points listed in Discovery and investigation

Currently there is no account of the defense response to the points listed, particularly why she hired a car 50 miles South, and "Margaritaville". In the first case, it was because her brother lived nearby, and a budget website gave her two options, one to the north and one to the south. The defense also pointed out the car hire location was not conducive to secrecy, being at an airport, having extensive CCTV, and she gave her credit card details. In the case of "Margaritaville" she testified during cross-examination that she had been busy serving "a ton of Margaritas" just after she cut her finger (or words to that effect, I'm going from memory), suggesting that "Margaritaville" may have been a jokey reference to her job at Casa Ramos. I'm not sure if this can be sourced from secondary sources, it's certainly available via primary sources. Anyway, I'm raising this as an issue.Geebee2 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is an HLN source for the prosecution point re "Margaritaville", Jan 10 [28] "Arias caught in another lie" Geebee2 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a fairly extensive wiki Margaritaville we also have Margaritaville_(South_Park) Geebee2 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

[29] "I had a bazillion Margaritas to make" was her testimony.Geebee2 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikis, especially ones you've edited, are not acceptable sources or guides for for this article or any other Wikipedia article. You should know that by now. Stop citing them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting citing those wikis (which I have not edited!), that was just for information/backgound in this talk discussion. I have read up some more on acceptable sources, and I found that primary sources are acceptable, provided that there is no interpretation involved. In fact the reference doesn't even have to be given, provided any person can easily check it, which is certainly the case here. If a reference is given, it could be simply "Trial Day xxx, morning session, 50 minutes in" say, there doesn't have to be a hyperlink, and in fact I think those should be avoided in this instance, to avoid any impression of promoting a particular youtube account. Oh, I just noticed the South Park episode was first shown 2009, so it's not relevant.Geebee2 (talk)

Primary sources should be used sparingly on Wikipedia, according to WP:Primary sources. And anything that is likely to be challenged should be reliably sourced, according to WP:Burden. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is using secondary sources, but using primary sources to correct factual errors in those secondary sources. This is I believe fully within the intent of [30] (sorry I haven't got the hang of these WP: things yet, please correct as approprioate. )Geebee2 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the quote "I had a bazillion Margaritas to make"Geebee2 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to use "primary sources to correct factual errors in those secondary sources." Because we aren't is partly why secondary sources are required, to stop such personal interpretation. With all the reliable secondary sources out there, you shouldn't be using "Testimony February 19,2013" type of sources. You should remove those and replace them with reliable secondary sources ASAP. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's impossible because the defense response to these points was never reported in a secondary source. There is no "interpretation" here, the policy says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." So a primary source is perfectly good as a source for testimony, there is no personal interpretation involved. It is a direct quotation of the words she said.Geebee2 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the type of primary sourcing format you are using cannot be verified without watching the trial, and can be used differently by anyone with a different interpretation of the statements than you. You definitely shouldn't use "primary sources to correct factual errors in those secondary sources." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that using a primary source to correct a secondary source violates WP:NOR so I recommend you stop doing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The prosecution alleged that Arias staged the burglary and used the gun to kill Alexander

This doesn't seem to be supported by the reference given. This is a subtle issue, certainly the jury knew about the gun theft, but exactly what the prosecution alleged is not so clear. It may be that they did not succeed in linking the theft to the alleged crime. I don't think the gun theft was mentioned in either opening or closing arguments, but I would need to check to be sure. In support of this, there is a summary of closing arguments here: [31] and there is no mention of the gun theft. Geebee2 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The prosecution definitely alleged that. Lots of reliable sources out there confirming it. Nothing debatable about that, in my opinion. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I contend they didn't. Note the text in the HLN report: "In Session legal experts say prosecutors are likely using the stolen-gun report to help establish that Arias premeditated killing Alexander." That's a prediction of the future, not a fact. I say this prediction turned out to be false. Look at a summary of closing arguments, and you will find the gun theft is not mentioned. I suggest you have the burden of finding a reference, you say there are "lots", so that shouldn't be hard. Note that an allegation is really the same as an argument, and should be in either opening or closing argument.Geebee2 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the second reference is interesting: "After Udy's testimony, the prosecution rested its case, and the defense attorney for Arias ... argued outside the jury's presence that the prosecution had failed to prove premeditation. The prosecution scoffed at the motion, saying Arias staged a burglary of her own home, rented a car and brought a gun and a knife to Alexander's home." So it looks like the prosecution did argue this, but not in front of the jury, only at the hearing at the end of the prosecution case. I have added text to that effect.Geebee2 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just viewed Martinez closing arguments, and he does make the argument (about 52 minutes in), so I withdraw my objection, based on this primary source. I will restore the text. Geebee2 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sex talk information missing from Trial section

I added this back,[32] which Geebee2 removed. See the "WP:Conflict of interest editor" section higher on the talk page. Because this trial included a lot of discussion of sex, there should be info in the article about that. More sex talk information should be in this article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the anal sex being included, or that it was painful or that she didn't object, but the paragraph needs to be tidied up, along the lines "Arias took the stand on February 4, 2013.[43] In her testimony, she described being violently abused by her parents beginning when she was approximately seven years old.[43] She said that she killed Alexander in self-defense when he became enraged after a day of sex, forcing her to fight for her life. The sex included bondage and painful anal sex, which Arias consented to. Any objection to that?Geebee2 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with it being tidied up. Without bias, obviously. It's not just that day that they engaged in anal sex. There should be info in the trial portion of the article about her feelings about their sex life in general, how she felt pressured by him and sometimes did it to please him. Rebuttals from the prosecution about her descriptions of their sex life should be included too.

You thanked me for this[33] edit. It's a start to us working together on the article, I guess. If you meant it. I don't trust you working on the article, but I'll try a little harder to trust you working on it. You should still consider the WP:Conflict of interest guideline, too, when editing the article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And do we know that the day they had sex a short time before Alexander was killed that she said the sex included bondage and painful anal sex? We also shouldn't describe it as painful without attributing that description to Arias's account of how it felt. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it should be qualified as her testimony."She said that she killed Alexander in self-defense when he became enraged after a day of sex, forcing her to fight for her life, and that the sex included bondage and painful anal sex, which whe consented to." I will put that in.Geebee2 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that the recent changes look fine to me, the only question would be undue/too little emphasis. By and large the adult sex wasn't an area of dispute. What was an area of dispute is Alexander's alleged sexual interest in children, and how that was the trigger for the major arguments between Arias and Alexander, according to Arias. I don't think the article yet touches on this.Geebee2 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your text was inaccurate because it came across as though Arias was describing anal sex the day Alexander was killed as "painful." I don't even know if anal sex took place the day he was killed. Most likely it did. Anyhoo, that's why I asked you, "And do we know that the day they had sex a short time before Alexander was killed that she said the sex included bondage and painful anal sex?" Plus, even she said that the anal sex wasn't always painful. There was not enough weight given to the sex info, which was a glaring omission in this article because the trial focused heavily on it. Good thing I started to fix that.[34][35] There still is not enough weight given to the sex portion of the trial. Some info about the recorded dirty talk between them should be included, and, yep, it's a no-brainer to include the pedophile accusation. A source is also needed for the claim of bondage. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Checking my notes, she didn't testify whether the sex downstairs was vaginal or anal. A more relevant point is that she testified "She did want to have sex, better than him being mad." She testified in some detail about the incident, a small part of my (real-time) notes: "She is scared. He grabs both her arms, spins her around. Grabs right arm, twists it behind her back. She didn't feel pain....She did want to have sex, better than him being mad. She didn't want it to escalate to screaming or physical fight. She doesn't object. They have sex. He ejaculates on her lower back. She is relieved his(?). Thought they had avoided catastrophe (another fight). Anything to avoid a fight. He says go clean yourself up, she feels a little bit used. She goes to downstairs bathroom, cleans herself up. Still hanging out." But I suggest before any more detail is added on this, there should be more detail on what happened upstairs (according to her testimony). Both are part of the defense case, but in the trial much more time was devoted to upstairs. I don't recall any cross examination on what happened downstairs, for example.Geebee2 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "she said that while she considered anal sex and oral sex to be real sex, Alexander did not and he believed these forms of sexual activity were technically not against Mormon rules." I don't think this is accurate. I think rather she testified that he led her to believe that anal and oral sex were ok, but of course the true position of the Mormon church is that anal and oral sex are not ok at all and he knew that perfectly well, but she in her naivety believed him, and was deceived. She also testified that at some point she was enlightened, something about a LDS friend and Bishops, but they then carried on having sex anyway. She also testified that the first time she had vaginal sex with Alexander she was asleep, but she did not consider it rape.Geebee2 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The text that "she said that while she considered anal sex and oral sex to be real sex, Alexander did not and he believed these forms of sexual activity were technically not against Mormon rules." is accurate. It's what I saw while watching the trial and it's what the source[36] for that paragraph says. And we should use secondary sources for contentious information like this. Shown in the source, Arias, for example, said, "It seemed like Travis kind of had a Bill Clinton version of sex, where oral and anal sex were also sex to me, but not for him." She also said, "That's something a lot of Mormons do that they aren't suppose to. The Provo push." The source ends its report by saying, "The Mormon religion forbids premarital sex, but Alexander explained to Arias that they weren't breaking the Mormon law of chastity because they were not having vaginal intercourse." And you know this, but I made more changes to the sex text for accuracy.[37][38][39][40][41] Regarding "downstairs was vaginal or anal," are you referring to the day that Alexander was killed? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not a subject I'm strong on, perhaps Travis really did think non-vaginal sex was ok, at least at one point. The Mormon church certainly doesn't think it's ok though. And then there was his sexual relationship with MH. Anyway, even though the sex was certainly sensational, I don't think it's very central to the legal case, except for one point which has not yet touched on, and I think needs addressing, which I will set out in a new section ( since this one is getting quite crowded - feel feel to trim it away).Geebee2 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding downstairs, yes. I think it's fairly clear it was rough vaginal sex. I believe there is a secondary source for that.Geebee2 (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Gunshot

This is a complex subject. There are several significant issues, some of which are already touched on in the article. Dr Horn's testimony regarding the gunshot was a major area of dispute in the trial. The defense pointed to differences between his opinion at a pre-trial hearing, as reported by detective Flores (claimed to be a mis-understanding) and his opinion at trial, and suggested this was to accommodate Martinez' new theory. There was also a statement in the investigation report, which apparently conflicted with his trial testimony (or at least the certainty he claimed). On the last day of evidence (May 2), Horn claimed that a statement in his autopsy report that the Dura Mater was intact, was a typographical error. In addition Dr Geffner testified on this, the same day. And closing arguments about this were notable as well, I believe. I will work to getting this organised as a single paragraph with references, this will take some time.Geebee2 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is my first cut at summarising Horn's testimony on May 2. <<Dr Horn testified on direct examination that the brain was decomposed, there was no hemorrhage and that if the gun shot were first, Alexander would have been incapacitated in a second or two, and would collapse to the ground and be unresponsive. On cross examination, when asked "in seconds, you would expect that there is absolutely no blood left in the brain", he responded "Yes". In response to a juror question "Your report stated there was no damage to the dura mater membrane. Can you explain how the brain can be damaged without damaging the membrane?" he reviewed his report and stated "it’s the usual protocol with the report so clearly the dura mater had to have been perforated so that would be a typographical error in my report".>> This can probably be cleaned up a bit, but the main question is whether this is a neutral summary of his testimony that day. A transcript is available at my site (google wikispaces jodi horn). There appear to be no secondary sources for this testimony. Geebee2 (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Points not covered in the above are questions about the extent of decomposition, his experience and questions posed by the defense suggesting he was not taking things seriously (mostly overruled after objections), and questions about the relevance of his experience.Geebee2 (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another draft: Horn testified that the brain was decomposed, there was no hemorrhage and that if the gun shot were first, Alexander would have been incapacitated in a second or two. The defense questioned the relevance of his experience and the extent of decomposition. When asked "in seconds, you would expect that there is absolutely no blood left in the brain", he responded "Yes". In response to a juror question "Your report stated there was no damage to the dura mater membrane. Can you explain how the brain can be damaged without damaging the membrane?" he reviewed his report and stated "it’s the usual protocol with the report so clearly the dura mater had to have been perforated so that would be a typographical error in my report".

I'm not proposing to add this until I first have a summary of Geffner's testimony on the gunshot, which sets the context.Geebee2 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I do now have a transcript of Geffner's testimony on the gunshot. One significant part is this: "Willmott: And with regard to the brain, if it did go through a part of the brain somehow, that Dr. Horn’s report is incorrect about the dura mater, then it would be through the right frontal lobe, is that right? Geffner: Yes. Willmott: And based on your experience and knowledge with regard to the brain, does that cause any type of problems that would make the person immediately incapacitated? Geffner: No." Geebee2 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

After all that, I have just found a secondary source: [42]. I have to say I have a major problem with the HLN summary. Horn admitted he was not familiar with research on people getting hit with projectiles in their frontal lobe and not being incapacitated. That is not mentioned or hinted at by HLN, neither is the Dura Mater "typo" Horn claimed.Geebee2 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On June 5, Arias left several voicemail messages and accessed Alexander's messages

I think this could be clarified... From my one-time memory of her testimony, she kept recording a message, then deleting it, until she was satisfied. Maybe she also checked to see if he had other messages. I will check the testimony some time, or perhaps someone else could. As with other items, it may be necessary to distinguish between certain fact and her testimony.Geebee2 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken finger

This certainly deserves a mention. She claimed she broke her finger in a DV row in Spring 2008. She showed the finger in court. The evidence evolved, with the prosecution claiming a picture of her with her hand on her sister's shoulder (around May 2008) showed it was not broken at that time. There was then a courtroom demonstration where she reproduced the photo using Wilmott. I'm not sure what was argued in closing arguments. Anyway, this was her only means of corroborating physical abuse at trial, the prosecution certainly argued in closing there was no evidence of physical abuse.Geebee2 (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source for the direct testimony: [43]

Proposed text (can probably be somewhat reduced further): Arias described a fight where Alexander knocked her to the ground, kicked her in the ribs and then when she blocked the next kick he broke the ring finger on her left hand. She said that during the alleged altercation Alexander was shaking her saying "I’m fucking sick of you". He was screaming at me, he body slammed me on the floor at the foot of his bed. She went on to claim that he replied "don’t act like that hurts", and that he then called her a bitch and kicked her in the ribs. "He went to kick me again, and I put my hand out." Arias held up her left hand in the courtroom showing that her ring finger is crooked. Travis’ sister continuously rolled her eyes during Arias' testimony and shook her head in disbelief. Geebee2 (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Other relevant testimony is the man she visited June 5, who testified along the lines that she was strong, and they had some kind of physical encounter, suggesting the finger was not broken on June 4.Geebee2 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

There has been talk in other sections, this is to concentrate the discussion. I am referring to [44] "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source...." The point I am making is that primary sources may be used, but only with care. There must be no interpretation. The question of whether there is interpretation may be delicate, but a short, simple, relevant quote is not interpretation. The difficulty in this case is that the much of the evidence presented by the defense appears to have been unreported, especially May 2. The policy also says: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I am not proposing that at all, rather obtaining a proper balance in the use of primary and secondary sources, with a judicious use of primary sources, where no secondary source is available.Geebee2 (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the fact that you "support Jodi" is really evident in all your edits. You are ofcourse entitled to that opinion but a Wikipedia article needs to be neutral and not to hold a Pro-Jodi or a Against-Jodi stance. Also I havent followed your edits closely but it seems to be some problems with some of your "sources",--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this talk section, please remove. If you have criticisms of the current article, please be specific, and post under appropriate talk heading. Thanks.Geebee2 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• This has gone on for long enough. I have removed a bunch of text added by Geebee, for various reasons--I didn't even have to look for BLP violations, since one of the sources was clearly not reliable, and part of the text added was copied verbatim from a Detroit Free Press article. Geebee, you're entering blockable territory for disruption of all kinds. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Alexander has been abusive to women

Wanderingchilde asked: "This only shows one side of the 'Hughes email' controversy. Display both sides or neither." What other side are you referring to? Please provide text and references for this other side. Thanks. Geebee2 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the deleted text was "LaViolette summarised emails from Alexander’s close friends "They have basically advised Ms. Arias to move on from the relationship .. that Mr. Alexander has been abusive to women.""Geebee2 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside of Arias' own allegations, and the interpretations made by defense witnesses, there is no proof to these allegations. In fact, there were several former girl friends who testified in trial stating they experienced no abuse and/or saw no abusive behavior from Alexander. As to the emails referenced in the text you inserted (which I've removed again) here is a source that counters what you're indicating: http://www.freep.com/article/20130502/NEWS07/305020074/jodi-arias-murder-trial-emails-revealed The emails put into evidence by the Defense were only part of the whole email chain and the explanation of the Hughes has been omitted entirely by you. This is likely because, as you've indicated previously, you have negative feelings against the Hughes. If abuse claims are going to be made, or reference to the email(s), then both sides need to be displayed to maintain a neutral article. Wanderingchilde (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly, we can only easily use the opening paragraphs, because this is effectively a primary source ( it contains the actual emails that were summarised ). By wikipedia rules, this is hard to incorporate, since you will be summarising a fairly large collection of emails (which is what LaViolette did in court....)Geebee2 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So, the useable text from this source is <<The emails were submitted by the Arias defense but never made public because the judge ruled they were “hearsay.” They were referred to indirectly during the testimony of the trial’s most controversial witness, domestic violence expert Alyce LaViolette. LaViolette was building a theory that Alexander was abusive to Arias. But LaViolette was not allowed to display the emails or even read from them. Instead, prosecutor Juan Martinez would only allow her to glance at them, read it to herself, raise her eyes and then paraphrase.>>

I will work on cleaning this up for inclusion.Geebee2 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, proposed text: <<The emails were submitted by the defense but never made public because the judge ruled they were "hearsay." LaViolette was not allowed to display the emails or even read from them, instead she could only glance at them, read silently to herself and then paraphrase.">>Geebee2 (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, your "other side" is not supported by this source, I am reverting with the modified text.Geebee2 (talk)

You can look for a secondary source for the Sky/Chris Hughes testimony.All I have at the moment is "Sky Hughes and her husband, Chris Hughes, both testified briefly earlier in the trial." which hardly seems to be worth including. I strongly suspect you will not find anything more. Geebee2 (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Social media section

Both Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander had blogs prior to the events of 2008, and they are still accessible. This seems relevant to this section. Please incorporate this somehow. Thanks.Geebee2 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Their blogs cannot be used per WP:SPS Darkness Shines (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using the blogs as sources, I'm talking about the existence of these blogs.Geebee2 (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source for the existence of Alexander's blog [45]Geebee2 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not found yet a secondary source for the existence of Arias' blog, which apparently has url jodiarias.blogspot.co.ukGeebee2 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I found this blog source: [46], but I guess it's no good.

Overall, I guess neither should be included.Geebee2 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the portion of Social Media that speaks to 'supporters' being threatened last night while not logged in. It was returned today. The source being cited (jodiariasisinnocent.com) has repeatedly been stated as not being a reliable source. Secondly the individual being quoted has no significance in relation to the trial or case. Additionally, should 'negative (re)actions' toward supporters or 'negative' behavior from 'pro-Travis' parties be listed, so too should 'negative (re)actions' taken against 'pro-Travis' supporters and/or 'negative' behavior be shown from 'pro-Jodi' parties. This will ensure an unbiased and full perspective article. If there are no objections, I will once again remove this section. Wanderingchilde (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for using the talk page.Geebee2 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Second, the reliability (or otherwise) of the source is not an issue. The reference serves only to confirm the existence of this post.Geebee2 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Third, the quote is self-balancing, in that the poster explains the extent of their negative feelings against the other side.Geebee2 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, I have no objection to a quote or quotes illustrating other types of reaction. Please provide - I will allow a reasonable amount of time for you to do this, after which I propose to restore the deleted text.Geebee2 (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You have now had a reasonable amount of time, and have been deleting other material, so I am reverting.Geebee2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Violate BLP policy one more time and I will report you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the text we are discussing is this: "Supporters claimed to have been attacked online, one posted: "i admit i don’t like jaun martinez and he really makes me sick to my stomach, but ultimately he is doing his job to the best of his ability, just as every other employed person dealing with this case, and the families and supporters should not be badgered in any way, but yet. i have been told that my family should be killed because i support jodi. its nuts""

Please describe your objections in more detail. Do you not believe supporters have been threatened in this way or is it something else?Geebee2 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

GeeBee I believe the objection is that you aren't presenting both sides of this harassment issue you are only presenting the Jodi Arias' supporter's claims of harassment and leaving out the harassment of the Travis Alexander supporter's. The other objection is that you are citing a source that you have been told repeatedly is NOT a reliable source jodiariasisinncent.com is not a reliable source. I also do not believe this even needs to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistywaters (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Alleged interest in minors

I believe this has been widely characterised in some quarters as an attempt by the defense to smear Alexander's character. Wikipedia defines pedophilia as "a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children", which does not describe Alexander's sexuality - he apparently had many other common sexual fantasies (bondage,maids,pubescent(?) girls...), which he acted out or described (sex tape) to Arias. However, within the Mormon context, it probably was a bigger deal, but the real issue (according to the defense) was that Arias was concerned about it and suggested Alexander get help, and that Alexander reacted strongly to this, leading to domestic violence. Another way she allegedly tried to help him was by complying with his wish to have anal sex while she was dressed in "boy spiderman underwear"(Testimony Feb 11, 3hr:54min), which he had given her as a Valentine present. Geebee2 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but please site one source where Travis Alexander was ever convicted of pedophilia. I don't this needs to be in this article at all. There was no proof ever presented at trial that Travis Alexander was a pedophile. I'm objecting to any of this ever being added to this article as there is no reliable to source to substantiate the claim of Mr. Alexander's alleged interest in minor's.Mistywaters (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See the "Cleaning up now that Geebee2 has been indefinitely blocked" section below for discussion of what to do about this information. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Discovery of Travis Alexander's body

The article states that Travis was found by people who worked for Pre-Paid legal this is incorrect. He was found by 3 friends and his 2 roommates not all of them if any worked for Pre-Paid Legal. I know that Esteban Flores official report list all 5 people by name however I don't think that is the issue as much as lumping them all together and making a blanket statement that they ALL worked for Pre-Paid legal. Would anyone object if this was changed to friends and roommates of Travis Alexander? I'm new here so if this is a non-issue that no one believe's is a problem then I'm sorry if I wasted your time. Thanks.Mistywaters (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Misty.

I took care of it.[47] Before I fixed it, the text "a concerned group of his friends" had been used instead of "people from Prepaid Legal Services," but that got reverted back in April during my revert of a much-needed scrape of Geebee2's edits, which, unfortunately, took away some good edits by others in the interim.[48] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Halo jerk thank you if you need some help on the revisions I'd be glad to assist in any way I can. I'm glad this article is no longer being trashed by GeeBee2.Mistywaters (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up now that Geebee2 has been indefinitely blocked

Surely I agree with taking out any slants by Geebee2 (who has been indefinitely blocked[49]) that remain in the article. But the wholesale revert (that I've reverted)[50] is unnecessary. I reverted the wholesale deletion because that version mostly isn't a problem and so, in my opinion, it's better that we don't drastically reduce the article, taking away good portions and erasing edits of others besides Geebee2, just to get rid of a lot of Geebee2's edits. Instead of rebuilding those aspects in the article, can we agree to remold any problem areas? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I think the accusations of pedophilia need to be removed as only Arias has made them. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a part of what she accused at trial, so shouldn't we instead counter them with what the prosecution said? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose, but it has to be made very clear that these are only accusations made by Arias. I detest the idea of such accusations being made against a person no longer around to defend themselves, made worse by the fact that the one making the accusations is the one who did the killing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. We should also be on the lookout for any Geebee2 WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for the inevitable sock, but I am busy with other articles, what with people wanting notable topics deleted and more than likely will not be editing here. I have faith you will do a decent job. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You've been so much help at this article that I feel like I can't thank you enough for that. I'm sorry that Wikipedia is bumming you out. I know the feeling. Many Wikipedians do. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for your faith in me. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've watched the chaos that GeeBee2 has caused. Because I am new to editing this page, I intend to limit myself to minor edits (punctuation, minor sentence revisions for flow, et) for now. I do have one suggestion. Should the stab wounds, gun shot and throat cutting be referenced to in the intro of the page? The sentence seems a bit detailed for the intro; perhaps referring to the murder as a brutal murder would be more appropriate for the intro. The details of Alexander's injuries are expanded upon in the death section of the page. I edited the sentence in the intro regarding his injuries for flow, but did not remove the material.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I did add the date that Alexander's father died and his family moved in with his grandmother. Because of this addition, I did not mark my edits as minor.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Along the same lines as the pedophilia, I think that addressing the alleged abuse by Travis Alexander should occur. GeeBee was pretty insistent on using a defense witness' testimony as an avenue to back up the claims of Arias but ignored the prosecution witnesses that said differently, as well as the statements said by the friends of Travis regarding the emails LyViolette testified about. I provided an article I found doing a quick google search in hopes that GeeBee would realize there's more than one view - but that didn't happen. Geebee chose to use the article on his own, and tried to throw me under the bus after not waiting for a reply from me. I'm not really comfortable with editing (ok, so I know how to remove stuff but the inserting I'm not comfortable with because I'm certain to do it wrong or not to wiki standards) but think if abuse claims are to be included all sides need to be included. Wanderingchilde (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Wanderingchilde. Arias' entire defense was built upon self-defense, Battered Women's Syndrome and PTSD. I don't think the info can be left out of the page, but whoever edits for this issue needs to be cautious to note that such claims came solely from Arias who was unable to document that any form of abuse occurred. There is no evidence that Alexander physically abused Arias. Yet, we have jurors who believe Arias was emotionally abused and others who do not believe she was emotionally abused (based on their post-trial interviews). I don't know if Arias' pedophilia claim should be included. There were no experts who testified about the issue other to say that there was a complete lack of evidence that Alexander was attracted to children. His computer was clean of porn and no items related to child sexual attraction were found in his home. I think the abuse and pedophilia issues would be best handled by a long-time editor who knows how to handle more sensitive topics. I'm not a total novice, but I don't feel experienced enough to handle such a sensitive issue on Wiki. Perhaps this should be a "she said, investigators found, jurors decided" issue. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Funnyhaha. I think that the abuse claims can't truly be left out, given the totality of Arias' defense being that she was abused (including from her early years), but I think all points of views need to be provided to maintain neutrality. Funny's suggestion is great, both for style and execution. I nominate Halo as he's given this article a lot of care already. :) Wanderingchilde (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you both. This editor[51] expanded on Arias's claims. Looks fine. Funnyhaha71, I think that, because Alexander's death was so gruesome and this undoubtedly helped elevate the case so prominently in the public eye, that we should keep the bit in the lead about him being stabbed multiple times, his throat being slit and him being shot in the head. It's obviously better to let the non-lead part of the article handle expansion of the death details. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw the edits made and think they're great. The only thing that jumped out at me was the info about the reactions of Travis' sister(s). I know it, in a way, speaks to someone discounting the claims as they were made but does it truly add to the article? If it does, do we include court room behavior of the Arias family as well?Wanderingchilde (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No information given in court as to the return of a gas can to Walmart

"while there was a record of such a can being sold on that date, it was not returned until a week later, according to Ms. Webb.[65]" While HLN does make this claim, testimony in court does not substantiate the claim. There is no testimony regarding the actual return of a gas can. The records were searched for a week and a half, and no return was found. This video at youtube beginning at 5:00 shows the testimony: Jodi Arias' Lies About Gas Cans Exposed -- Walmart & Tesoro Witnesses Testify & Contradict Her Story It isn't the best place to look, because it's a compilation, but it does have the Walmart employee's testimony. I haven't searched reliable sources for correct information yet. If I get time, I'll do that and post an edit request. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.kpho.com/story/22051342/prosecution-continues-rebuttal-in-arias-murder-trial - "Martinez also called Amanda Webb, an investigator for Walmart, who testified that Arias never returned a gas can to the California store as she previously claimed. " ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

http://huff.to/11KlnD8 - "Webb said there is no record in Wal-Mart's record system of Arias returning the gas can to her store."It has not been refunded," Webb said." ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Guilt phase - gas can return testimony - reasoning above ↑

From: The employee said she had reviewed all of the records for that store for June 3, 2008 and found no return of a five-gallon gas can; while there was a record of such a can being sold on that date, it was not returned until a week later, according to Ms. Webb.
To: The employee said she had reviewed all of the records for that store for June 3, 2008 and found no return of a five-gallon gas can; while there was a record of such a can being sold on that date, there was no record of any gas can return subsequently for over a week, according to Ms. Webb. ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Article title

'Murder of' is a common Wikipedia article title.[52] 'Homicide of' is not a common Wikipedia article title.[53] 'Death of' is a common Wikipedia article.[54] Since there was a first-degree murder conviction for Travis Alexander's death, it is clear that a murder took place, so "Murder of" is the appropriate title for this article. See Wikipedia:Article titles. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee, I don't understand the reason for your comment. This article is a "Murder of" article, and the archives show that the title was discussed plenty. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was commenting on a current issue but realized later that it was well settled long ago. Disregard my post above. Thanks. Jreferee (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mormon angle?

why is the Mormon -- Later-day Saint -- connect deserving of mention not once but twice?

it's not clear why it's mentioned at all.

2601:6:5600:5AC:FC89:47D4:F96B:CE8C (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Michael Christian

I removed the mention of it immediately after his name - it was odd placement and putting it into the bold block was so incredibly weird. Lordkazan (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we really care what Donald Trump had to say about this?

Why is that paragraph even in this article?

I ask this because its someone who runs a very active publicity campaign aimed at raising his own public profile; artificially inserting things like the Trump paragraph is as pernicious as public figures trying to use their own pages as PR platforms.

Unless there are objections, I'll delete it in a couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No objections; I agree--though there are many instances where we need to ask ourselves why something is included in this article. One of the tasks that needs to be done in order to keep this article lean is to go through each section content and glean for the excess fat of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amia109 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Future development

Now that the (Geebee2) frenzy has been killed off, and there's been time to get some perspective, here's a few ideas of what makes this case special - not simply relevant - and where the article might go:

• The judge's denial of the defense request to compel jurors' Twitter handles is legal precedent.
• The presence of an anti-prosecution organization online (http://jodiariasisinnocent.com) which even attacked WP and subverted one or more pages, is new.
• The presence of a pro-Death Penalty organization online (Facebook::Justice4Travis) which was blamed for intimidating witnesses and providing crowdsourced analysis to the prosecution, is new.

Sorry could you provide please references to the crowdsourced part? I find many of your points interesting but would like to read them from RS. Thanks JackGann (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• The judge's ruling to exclude live and real-time media coverage in the final portion of the trial (in reaction to the above) amounts to denying the public's access to a transparent justice because of bad behavior from the Internets - another legal first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.14.23 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Pornography Defense, the presentation of a continuous stream of explicit recordings, photos, and testimony, and defendant being a model-like young woman, is novel. It could be canonized as legitimate legal strategy if successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.14.23 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My classmates and I have been working on some things that would add to this article. A. Length- This criteria is being addressed because too often the article fails to stay on the main topic, and provides entirely too many unnecessary pieces of information; also, some passages need to be more concise or, as feature article criteria mentions, use "summary style." Working on length will make this article more relevant and an easier, clearer article to read.

B. Media- This area is being addressed because as the Wikipedia Article Criteria states, the article "has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status." There is one photo in the article right now of the victim, Travis Anderson, adding another photo of the murderer or of the trial would change the rating of this article.

Gray, Madison. "5 Bizarre Revelations from the Jodi Arias Trial | TIME.com." NewsFeed 5 Bizarre Revelations from the Jodi Arias Trial Comments. News Feed, 09 May 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2014. <http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/09/5-bizarre-revelations-from-the-jodi-arias-trial/>. This source would be a great addition to the Media in the article of the Travis Anderson Murder. Here it is cited well and follows the Owl criteria as well as the Wikipedia criteria.

Kiefer, Michael. "Judge Refuses to Stop Blocking Access to Jodi Arias Trial." Judge Refuses to Stop Blocking Access to Jodi Arias Trial. The Republic, 1 Nov. 2014. Web. 03 Nov. 2014. <http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2014/10/31/judge-refuses-stop-blocking-access-arias-trial/18271065/>. This is another good source for media to add to the article. It follows both criteria and satisfies what is needed to be a well-cited source. In regards to the media, I believe these two sources for additional media would be a good addition. The adhere to the criteria needed for Wikipedia and add to the article a different angle to the trial.

C. Structure- The structure is set up poorly and needs some additional headings (Early Life) and change some of the headings. AriesLRG (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Structure of the article should go like this: Alexander’s Murder • Opening Paragraph. Overview of what happened • Background about Alexander • Background about Jodi • The relationship with Travis • The actual murder Trials • Prosecution • Arias’ Defense • Verdict Sentencing • Jury Decision • Retrial of 2014 Media • What the Media thought about the murder • And trial/ sentencing See Also • Maybe add other trial than the ones that are there already References

External Links The way the structure is set is poorly. It is confusing and should be arranged in a way that makes sense. jlim1101

AriesLRG (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be working on the length with this article; length alone isn't the problem, the problem is the moments of excess and irrelevancy--there are many. I will be identifying each instance (that I can find) and posting it here to see if we can have a consensus; if I hear nothing back in the way of objections, I will go ahead and make the edits.Amia109 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Media

I have added content (it is the first paragraph of the Media section) to this article concerning the decision by a judge to allow a witness to testify in private. Court of appeals, however, has ruled that public should be able to watch testimony. This small act of "secrecy" strikes me as relevant information given the amount of attention this case has had. Amia109 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox says "Mistrial declared in penalty phase". Readers not au fait with the eccentricities of the US courts' systems could be led to believe it was a mistrial. Ok, so it's only remotely possible, but the last sentence in the intro says someone was "sentenced to life in state prison without the possibility of parole" but just over to the right the infobox mentions the word mistrial. Confusing. Why is that particular statement being made in the infobox? Moriori (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Travis Alexander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130608092102/http://news.yahoo.com:80/arizona-jury-foreman-says-believed-jodi-arias-abused-203820765.html to http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-jury-foreman-says-believed-jodi-arias-abused-203820765.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Travis Alexander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130831130838/http://www.cayleedaily.com/2013/03/killing-of-travis-alexander/ to http://www.cayleedaily.com/2013/03/killing-of-travis-alexander/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jodi Arias transcripts

I decided to archive all of the PDF primary source documents on KPHO's (CBS 5 Arizona) website for the benefit of future editors.

I found some transcripts of the Arias case:

• http://lmgcorporate.com/kpho/news/jodi-arias-transcripts/10-30-14.pdf - October 30 testimony
• http://lmgcorporate.com/kpho/news/jodi-arias-transcripts/11-3-14.pdf - November 3 testimony

They are marked as "Unauthorized Copy" but CBS 5 AZ was in fact authorized to use them - David Bodney, a lawyer of KPHO, provided them.

Also:

• Defense motion to dismiss all charges: http://lmgcorporate.com/kpho/news/defensemotion.pdf
• Arias gives up the right to be her own lawyer: http://lmgcorporate.com/kpho/news/ariasfiling.pdf
• Arias asking the judge to fire Kirk Nurmi: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kpho/KPHO%20NEWS/ariasletter.pdf
• County agrees to make cost of trial public: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kpho/Arias%20ruling%20on%20Billing.pdf

I archived both on Webcitation (webcitation.org) - Search any of these URLs and you will get the archive links. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Trial Dates

Can someone please check and possibly correct the trial dates. The article is full of seeming contradictions. "opening arguments on January 2, 2013", "Arias took the stand on February 4, 2011", "penalty phase began on May 16, 2012", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:27AA:9900:991E:5D1C:F368:BA61 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Travis Alexander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112031509/http://www.hlntv4u.com/video/2011/12/20/jodi-arias-next-casey-anthony to http://www.hlntv4u.com/video/2011/12/20/jodi-arias-next-casey-anthony

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)