Jodi Arias Trial - Day 55 - Part 1 (Prosecution Closing)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: arguments. Mr. Martinez. [00:00:10] Speaker 2: This individual, the defendant, Jody Ann Arias, killed Travis Alexander. And even after stabbing him over and over again, and even after slashing his throat from ear to ear, and then even after taking a gun and shooting him in the face, she will not let him rest in peace. But now, instead of a gun, instead of a knife, she uses lies. And she uses these lies in court when she testified to stage the scene for you, just like she staged a scene for the police after she killed Mr. Alexander. And this woman who would stage the scene has even attempted to stage the scene through the use of the media. She has courted the media. She has gone on national television. You've seen the programs, and you've seen some of her words to the media. She has also attempted or gone out in search of the limelight. She has signed a manifesto just in case she becomes famous. And to top it all off, she has indicated that she is innocent, that no jury will convict her, that none of you will convict her after she has staged the scene for you. Well, she is an individual, as you have seen, who has craved the limelight. So it seems that it is only fitting that this individual that has craved the limelight, it is really only fitting that she now bask in a different kind of light, the light of truth. And in the light of truth, you can see who she really is. She's an individual who is manipulative. This is an individual who wants to play the victim, even though there is no abuse, as you've heard from those that know her. She's an individual that, according to her own statements in an email on Valentine's Day of 2007 to Mr. Alexander said that she was destructive. She's the individual that talked about what she did to doors, what she did to windows. And she's an individual that does not appear to be very nice to her mother, because she lashes out at her and strikes her physically. Additionally, when the light of truth is shining on her, she is somebody who is just an individual that manipulates people. That, for example, when she's speaking to Mr. Alexander during that faithful May 10, 2008 conversation that she talks about her sister and says how dumb and stupid her sister is. This is an individual who is manipulative. This is an individual who will stop at nothing and will continue to be manipulative and will lie at every turn and at every occasion that she has. One of the examples is the issue of the gas cans. She indicated to you from the witness stand and looked at each and every one of you after having taken the oath and said, "Yeah, I bought the gas can all right. And I bought it from the Salinas Wal-Mart. I did buy it from the Salinas Wal-Mart, but you know, after being questioned by the prosecutor, you know, I took it back and I received cash." Yet, you heard from Amanda Webb, the individual or the woman who works for Wal-Mart, checked each and every single register. Even those that were not geared to give refunds, checked each and every single register. And each one of those registers indicated, "No, there had been no such refund." And then, of course, you could have the confirmatory action in Salt Lake City after first indicating that, "No, I've never been in Salt Lake City. I've never put gas in Salt Lake City." But you saw the receipts that she had. And not only had she put gas into her car in Salt Lake City, she had two other transactions. One for 5.09 gallons of gas, and then one for slightly under 10 gallons of gas. She looked at each and every one of you, this person, and attempted to manipulate you. Well, this individual that attempted to manipulate you believes, based on what we've heard, that even though she may have engaged in actions, she may have done certain things, none of it, absolutely none of it is her fault. Why could it possibly be her fault? If you look back in her history, which is the important part of it involving her relationship with men, what do you see? Well, even when she was young, she had this personality of manipulating the facts. Back when she was with Bobby Juarez, what did she tell you? Well, this was an individual that was unfaithful to me. How could it be so unfaithful to me after I've done so many good things for him? I've tried to buy him clothing. I've bought him food. I even lived in a trailer that was so bad and it was infested. Never mind that the reason that I moved there was because I was skipping school. No, that wasn't my fault at all. No, no, no. I was doing this for Bobby. And how does he repay me even though it wasn't my fault? Well, you know what? He goes and he talks, not talks, he sends letters to another woman over the internet. And it isn't her fault that she found out about it. Of course not. How could it be her fault that she found out about it if the library doesn't have enough security attached to that particular computer to have some sort of device attached to it so that somebody can't come along and just hit that backspace button so that whoever was using it before, maybe one or two or three or four people before that, somebody can just come along and hit that backspace button. It is eerily reminiscent of what she told you happened in February of 2007 after she and Mr. Alexander began dating that she went onto his computer and began to hit that same backspace button. It's not her fault that computers have not been improved since the 90s or the 2000s such that you can't stop hitting that backspace button. It's not her fault that that happened. Of course not. That's what she told you from the witness stand. And so, according to her, she hits the backspace button and there it is, this conversation between Bobby Quattis and somebody else. But that's not her fault. But if you remember how aggressively she reacted to that, nobody was going to do anything to her or nobody was going to be putting her or sliding her or putting her in a position of feeling inferior, if you will. She immediately went to Bobby Quattis and did something about it. There is a pattern because the same thing happened with regard to Matthew McCartney, the person that she jumped to after she and Bobby Quattis started to have problems. And I do say jumped to because when she was dating Bobby Quattis, he moved away to Oregon. And when he moved to Oregon, he started living with a guy by the name of Matthew McCartney. And when this thing soured with Bobby Quattis, she immediately went with Matthew McCartney. And in terms of that relationship, the reason that that broke up, it's not her fault. Just like it wasn't her fault with regard to Bobby Quattis, it wasn't her fault at all that she had these issues with Matthew McCartney. No, she can't help it if she is a good worker. She can't help it if she's working as a waitress. And people come by when she's working as a waitress and try to tell her things about her boyfriend, Matthew McCartney. She can't help that. That's what she wants you to believe. And again, isn't that reminiscent of what happened involving Miss Alexander? It seems that this is cyclical. And it seems that the story repeats itself. And it repeats itself because she's lying. And it repeats itself because she's trying to manipulate you through all of the days that she spent talking to you from the witness stand after she had taken an oath. Well, she gets to the point where she moves to Palm Desert in California to be with an individual by the name of Daryl Brewer. And of course, when she's there with Daryl Brewer, it's not her fault, again, that that relationship is souring. No, not at all. It's not her fault because, well, Mr. Brewer doesn't want to marry her. What's a girl to do? It's not her fault. She's got to look for another guy. And it appears that he doesn't want to have any kids and she does. And so, again, it's not her fault. How could it possibly be her fault that somebody has free will? Absolutely not her fault. That's what she tried to tell you. But resourceful as ever, resourceful as she's always been, this person who is manipulative, she starts looking around for somebody else. And decides that perhaps those boys from the Mormon faith are a pretty good catch because those boys, they have a lot of family values. And these boys, they work. They seem to be very successful. They just seem to have everything that she desires and a husband so that she can breathe. And so, what she decides to do is to look for one of those boys. And to Travis Alexander's misfortune, he was that boy. And he was that boy back in September of 2006 when he was at this PPL convention, the yearly convention. "Yes, he is the individual that went up to her." And they began to talk. "And such is the way that things began between the two." Yes, he is the individual that went up to her. And they began to talk. "And such is the way that things began between the two of them." She wanted to find a boy just like him because she had an ulterior motive. She wanted somebody that was Mormon. She wanted somebody that could give her a child. And so, this seemed like the perfect catch for her. And although she tells you that, well, he kind of was the person that pushed her in this relationship. And that he was the individual that somehow was this. that in the lexicon of the English language, there's a word. It's called "know," that you can use when you don't want to do something. And yet, you can then take the witness stand, however, and say, "Well, I do know that word, but I just chose not to use it." But it's not her fault. Again, it's not her fault. It's Mr. Alexander's fault for being interested in her, don't you see? Can't you all see, based on those days and days that she was on that witness stand, that it isn't her fault? She was thinking no. Or at least that's what she told you. This person who told you also about the gas cans. Over and over again, she kept saying with regard to each and every single repetitious sexual act. With regard to each and every one of those, no. I was thinking no. Really? That's exactly what you were thinking. Did you ever communicate that to him? No. This from a woman who is manipulative. This from a woman who pretends to be the victim, even though there is no abuse. And so throughout this early part of the relationship, which some would call the honeymoon portion, during this part, it appears that they do what two people that are young and are involved in a relationship do. They engaged in relations. But there's this finger pointing aspect to this relationship, as portrayed by the defendant. Can't point the finger enough at Mr. Alexander. Can't point the finger enough at the fact that, you know, he's a bad Mormon. Because he's having sex with him. If he's such a bad Mormon, then why stay with him? You're the one that chose him. If he's such a bad guy, why are you hanging out with him? And to compound things, well, she's also Mormon too. Why does she keep pointing the finger at him? When she is just as Mormon as he is, she converted in November of 2006. And according to Deanna Reed, there are many classes that tell you about the law of chastity. And they tell you about the law involving sexual intercourse. But wait, it's not her fault. How could you possibly think it was her fault when those three or two Mormon missionaries that came over didn't tell her about it? Again, it's not her fault. Although there are all these classes where they talk about it, no. Let's point the finger at Travis Alexander because according to her, he's the bad guy. He's the one that told her that it was okay. And so she's going to go along with what he says, even though those in the Mormon church are telling her otherwise. It is almost unconscionable for her to point the finger at Mr. Alexander when she's in the same situation as he is. She has the same knowledge that he does. But again, she wants you to feel sympathy. Because again, it's not her fault, don't you know? How could it possibly be her fault when she was thinking no? Well, luckily for Mr. Alexander, I guess, in the beginning, this relationship was from a distance. And I say luckily because at least when she was in Palm Desert, and he was in Mesa, Arizona during that time, at least during that time, she couldn't reach out and stab him. She couldn't reach out and shoot him in the face. She couldn't stalk him. Couldn't come over unannounced. She wasn't living the ten minutes away. At least fortunately during that time, Mr. Alexander had some extra time to live. And during that time, they were not mutually exclusive. So yes, it is appropriate when they are not mutually exclusive for an individual to send text messages to other women if they are male or even if they are not. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you see that long finger pointing from the witness stand to him, how could he possibly, when we were together, how could he possibly, before we came, became exclusive, be talking to other women? How could he be on the internet? How could he be sending text messages? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:19:26] Speaker ?: How could he be on the internet? [00:19:27] Speaker 2: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:22:20] Speaker ?: How could he be on the internet? [00:22:21] Speaker 2: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:23:38] Speaker ?: How could he be on the internet? [00:23:39] Speaker 2: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:23:41] Speaker ?: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:23:51] Speaker 2: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:24:55] Speaker ?: How could he be on the internet? [00:24:56] Speaker 2: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? [00:25:26] Speaker ?: How could he be on the internet? [00:25:27] Speaker 2: How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? How could he be on the internet? And that is stalking behavior, irrespective of what Alice LaViolette has to say. This individual, Alice LaViolette, who had problems with the truth when she spoke to you about how many times she had testified on behalf of men. This individual who, quite frankly, misrepresented that to you when she was testifying. But according to Alice LaViolette, that was no big deal. Because that's what a person does. She came over and started to look inside. And lo and behold, it's not her fault that she has vision. So she starts looking in there, and lo and behold, there he is. Yes, there he is. And he's kissing another woman. Like that is the end of the world. So what? So what that he's kissing another woman? He's not seeing her. He's entitled to do it. And he's entitled to do it. He's in his house. He has the lights off. It's a romantic evening. Whether she likes it or not, he's moved on. And yes, she says it's his fault. He shouldn't have been courting me. He shouldn't have been continuing to have sex with me. She could have said no. She could have left. She could have moved back to California. She could have never come out here in the first place. She's the person who starts to stalk him. And so she says, oh, I was so upset. And she starts talking about the brassiere, whether it was unhooked or not. And we went around and around about that. So what? Well, don't you know he's a Mormon boy. They're not allowed to do that. What does she care? Is she the Mormon conscience? Is that what we have going on here? No. She's not anything like that. But she wants to make it seem like it's his fault. She presented it in a way to manipulate your perception. Because he's trying to take away from him, with lies, the only thing that he has left. And that's his reputation. He's not here to talk about it. And so it's an easy shot for her. But at this particular point, she's the person that starts to stalk him. And after she starts stalking him, or after this event of stalking, she doesn't leave him alone. No, she comes over the next day. Because she's in the right. They've broken up. And it's okay if you're broken up, to come over and peep at your ex-boyfriend's house. And then peeping, find him doing something. And then wanting to get an explanation. What possible explanation could he ever have owed her at that point? Oh, and you know, she didn't write about, that's the first incident of domestic violence. Didn't write about that incident of domestic violence, don't you know? Because, well, she's a nice person. And you know, there's this secret that she's watched. This movie involving the secret. That talks about the law of attraction. And this law of attraction says that you lie. That's exactly what they want you to believe. Now they're starting to justify the lies. It's okay to lie in the journal. Which in a sense is saying lie to yourself. Because the law of attraction says it's okay to lie. Absolutely okay to lie. You don't put down exactly what's going on. And so you don't write about this. Actually, what's going on here is that she's making it up. And there's no corroboration of any incident whatsoever. And so this relationship, if you will, if you want to call it, that continues. And there are more exploitive sexual kinds of things that are presented. And that you are regaled with the most intimate details that you could possibly think of. And every time it was, well, I was uncomfortable. But I didn't want to tell him no. It was just uncomfortable. Wait a minute. But she also sent him text messages. And those text messages indicated that she was not uncomfortable. She's the one. And I don't need to repeat it. You remember those text messages where she's the one that's requesting the sexual acts. She's the one that's saying to him, if you're good, this is what's going to happen. And then I'm going to want something else. So she's the individual that, if we look at the corroborative, the independent evidence that we have. She's the individual that's in this as much as he is. There's no indication that he was ever forcing her to do anything. Anything at all. But you know, she's attempting to manipulate you. By saying, well, yeah, I went along, but I really didn't want to. And with regard to these acts of physical violence, well, they weren't so bad. And I didn't write about them. And with regard to any particular physical act of violence, there's no one that knows about it. There's no one that has seen any bruises. There are no police calls to 911. And she has a reason for that. The reason that she didn't call 911 involving Mr. Alexander is because she had a similar experience with Bobby Juarez. And when she had that similar experience with Bobby Juarez, well, she called 911. And you know what? Those 911 people in California can't trust them because they talked to Bobby Juarez. And as a result of talking to Bobby Juarez, well, they didn't come out. And so I was so soured by that circumstance that I just never decided to call 911. She's trying to provide a justification as to why there are no 911 calls. The reason there are no 911 calls is because it never happened. Everything in this case points to the fact that it did not happen. There are no medical reports. There are no friends. There is no one that can come in and say anything about that. There are no medical records. There is absolutely nothing. To the contrary. What is it that you have? Well, on the day that she, in March of 2008, when she told Mr. Alexander, according to her, that she was leaving, he turned around and he hit her. And according to Alice Lavillette, he slapped her. But the defendant went round and round and said, no, it was the back of the head, the side of the head. It depended apparently on her whim as to where he hit her. But if you take a look at the entry for that particular day in March of 2008, you know, I told him, he was so upset. And he didn't want me to leave because, you know, we were both so in love with each other, what she writes. And then she says, oh, he kissed me so tenderly, three times. There were such wonderful tender kisses. Is that what she means when she is talking to you about domestic violence? Kissing. See, that's the problem. You didn't get it the first time. Kissing is domestic violence. Tender kissing is domestic violence. But then you bring an apologist like Alice Lavillette and you say, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not what it means. You need to go behind this diary here. Those words don't mean what they say. You need, for example, a little cheat sheet that tells you that under the law of attraction. That's not what it means. Under the law of attraction, it means just the opposite. It means that he did hit her. Can't you read that? What is wrong with you almost is the way it's being put to you. That you can't see that. That you can't buy or can't be manipulated. And the other thing that we have is that she claims that on January 22nd of 2008, there was also this act of domestic violence. And that is not what the act was at this point. Because there's no corroboration involving that act of domestic violence either. All we have is a journal entry of January 24th of 2008. And in that journal entry of January 24th of 2008, she writes, you know, as far as January 21st, 22nd, and 23rd, nothing noteworthy happened. Not only do we have the diary relating to that, it says nothing happened. But again, you are being asked to take a leap. You are being asked, such as in the gas can example, to think that everybody else is wrong. And she's right. And in that example, the one involving the 24th and the supposed incident of domestic violence on the 22nd, you are being asked to say, no, something noteworthy did happen on the 22nd of January. And the thing that was noteworthy on January 22nd of 2008 was that he beat me. And this is the time that I had my hand up. And this is the time that he came after me. But it doesn't say that. Not only is there not any corroborative evidence that can be presented, it's to the contrary. She herself said that it didn't happen. But she wants you to go back and say, well, don't look at what I wrote. Look at this code. This law of attraction. Take a look at that. Combine that with my words. Combine it with what Alice Lovellet says. We'll add that in there. And once you do that, you will be able to see and you will be able to know that, hey, you know what? He did. He did. He did abuse me. And right before she leaves in April of 2008, she says that another incident happened. But she doesn't tell anybody about it. She still stays at his home. And off she goes. And what's interesting about these acts of domestic violence is that she was very specific as to form it. But again, you know, with the truth, it's very hard to keep it straight. With the truth, you ain't got to remember nothing. But if you're not telling the truth, if you're trying or attempting to manipulate, you do have a lot to remember. She forgot that there is a psychologist by the name of Cheryl Clark that has previously been involved in this case and had conducted an evaluation of the defendant. And during that evaluation with the defendant, she gave many, not four, many, 10, 15, 20 incidents of physical violence. Because at that point, physical violence was being used as the predicate, if you will, the seminal act for post-traumatic stress disorder. That's what she was looking at at that time. And so, of course, let's have a lot of acts of domestic violence. ...of domestic violence. [00:37:25] Speaker 1: Overall, the jury is directed to recall the evidence presented during the trial. You may continue. [00:37:30] Speaker 2: And so you now have this lots of acts of domestic violence that she doesn't tell you from the witness stand compared to four that she does tell you. Which one is true? The only evidence that you have indicates that none of it is true because she can't keep it straight. And she's attempting to manipulate the evidence to fit the goal that she has at that particular time. With regard to Cheryl Karp at that time, according to Janine DiMarte, one of the things that was going on is that Cheryl Karp found that post-traumatic stress disorder of the defendant involved these acts of domestic violence. These many, many, many acts of domestic violence. Not just four. And so now when they want to talk about this in a different vein or a little bit differently, it's not just all these acts. It's only four. And that's the problem with the presentation and her attempt to manipulate them. It's actually not even an attempt to manipulate you. They're lies. That's what they are. And she forgot, perhaps, about speaking to other people and the statements that she made with regard to that. Well, she does move away. And when she does move away, it's almost, if we're talking about light, almost like a ray of sunshine for Mr. Alexander. One can only imagine that his stalker is now far away. Because she had done other things while she was here. One of the things that we know is that she would come over unannounced. One of the other things that she would do is she would get into his accounts. And there's also this incident involving Christmas and being underneath the Christmas tree. There's all these incidents. Perhaps Mr. Alexander had let his guard down at this particular point because he really doesn't have to deal with her on a daily basis. And, yes, there is some contact between them on May 10th of 2008. And this is the infamous phone call that involves sex. And, actually, that telephone call is very important because you can actually hear how she deals with him. Even though he doesn't know, based on everything that's in the recording, that he's being recorded. She says, "No, it was being recorded pursuant to his request, don't you know?" Really? Why was it being recorded at his request? He's not going to be here. He can't listen to it. So what possible benefit is this call going to be for him if he's recorded, if he's not going to get it? There's absolutely no benefit to him on May 10th of 2008 to have that telephone call recorded. Yes, he said some things on it. But this is supposed to be, from his perspective, a private conversation never to be released to anybody between him and this woman that even though she's moved to Wairika, even though they've broken up, even though she's come over and watched him with another woman, even though all of this has happened. She stopped him. Even though all of that has happened. Well, he's going to continue talking to her on the telephone. And he says, and he tells you the reason why. And the reason why is that he enjoys having sexual contact with her. And he gives you the reasons why. And he talks about some specific features that he didn't do before and that he does now. He talks about how she introduced him to certain things. How that was such a good thing. Kind of opened his horizons with regard to that particular aspect. And so he's giving her credit for opening his eyes sexually. And there's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with the conversation. What is wrong or what appears to be wrong is that one of them is recording it without the knowledge of the other. Objection, facts, non-evidence. Sustained. You'll be able to listen. You've listened to that recording. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you believe he knew or believed that this is something that was being recorded. She says, oh, no. I kept hitting the save button. I was the one that did it. And she kept it. And she kept it all the way from May 10th of 2008. But things were not going so well at that point. And in fact, by May 19th of 2008, just nine days after that, Mr. Alexander is on the computer, this instant messaging service with somebody named Reagan Housley. And he's talking to her. And he says, I'm extremely afraid of Ms. Arius because of her stalking behavior. How prophetic of him. Back on May 19th. And this is nine days after this telephone call. But he's extremely afraid of her because of this stalking behavior. Little does he know that he has less than a month to live. And so he is aware of it. He knows that he's in the best position to know what is going on between the two of them because he's the one that's going through it. And so when he makes that comment, that comment is indicative of what is going on. You can have people like Alice Laviolette say, it's not true. And the reason we have to give her credit is that the reason Alice Laviolette knows that is that she can read minds through the past. She can travel back to May 19th of 2008 and know what Mr. Alexander was thinking. Don't you know? Don't you know? She's the apologist or the defendant. She's the one that can really set you straight. It's not the defendant that's manipulating you. No, no, no. If you take a look at that statement, Mr. Alexander was making it all up. It wasn't true. He was just saying it. Because, you know, in another part of the instant messaging, they were saying, aha. Hi, Jody. Read this or whatever it is that they were saying. And so, the defendant doesn't want you to pay any attention to that. But that certainly goes, and it's the beginnings of premeditation. Her premeditation to kill him back on May 19th of 2008. He indicates that. I am extremely afraid of the defendant because of her stalking behavior. And who would know better than him? Especially since he's the one that's had to deal with her coming over, peeping in his window. He's the one that's had to deal with her showing up unannounced. He's the one that's had problems or damage to his car, according to Lisa Andrews. And he's the one that has her underneath the Christmas tree and has had rings stolen by her. So, he would know that. And so then, what ends up happening is that some time passes. And May 26th shows up. One of the important things about May 26th is that that is the day that they break up. And there's much is made by the defense that, well, during these conversations, he's mean to her. Well, why wouldn't he be mean to her? Yes, there are names that people are being called. That's correct. There are not any nice names. He is extremely afraid of her stalking behavior on May 26th when those names are called. And there is anger that is being exchanged back and forth. And he sort of capsulizes it by saying, or using a term that's not quite so sexual, but really capsulizes what's going on here and how the defendant attempts to manipulate the truth. When he says, I am nothing more than a dildo with a heartbeat to you. That's what he tells her because that's how he feels. That's how she makes him feel. And yes, he uses all of those other words, but he's also very derogatory about himself. He knows what's going on every time that, according to that statement, whenever she wants him, the way that she manipulates him is through sex. That's made that comment. And that comment was on the 26th of May in that instant message. But you don't ignore what else is going on on the 26th of May of 2008. On that prophetic day, he also tells her something else in Exhibit 450. She's apologizing to him. Again, she's manipulating him. She does something and she apologizes and everything is supposed to be okay. But by this time, he has had enough. And he says, I don't want your apology. I want you to understand what I think of you. That's what he's telling her. He's telling her he wants her to understand what it is that he thinks of her. He says, I want you to understand how evil I think you are. At that point, when he's writing that, he is extremely afraid of her because of her stalking behavior. And he does think she's evil. And how prophetic. Look at these next words. How absolutely prophetic. No one can dispute that that is the truest. Those are the truest words that are spoken in this case. And they're spoken by Mr. Alexander, even though he is not here through his writings. You, Jodi Arias, are the worst thing that ever happened to me. Any doubt that that's the truth? Do we need to look at the pictures of his gashed throat? Do we need to look at the sort of frog-like state that she left him in all crumbled up in that shower? Or do we need to look at his face where she put that bullet in his right temple? To know that what he says there is true. You are the worst thing that ever happened to me. He's telling her enough is enough. And yes, he's angry. Absolutely angry. After everything that she has done to him. And you've seen the manipulation as she has tried to manipulate you with what she has told you. And the prime example is these gas cans. No one can argue that she lied to you. Well, he's had enough. And yes, he says, you are the worst thing that ever happened to me. And then he says, in this exhibit 450, you are a sociopath. No, he does not have a psychology degree. But that certainly expresses a feeling about what she says. What she does. And how she deals with him. How she always is manipulating him. Teases this anger out of him. And tries to mix in the sex. And he says, you only cry for yourself. Well, you saw her crying on the witness stand. Did anybody debate? The reason she was crying is because she cries for herself. After all, she never intended to be caught. She said that so herself after she lied to the police. Oh no, I was saying that because I did not want to be caught. And so, you only cry for yourself. And then he says, you have never cared out me. Supposedly that could be four. And you have betrayed me worse than any example I could conjure. She has betrayed me. For whatever reason, he believes that she has done something that is absolutely horrific. And he's telling her, I've had it. I'm done with you. And again, this is May 26th. He's done with her. You are sick. And you have scammed you. Again, she has scammed him. Are you going to allow her to scam you? It's really the question from this text message. Are you going to buy her lies? Are you going to believe what she tells you? And so, we get to May 28th. Just two days afterwards. Just two short days afterwards, begins to plan, if you will. It's killing. And planning takes preparation. And there's no doubt that this woman is a very intelligent woman. And she tries to cover up her bases. And yes, she could go out and buy a gun. But you know, if you buy a gun, one of the things that she indicated in California was that there was a waiting period and they take your name. According to her, that's something that she knows. Well, let's get a stolen gun. She lives with her grandparents in Wairica. And she knows that they have guns, that her grandfather has guns. And she knows where he keeps them. So, on May 28th of 2008, she starts the planning. She starts the actual steps, or begins the actual steps to this journey that will take her to Mesa, Arizona to kill Travis Allen Jenner. There is no other explanation than that she's the one that stole that 25-calorie gun. This very small gun that, according to her, looks like a toy. This small gun. And on May 28th, at a time when she's living there, there's a burglary that is reported at her grandparents' house. And lo and behold, it's so amazing. And again, this is the manipulative aspect of this case in the defendant. It is so interesting that this burglary of the house is kind of weird. It's kind of strange. It's kind of special. Because these burglars were meticulous. They wanted to leave the impression that this was a burglary throughout the house. So they went through four rooms. And from each of the rooms, only one item was taken. And where the guns were, you saw there was some money there. These burglars didn't want money. They just wanted the gun. And they didn't want any kind of gun. They wanted a special gun. A small gun. Because there were rifles there. If a burglar comes in, he's not going to be very discriminating. You know, yeah, I'm going to take this little gun. I don't want to take the money, maybe too heavy. These other guns are too big. I'm not going to be able to carry them down the street. That's not the way a burglary happens. And oh, after I've taken one item from here, I'm going to go ahead and go to another room. And after looking in this other room, I'm going to take one item from there. And then I'll take a total of four items. If you're going to do that, if you are a burglar, then why? Why even waste the time of committing a burglary? The only thing that makes sense with regard to the burglary is that the burglar, the person who went in there. It's right there. It's Jodi Arias. That's the burglar. And she needs a gun. And she needs a gun to kill Travis Alexander. And she gets it. And guess what? It can't be traced. There's this burglary report out there. No one can say it's her. Well, at least not initially, no one can say it's her. But on May 28th, she begins to take these steps after he has told her in that May 26th, 2008, tax message that he'd had enough of her. And so what does she do as part of that? Well, she then says, but if I go to Arizona, you know, money is tight. There's an issue with money. One of the things I'm probably going to have to use is my credit card if I go to Arizona, if I fill up with gas. So I've got to make sure that people don't know, if I'm going to carry this out, that I'm going to be in Arizona. Because I don't, I can't be linked to Arizona in any way, shape, or form. And certainly using a credit card at a gas station is going to link me to Arizona. And so, well, why didn't I call Daryl Brewer? You could tell from the time that he testified that he still had feelings for her. In fact, when he was asked about this issue about the gas can, he actually paused, if you remember. And he gulped and he said, oh yeah, she did call me. And she called me at the end of May. May 28th is the end of May when this gun is stolen by the defendant from her grandparents' home. Yeah, she did call me then and she told me she was going to Mesa. She was going to Arizona. And Alice LaViolette has the same thing in her notes. That according to Daryl Brewer, the defendant called him at the end of May. And she was going to Mesa, Arizona and needed gas cans. And Alice LaViolette, even in her notes, indicated, I thought that this was an unplanned visit. Even in her notes, there are issues. But the defendant's attempting to manipulate the truth. But there are issues with regard to this. Because she's telling Daryl Brewer that she's going there. Even her own expert says, there's a little bit of an issue here. There's a problem for me. Because I thought you said that you were not going to Mesa. That you were going to Utah. Or is Utah just anything else other than more than a ruse? You can say you're going to Utah. You can have a sexual dalliance, not an extreme one, but a sexual dalliance with Ryan Burns. You can adjust him. And nobody will be the wiser. Because nobody will ever know that you were in Arizona. Because guess what? You never filled up anywhere. You never put gas in the car. [00:56:15] Speaker ?: Well, okay. [00:56:16] Speaker 2: That's what she does. She calls Daryl Brewer, the end of May, the first part of June. And she gets these two containers. Two five gallon cans for gasoline. And they were empty. It wasn't like they were full. And he lives in the Monterey area. And she leaves on June 2nd. Well, when she leaves, she doesn't take her own car. She decides to rent a car. And she has told you, well, I rented the car out of Redding, California. Which is approximately 90 miles south of Wairica, is because Priceline did not offer this same deal in Wairica. Priceline only offered it in Redding. And that's why I went ahead and did it that way. It wasn't that I didn't want people in Wairica to know what kind of car I was renting. Because, I mean, forbid if they knew I was renting this car, it could come back to me. And, of course, I don't want to be identified and kill Mr. Alexander. So, I've already made provisions for the gas cans. Now, I've got to make provisions for the car. And so, she says that's the reason why she goes to Redding, California. Except that the documents show something else. Exhibit 523 is the statement from Washington Mutual from June 1 of 2008 to June 30 of 2008. And this is the statement that she, the defendant, authenticated on the witness stand. And in fact, what we have here is the budget rent-a-car. You see it, June 9, budget rent-a-car in Redding, California. That's what we're talking about. But, if you also remember, after she killed Mr. Alexander, she came to the memorial. And she flew down here. And if you take a look at down here. There it is. See that? She paid $246.99. And that was to Priceline.com. And it says, "Air." Hmm. This Priceline. They have to get their act together here. Yeah, yeah. At one point, when it comes down to the flight. Yeah, yeah. They... I pay them. But when it comes to the car, even though I go through Priceline, I've got to pay for the car. And how is Priceline ever going to get paid if they don't take their money up front for the rental car? That's how it works. They get their money up front. Are you, or Jackson, are you, Jackson, not Americans? I know. They get their money up front. And that's how it's listed in these documents. So that we know who's getting the money. Otherwise, if it were left to budget, then you're imposing upon budget, if Priceline is involved, another accounting step to never pay Priceline. And it may be a situation where Priceline never pays them. So by this document right here, when the defendant tells you that, hmm, the reason I went for Reddit was because of the Priceline connection, she lied to you. Unless, of course, Washington neutral made this up. Maybe Washington neutral also subscribes to the law of attraction. And they don't want to put anything negative here. Maybe. It could happen that way, right? That's what they want you to believe. Don't believe what's written down. Believe what I say. That's the same situation here as it is with those diaries. They want you to believe, not what the diary said, but what she tells you. They don't want you to believe what that document says. They want you to believe what she says. So now, we know that she goes to Reading after she's made provisions for the gas cans. She goes to Reading so that people will not recognize her because she is going to kill Travis Alexander. There is no other explanation for making up all these stories that we're talking about here. There is no other explanation. She contacts Daryl Brewer, now has the gas cans, now has the car rented. And still, this car, it's in Reading where people are not going to know her. And in fact, it's at an airport. By definition, an airport is where people come in and they leave, they're traveling. Those are not the kind of people that you're going to run across at the supermarket. And so, it's a way for her to hide. And she shows up there. And Mr. Columbo says to her, "I've got this nice little red ditty over here for you. Nice little red car that you can drive on your way to Arizona, or not Arizona. Just drive around. And by the way, where are you going to drive? Oh, you know, just around town. That's all I'm going to do." Why did she lie to him? Why did she make that up to him? Because she didn't want to tell him that she was going to Mesa, Arizona, like she had already told Daryl Brewer. Because then again, that would connect her. But why not take the red car? Well, you know, according to her, red cars call the attention of the police. And she certainly doesn't want that. She doesn't want the police to find out about her because she's on a mission. She's on a mission to kill somebody. Why would you take a gun if you are going to go on this trip other than to kill this guy? And she says, "Oh, you know, I didn't know that I was going to go there. Even though I told Daryl Brewer, I didn't know I was going to go there." Keep in mind that this is a rental car. And one of the things that she says as she's pointing the finger at Mr. Alexander, and how viciously sexual he is. Do you remember when she claimed that she was down in that office? Do you remember she said, "We were down in that office, and I had brought over some CDs from the trips that we had taken with some photographs." Do you remember that? And she said, "I had scratched them." For whatever reason, she had scratched those CDs. And he got mad through that CD because, you know, that guy, he gets mad at everything. And so I then have to have intercourse with him to calm him down. That's what she said. If she's not going to visit him, if she's not going thinking, if she hasn't already made up her mind to leave Wairica and visit Mr. Alexander Mesa, Arizona, why? Why take these CDs of the trip with her? Why take these CDs? Who is she going to show these CDs to other than him? And she's in a rental car. So that requires a volitional movement on her part to take something from inside the house or her car. Whatever, whichever one she does. But it requires a volitional movement to get those CDs into her car and drive down to Redding, California, and then put them in the rental car. There is no other explanation for those CDs to be in Mesa, Arizona other than that. She knew. She knew. She absolutely knew. And had already planned it. She knew. She was going to kill them. Why else take the CDs? Do you think that Joe Colombo wanted to look at them? Do you think that her family in Redding cared? The ones that she claims took her to the airport. Nobody cares about that. But it's a good way to disarm, if you will. Or it's a good excuse to show up unannounced somewhere. Look. You know, the only reason I'm dropping by, just like I did back in August of 2007, the only reason I dropped by was to show you this. It's not my fault that you haven't seen these. And it's not my fault that I haven't been able to get them to you. Not my fault at all. Not at all. But you know, I'm making it up to you now. She left Wairika, California, with those CDs. But she forgot about it, as she attempted to manipulate the story from the witness stand. She forgot about it. It's those little details that she forgets. And so she brings those CDs. And doesn't want the red car. And the reason she doesn't want the red car, because, well, police will see her. Doesn't want to be stopped by police. And it's actually foretelling of what happens later. Because she's stopped in West Jordan, Utah, by the police. For a different reason. But she is stopped by the police. And she's right. According to her mind, a red car is more significant, or stopped more prominently, or frequently, by police. Doesn't want to be stopped. Because what if she stopped in a place that shows that she's going to Mesa? She wants to hide the fact that she's going to Mesa, Arizona. And the only reason to hide that fact is because she's going to kill him. It isn't like the bishop is going to be upset if she shows up in Mesa, Arizona. It's not like her family is going to be upset if she shows up in Mesa, Arizona. She's an adult. It's not like her friends, whoever they may be, because we don't know who they are. They're not going to be upset if she shows up in Mesa, Arizona. The only reason to keep this whole thing a secret, which is what she tried to do, is because she was going to kill him. And she's making preparations. And she's very good at making these preparations. You do have to tip her hat, your hat to her. First of all, the burglary. She does a burglary. There are no suspects. One of the only things to take it is this .25 caliber. It's lost. It's out there. It's a .25 caliber handgun. Then, she rents this car, and then takes the white car. And the white car does have some floor mats in it. Takes this white car and says, "I'm only going to drive around here." Again, she lies, makes that up. It's like a field of lies that has sprouted around her as she sat on that witness stand. It's every time she spat something out, another lie, another weed would grow around her. And so, she gets in that car, heads out, and sleeps at night at Matthew McCartney's house. And the next morning, June 3rd of 2008, she then shows up over in Monterey. The Monterey area shows up there in the morning and sees Daryl Brewer. And yes, she now has two gas cans. And the only reason to get these gas cans is to put gas on them. There's no other reason why anybody would get a gas can to go on this trip. Well, the ostensible reason to get these gas cans is perhaps gas is cheaper in Utah. Or maybe gas is cheaper in Nevada than it is in California. And that's one of the reasons that's given. But if gas is cheaper in Nevada, or Utah, and she does fill them up in Utah, why then? Why would she fill them up in Pasadena? Why would she fill up these three gas cans in Pasadena? The only reason she would fill these gas cans up in Pasadena is because she was going to take the drive to Mesa. And sure enough, there is no evidence that she ever was in this area through this gas by purchasing gasoline. Everybody that travels in, if they stop somewhere and use a credit card, it's easy to trace. But not if you don't stop anywhere. And so she picks up these two gas cans and begins to drive. And after she begins to drive, take a little detour. And this little detour is after some thought. Because this is a meticulous approach to premeditation. This is a meticulous approach to killing. Again, why stop in Salinas, California at a Walmart to buy another five-gallon can? Because she's been thinking. And she thinks, you know, 10 gallons. Let's say that may be 30 miles per gallon. That's only 300 miles. I need another five. Maybe that gives me another 150 miles. That's 450 miles. That gets me through Arizona and into Nevada. So she stops at the Walmart. And she stops at the Walmart and she does buy a gas can. [01:09:14] Speaker ?: She admits it. [01:09:15] Speaker 2: So when you look at this receipt, 237.008, and you look at it, the bottom item there for $12.96 is the gas can. I guess that's the price of premeditation these days. $12.96. And she admitted, yeah. Sure did. Yeah. Sure did. On cross-examination. I bought that gas can. But, and she was very specific. I took it back to this same store, 2458, on that same day. Objection facts. I'm nervous. You remember what she said on cross-examination when she was asked, "Where did you take that gas can back?" And on cross-examination specifically, she said, "I took it back to the same store that I bought it from." Objection to Ms. Carradine's testimony. [01:10:15] Speaker 1: Overall, the jury is directed to recall the evidence. [01:10:18] Speaker 2: And do you remember at that time that the question that was followed up was, "What would it surprise you that that store in Salinas doesn't have any record of that?" And her answer was, "Yes, it would surprise me because I got money back. I got a refund. I got a refund." That's the way the exchange went. And your notes should reflect that. So, didn't take it back there, did she? But she told you that. Why did she say that? Why did she tell you that? Because that's just crushing, if you will, in terms of whether or not this is premeditated. And it is premeditated. She was coming to Mesa with a gun and a knife. This knife appears from somewhere, so she had to have brought it up. Knives are not in a bathroom. So, she stops there, after thinking about it, and now has another gas can, which gives her a further range of 30 miles per gallon. We're talking about an extra 450 miles. Well, one of the other things that she does, as part of this premeditation, or part of what's going on, is that, you know, if you want to do something like this, it's a good idea that when you show up, that people might recognize you at the place where you're going to dismerge. And so, if you have blonde hair, and you saw the photograph of her with the blonde locks, and the black dog, and how they told you that, that's the same color. Do you remember that line of questioning that went on with Lonnie Dworkin, the expert on computers? The question was asked, "Well, do you think that this hair here with the dog looks the same as the one where she's laying back?" Do you remember that line? Like he was some sort of expert on hair color. You don't need anybody to tell you what the hair color was when she was there with the dog. You can see for yourself. You don't need the prosecutor or anybody to tell you. But you do know one thing. You were also shown photographs that were also taken on June 3rd of 2008, about this same time. And you saw the hair color, didn't you? Are you going to believe Mr. Dworkin and the defendant, or are you going to believe your eyes? Maybe the law of attraction tells you that you should believe Mr. Dworkin. Because again, you can't believe the text messages. You can't believe what's written down on the receipt. And you can't believe what's in her journal because of this law of attraction. Now you can't even believe your own eyes. Because if you do believe your own eyes, you know she's premeditating the murder. She's thinking about killing him. That's all that's required. The state doesn't even need to prove a whole plan such as this. All the state needs to prove is that the defendant thought about it, the killing, before she actually carried it out. And this is an extensive amount of planning, days, six days in advance, six to seven days in advance of her killing him, a week or so. And so, she stops there, makes more preparations. Now, she can freely drive through Mesa with these, with enough gas so that she doesn't have to stop anywhere. More thinking that goes on. And she tells you, well, I hadn't planned on going there to Arizona. I hadn't even thought about it. But, Mr. Alexander, that guy, always guilting me. This is, you know, God, it's just like a bad disease, this guy. Always guilting me. You know, it's not my fault. That's what she's telling me. It ain't my fault. He, I told him I was going to go to Utah, and he was a little bit suspicious about why I was going to Utah. But, why don't you stop here in Arizona? You can stop here in Arizona. That's what she told you that he said, or that he implied, that he wanted. She kept saying, no. You're going to come up here to see me after your trip in Cancun. It's okay. Well, the problem is that it's her one. Do we really know, based on all these lies, that that's what he told her? Or, was there just a call to try and find out what he was doing? Does he have a visitor there? Does he have somebody there? What are these roommates doing? Are they going to be there when I arrive? What is the situation there? Are you going to take her word for that? Is there any indication anywhere that Mr. Alexander even knew that she was coming down there? You have her word. You know, in cases that are mild to you, not even important cases, are you going to take her word? And remember, this individual has no problem with telling lies. You've seen throughout this whole trial. Well, she says that she does have this conversation with him. And in fact, the bone records do bear out that there is a conversation. But the content of the conversation is still in doubt. And I only have to point out to the point as far as the May 10, 2008 conversation, in terms of showing that she has no problems lying on the telephone where she says, "Well, yeah, I was faking it." And you know what she said she was faking. "Even though you heard her squealing like a cat." "No, no, no, that's just me faking it." And you know why? Because I need two hands. That's why she was faking it. Okay, well, if you can lie on May 10, 2008 on the telephone to Mr. Alexander, what makes us think that you can't lie about what you and he talked about on June 3, 2008? And remember, she's got this history all along, not only of lying outside of the courtroom, but she has sat on the witness stand. A place where you have taken an oath, a place that is sacrosanct and finding the truth, has sat on that witness stand, looked at each and every one of you in the eye and lied to you. specifically the gas cans, specifically about Priceline. And to another extent, the finger. If you remember, she said, "Oh, you know, he was starting to kick me. He broke my finger." I didn't get any medical care, but he broke my finger. Or alternatively, I actually was working at Casa Ramos before I went. And when I was at Casa Ramos, or Margaritaville, one of the two, you take your pick, because that's what she told Mr. Burns. And either I went up against one of the edges, the metal edges, and it cut me, or alternatively, it was a margarita glass. No. And then she takes the witness stand and says, "Well, in terms of the damage to the finger, I actually damaged the finger when I was at Mr. Alexander's home on June 4th of 2008. But the glass was that. That's how it happened." What story are you going to believe from this individual? And that's the issue here as to when she tells you something, what are you going to believe? And so, she leaves that area, and off she goes. Drives to Pasadena. We know that telephone calls from Mr. Alexander are after that, but she drives to Pasadena. And then something that is so bizarre happens to her. It seems that there's this coincidental horde of skateboarders in Pasadena. That's the way the kids are there in Pasadena. They go on hordes, these skateboarders. And this horde of skateboarders, well, they carry screwdrivers. That's one of the things. If you're going to be in this horde of skateboarders, you have to have a screwdriver. That's what you've got to do. Or else you're not allowed in this particular club out in Pasadena. And you can get a strawberry frappuccino or whatever it is that you get at Starbucks when you go there. Be careful because when you go in to get this strawberry frappuccino, things are going to happen to your license plate if you run across this horde of skateboarders with this screwdriver. And so when she was questioned about that in cross-examination, one of the things that she said was, well, yeah, I was pulling out after stopping there. And I was pulling out and I saw something flat on the ground. And when challenged on that, if you see something flat on the ground, what makes you think that you can go and pick it up? What in God's name would ever motivate you to go and pick this up, especially if you were afraid of this horde of skateboarders in Pasadena? Because she did say that she was concerned for her safety. Why even get out of the car if you don't even know what it is and if you don't even know that it's related to the car? And she said, I didn't know it was related to the car. I didn't know what it was. And she's having problems with the truth there because, remember, she remembers that she's got the license plate in the back. That she's got to deal with this issue involving the license plate in the back and whether or not they're connected. And she says, oh, I don't even know what the license plate was. I didn't even look in the back. When challenged further, she said, oh, wait a minute. No, no. It wasn't flat. It was actually standing up. And it was standing up and I was able to reflect and realize that it was, yeah, it was these, not square, she corrected the prosecutor, rectangular. Remember that? It was rectangular object that she recognized as a license plate. And if you don't have any suspicion whatsoever that it has anything to do with your car, why then? Why would you even get out of the car and go look when you're scared to get a license plate? Why on God's green earth would you do that when you're lying? That's when you would do that. That's exactly when you would do that. But she says, oh, you know, I went and got it and I really couldn't tell the numbers and I didn't compare it to the back. So now you're a thief. Somebody else's license plate is sitting out there. You don't know it's yours. Potentially, if it's not yours, it's somebody else's. They may potentially come back for it. So what are you doing? You're stealing it. You're depriving them of the opportunity to have the front license plate, which is obviously required in the state of California because this car had two of them. So that's what you're doing there because she didn't check to see if it corresponded with the one in the back. And the reason that she's having problems with that is because, as you know, in West Jordan, Utah, the one in the back is upside down. Like somebody took it off. And like somebody put it in the back seat of the car when they arrived at Travis Alexander's house. So that the car wouldn't be able to be identified to them. Just like that. That's it. You know? But you can't admit that. And that's why she's having problems with this license plate that's out there in this parking lot. And she ends that conversation with the prosecutor during cross-examination by saying, "Oh, well. You know, I didn't see numbers or whatever because you know what? I can't see. I needed glasses back then. So I really couldn't see. So I just grabbed it. And it had bugs on it. And so I thought it was mine." So without any regard to whether or not it really is hers, throws it in the back seat of the car. Who does that? No one does that. Making it up. And she's making it up because she got stopped in West Jordan, Utah. And has to explain how it is that the front license plate got into the car. Because this horde of skateboarders from Pasadena, they can't get into her car. So she has to be the one to do it. And the only way that she can say that she's the one to do it is to make up a story. And she made up the story about these skateboarders. I guess it's this wild, boring kind of thing where you have to have the screwdriver. They're the ones that did it. And you know she's making that up. She's lying to you about it. And the reason she's lying to you is because in West Jordan, Utah, that license plate was found in her car. So, one of the other things that she doesn't… [01:22:59] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:23:00] Speaker 2: We decide. It's us. [01:23:02] Speaker 1: Please be back in the designated area at 1:30. We will start promptly at that time. Please remember the admonition or excuse for lunch. Thank you. [01:23:12] Speaker ?: Please stand for the dirt. [01:23:13] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:23:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:23:46] Speaker 1: The record will show the jury has left the courtroom. We are at recess.