Martinez sheds light on the vast possibilities of – instead of killing with gun – maybe just talking to the person

“Amazing, how it could be that if you just talk to somebody as a human being – not as a resident of South Phoenix who you believe that because of the clothes that he is wearing – that somehow there’s a problem here. If you talk to that individual, according to their own witness, that’s what you should do first. And when you talk to that person, maybe you get some responses back. And maybe that will take care of the situation.” – Juan Martinez [Chrisman trial closing]

Martinez to Chrisman jury: rely on facts and common sense, not ‘faith’

“But he wants you to have faith; that’s what he wants you to have. Well, that’s not how you decide this case. You decide this on the facts and the evidence that was presented, not faith.” – Juan Martinez

Editor: Martinez makes it clear that a court of law is a place for scientific fact, evidence and proof, not a place to make leaps of faith. Brilliantly done, but risky with the anti-faith theme in use to a general public that is largely religious. Some may confuse his assertion of “not faith” in court with whatever they want to think out of court.

Martinez confronts ex-cop killing of victim’s dog; says he aimed center mass but didn’t ‘shoot to kill’

Chrisman actually tries to assert ‘centre of mass’ and ‘shoot to kill’ are not related
____________________________

Juan Martinez: “I’m asking not asking you about that. I’m asking you about the dog. We’re clear there’s a difference between – well maybe not to you – but there is a difference between a human and and a dog, isn’t there?”

Richard Chrisman: “Yes.”

Juan Martinez: “I’m asking you about the dog. Once you shot the dog in the back… you weren’t worried about the dog, were you?”

Richard Chrisman: “I didn’t shoot the dog in the back.”

Juan Martinez: “You didn’t shoot him right here in the back, like this (points to his back) as he turned away from you?”

Richard Chrisman: “My bullet had hit him there, yes.”

Juan Martinez: “So you did shoot him in the back, as he turned away from you then, right?”

Richard Chrisman: “I fired two rounds at the dog.”

Juan Martinez: “Did Officer Virgillo fire any rounds that day?’

Richard Chrisman: “No, sir.”

Juan Martinez: “You were the only one that fired a gun, right?”

Richard Chrisman: “Yes.”

Juan Martinez: “The injuries indicate that he was shot right here in the back. You shot the dog in the back as it turned away from you, when he was turned away from you, right?”

Richard Chrisman: “Yes, I fired two rounds. I did not deliberately shoot the dog in the back.”

Juan Martinez: “You pulled the trigger deliberately, didn’t you?”

Richard Chrisman: “Yes.”

Juan Martinez: “You meant to stop the dog, right?”

Richard Chrisman: “Yes, sir.”

Juan Martinez: “And a way to stop the dog with a handgun is to kill it, right? That’s one way to do it, right?”

Richard Chrisman: “I aimed centre of mass.”

Juan Martinez: “You aim centre of mass to kill, don’t you?”

Richard Chrisman: “No, sir.”

Juan Martinez: “You don’t aim centre mass to, you don’t aim centre of mass to… to say hello, I mean as sort of a greeting, ‘you’re going to be okay’ kind of thing?”

Richard Chrisman: “No, you aim centre of mass because that’s the largest target area on a body.”

Juan Martinez: “And the dog… you’re saying the centre mass is the rump area, right? That’s what you’re saying?”

Richard Chrisman: “No, sir. My first round I fired, the dog was facing me, and I thought I hit in this area here, but apparently I hit it in the ear.”

Juan Martinez: “And then you hit it in the back, right?”

Richard Chrisman: “The second round, I believe so. Yes.”
_________________________________________________

Proven: Chrisman kills dog by shooting him in back; corroborated by forensics/ballistics

Martinez heats up cross-examination of Chrisman, ex-cop who calls dead victim ‘irrational’ because of curse words

Chrisman-RodriguezJuan Martinez: “This is when he – according to you – is cursing, right? You don’t find that offensive, do you?”

Defendant R. Chrisman: “No.”

Juan Martinez: “In fact, you’ve cursed yourself before, haven’t you? It’s something that many – part of the general lexicon – or part of people’s vocabularies, correct?”

Defendant R. Chrisman: “Yes.”

Juan Martinez: “That doesn’t mean he was being aggressive, does it? At that point, he was just saying things to you, wasn’t he?”

Defendant R. Chrisman: “He wasn’t being aggressive, advancing, he wasn’t grabbing or throwing anything.”

Juan Martinez: “He may have been saying ‘get the fuck out of my trailer’, right?” -

Defendant R. Chrisman: “Yes.”

Juan Martinez: “He may have been saying ‘where the fuck is the search warrant?’, right? Things like that, right?”

Defendant R. Chrisman: “Yes.”

Juan Martinez: “And you told him, ‘I don’t need no fuckin’ search warrant’, didn’t you tell him that?”

Defendant R. Chrisman: “No I did not.”

Juan Martinez: “You didn’t use the word motherfucker?’

Alyce LaViolette: Not an ‘expert’ in orgasms, domestic violence, anything

“So she has an orgasm on two occasions, and he has an orgasm on one occasion, right?” – Juan Martinez

“Yes.” – Alyce Perjurer LaViolette

“So based on that, they’re enjoying each other, correct?” – Juan Martinez

“My expertise is in domestic violence, not in orgasms.” – Alyce Perjurer LaViolette

“Then why did you answer the question the way you did if you’re not an expert in orgasms? – Juan Martinez

Juan Martinez takes down idiot murderer with two names; “I’ll use whatever name he wants to convict him”

Rick Valentini aka Bryan Stewart convicted by Juan Martinez for the [2nd degree] murder of Jamie Laiaddee [without a body], and additional counts of fraud.

The Juan Martinez Stenographer (Transcription)
_______________________________________

“Who is technically, legally on trial here?”

“An individual by the name of Rick Valentini, also known as Bryan Stewart.”

“But, isn’t this a little odd, because even through the trial you’re calling him Bryan Stewart…”

“That’s the name that he preferred. I’ll use whatever name he wants to convict him.” — Juan Martinez

Mmmhmm.

In closing, Martinez reminds Arias jury that it’s not her fault; it’s the backspace button’s fault

Closing

“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 relationships with men, what do you see?

Well, even when she was young, she had this personality of manipulating the facts. Back when she was with Bobby Juarez, what did she tell you? ‘Well, this was an individual that was unfaithful to me.’

‘How could he be so unfaithful to me after I’ve done so many good things for him?’ ‘I tried to buy him clothing, I bought him food. I even lived in a trailer that was so bad 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 — he sent 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 hit that backspace button, so that whatever was using it before…maybe one or two or three or four people before that somebody could just come along and hit that backspace button.

And it’s eerily reminiscent of what she told you happened in February of 2007, when after she and Mr. Alexander began dating that she went on to 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 two thousand. So that you can’t stop hitting that backspace button. It’s not her fault that that happened. Of course not.”

- Juan Martinez

In closing: Arias will not let anything – including rock solid forensics – stand in her way of trying to manipulate you

“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.” – Juan Martinez

*An example: Arias’ medical credentials – which are roughly zero – are still superior to medical examiner Kevin Horn, who even went to medical school and still got everything wrong.

Arias closing: Martinez credits time-traveling, mind-reading, human lie-detecting (perjurer) Alyce LaViolette

“You can have people like Alyce LaViolette say “It’s not true.” And the reason, and we have to give her credit, is that the reason Alyce LaViolette knows that is that she can read minds through the past. She can travel back to May 19th 2008 and know what Mr. Alexander was thinking, don’t you know?” – Juan Martinez

GoodWorker

Martinez suggests law school for Arias’ defense attorney

Sidebar Transcript April 4, 2013

Ms. Willmott: What’s hearsay? She’s not quoting anybody. I’m not understanding what the hearsay is.

Mr. Martinez: Well, then maybe you ought to go back to law school. I mean, she’s talking about an item, an out-of-court statement. How else could she have gotten that knowledge from other than out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. I think it’s under, I think, it’s 801 Arizona rules of evidence.

Ms. Willmott: Well, I’m really familiar with hearsay, especially after this trial. I’m also familiar with what hearsay is not, and this is what we’ve been discussing. She’s been talking about subject matter this whole time.

The Court: Where are you going with this? What are you trying to elicit?

 

Martinez squashes “evidence” of eye reflection; describes dog with a stick in mouth

“As soon as I saw that and they put it up on the screen, I thought, well ‘that’s a dog.’ And I can tell the court, if we take a look at exhibit number four, that what I saw: these right here, are the two ears [if you take a look at it], here’s the mouth and here are the eyes. This looks like it may be a stick that the dog has in its mouth. So, if I can make those avows and quite frankly that’s exactly what I thought as soon as I saw this, then there is nothing scientific about this.”

~ Juan Martinez

Martinez wins conviction in State of AZ vs. Jodi Ann Arias; Justice for Travis Alexander parts I & II

“No jury will convict me.” – Jodi Arias

“She’s a liar and a killer.” – Juan Martinez

“You’re a sociopath.” – Travis Alexander

“Guilty”. [of capital murder] – Arias Jury

“Guilty”. [Aggravation/special circumstances] – Arias Jury

Penalty phase retrial for sentencing pending [after hung jury, 8-4 favoring death].

Martinez clarifies how Arias de-escalated situation by ‘getting a handgun’

“You chose to escalate this didn’t you, even though you had the 12 foot head start, didn’t you?” – Juan Martinez

“No, I didn’t choose to escalate it. I was trying to deescalate it.” – Defendant

“And you chose to deescalate the situation by – according to you – getting a handgun, right?” – Juan Martinez

[During cross-examination with Travis Alexander’s murderer, Jodi Arias]

Martinez asks Arias to clarify whether or not ‘God’ can be subpoenaed to tell us her own thoughts

Trial highlight according to… everyone.

______________________________________

TJMS (transcription)

“Well, other than you, who would be sure about your statements?” – Juan Martinez

(pause)

“God.” – Arias

“Well, God’s not here. We can’t subpoena him, right?” – Juan Martinez

“I don’t think so.” – Arias

“You don’t think so? Are you sure that we can’t? Because it seems like you’re leaving the door open for that.” – Juan Martinez

In Closing, Martinez displays oration skills that world leaders should study, learn

“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.”

Juan Martinez beginning his closing argument in the State of AZ vs. Jodi Ann Arias, Count of first-degree murder.

Martinez explains in closing that Arias – now devoid of guns and knives – ‘uses lies’ as weapon to manipulate, defame victim

“But now, instead of a gun, instead of a knife she uses lies. And she uses these lies in court when she testified to stage the scene for you. Just like she staged the scene for the police, after she killed Mr. Alexander.

And this woman, who would stage the scene, has even attempted to stage the scene through the use of the media. She has courted the media, she has gone on national television. You’ve seen the programs and you’ve seen some of the — 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.”

Juan Martinez beginning his closing argument in the State of AZ vs. Jodi Ann Arias, Count of first-degree murder.