Wednesday, February 4, 2015

FACT based reporting? You decide......

The Nazis were not the first to use propaganda. However, it is their method of use of propaganda which gave it such  a bad name.   The Nazis spread lies to the people and made sure the truth would not get out through punishing those who would dare to share it.

Recently, Rob Roman expressed offense regarding my article comparing some Jodi Arias supporters tactics to that of Nazi propaganda.   However,  his most recent article proves my point.  He made a few allegations but the truth was twisted, no evidence provided, and a veiled threat was added to any who should make statements about Arias' guilt.  Should people speak out in order to share the evidence which supports her guilt, they will end up paying a price.

"And that’s our Zealot of the month. We will have more, don’t worry. It’s not like there are a shortage of Justice 4 Travis Alexander Zealots, you know."

His statement screams "I am going to write bad things about you if you are in support of Jodi's guilt and express it."   It's a form of intimidation to prevent people from sharing the full facts.  To be fair, Rob does promise to be "fair" and do the same with Jodi supporters.  We will see if it proves to be true.  My guess if he does,  the nature of the report on any Arias supporter will largely differ from his others.


Roman made the allegation that I have been "mean and nasty"  to him and other Jodi supporters.  I think he has me confused with his own actions.

"They should be given a certain amount of respect and you should be able to discuss and debate respectfully and civilly, without getting nasty and mean"
"Deborah was always unpleasant and unfriendly to me, just because my ideas are different than hers.   I couldn’t understand it, but then I finally figured it out. I support Jodi Arias, therefore to her I’m no better than a psychotic murderer. I butchered Travis Alexander, so why should I get fair treatment? I saw her treat Richard the same way. Implying your opponents are Insane and not worthy of debate "

Roman alleged I have always been unfriendly towards him,  but where is his proof?   Is it because I have not accepted his Facebook friend request that he feels rejected?  His article is an example as to why I am careful about who I accept as a Facebook friend.  I have learned from observation to be careful about accepting friend requests.  I have seen some people harassed only because they believe Jodi is guilty and speak out against it. I choose to keep my Facebook private because of this.  And,  I am sure there are plenty of Jodi Arias supporters who feel the same about those who believe she was correctly charged and convicted.

Roman also stated I am implying my 'opponents' are insane and not worthy of debate.  Again,  where is his proof beyond that of his own thoughts?   After all,   I thought his site was "Fact-based reporting" and not "Roman's opinion based reporting." Not once have I stated or implied Roman or Richard Heights were insane;  I only stated they were wrong and backed that up with evidence.

Many who have debated with Roman can attest to his rudeness and his snide remarks.  He attacks anyone who would dare to say a negative word about his Jodi and calls them names.  One can peruse any of his "fact-based" articles to see his rudeness, name calling, and snide remarks to anyone who dare share their opinion about his Jodi.

Unlike Roman,  I can support my allegation with evidence:
Roman calls Wendy an idiot because her opinion about Arias is different from his.  She never engaged him despite his writing letters to her to inform her of his belief she was wrong.

Roman attacked Randle because he did not like what she posted about some of the Arias supporters and about Jodi.   He uses an ad hominem attack on grammar to imply she is uneducated in an attempt to diminish her credibility.

Yet another attack on someone who had a differing opinion about Jodi.

Another example of Roman's pettiness and snide remarks.  He fired an insult about grammar in his ad hominem argument.   However,  the only thing which is not grammatically correct about Randle's statement is she forgot to place one comma after "Of course."

His comments in his articles are an indication of what it is like to debate with Rob.   The rudeness and snide remarks are  evident in his Facebook debates:

Rob has been condescending and disrespectful to many, myself included. It is a reason why I choose not to debate with him anymore.  Be nice to me, and I am nice to you.  Be nasty and mean to me, and I walk away instead of fueling the fire.

Rob made the comment that I will not debate with him.  It's true that I try to not engage him anymore,  but when I do I have always answered him unless he becomes nasty and condescending.  I guess it's a form of 'time out.'   In fact,  I have done this with other Jodi supporters as well.  I don't want to give the impression all Jodi supporters get nasty with an opposing view.  I have had plenty of conversations with some and despite our disagreeing views on the subject,  civility is maintained.  Why Roman can't always do this,  I do not know.  However,  his inconsistent moods are the main reason I try to not engage with him anymore.  I don't know when he is going to remain civil, and I don't know when a snide comment will be coming.  It's a situation I would much rather avoid.

"To this day, Deborah Maran will not respond to me when I respond to her comments in a facebook open discussion group on Jodi Arias. That’s arrogance at it’s finest."
Rob has left out a major part of the story.   What he is referring to is a recent conversation in which I made the point Roman conveniently left out a major portion of the evidence which supported the fact MMc was lying.   I waited for a response  and did not receive any.   Later,  I went back and discovered Roman finally answered an hour after I posted my statement.   His reply was MMc meant it was November 2000 when the alleged Reid abuse occurred.  My response was going to point out how when MMc was told Reid was not in the country on his January 2001 date,   MMc stated his timeline might be off and it could have been later the same year. However,  as I read on I decided to go back to my previous behavior and no longer debate Roman.  Even though he did not respond to me for an hour,  the fact I was no longer around to respond to Roman upset him.  
He once again became nasty and made a threat to write the very article he is using as an attempt to silence me.  Rob will tell you I avoided debating with him, but he will not tell you his reply came an hour after mine or that he became nasty so he was avoided.  Instead,  he spins the story in such a way he has become the victim.


Roman continued his article and included praise for Speights. Per Roman,  Speights was a military medic,  and not a Jodi Arias supporter.  Per Roman,  Speights was a patient man, and a respectful man.
"Richard was always respectful and willing to listen to criticisms and questions and he would patiently address each one."

Yes....respectful, peaceful, and patient with those who would criticize him.....
Others recognized Speights as a person who attacked when his theories were questioned:

 Those of you who have had dealings with Speights understand the truth about Roman's statements. Those of you who have not can understand his demeanor when he is faced with criticism thanks to the snips I have shared. Speights is far from the patient peaceful man Roman implied he is. Speights' response to criticism came long before I posted my article.   Prior to me,  Speights harassed one blogger who stood in opposition to him to the point the blogger made his blog members only for awhile.

Speights is very much an Arias supporter and there is nothing wrong with his wishes to be in her corner.  However,  both he and Roman really should be honest about it. Speights has written multiple articles which show he supports her innocence:
Proof of Perjury
Innocence Essay Report
Defensive Hand Wounds
Who sent the John Doe email of December 8th, 2007
And he also produced a video:
"Lie By Omission"

Richard and Roman both claim Speights is not an Arias supporter.    His multiple articles expressing his view she is innocent show he does support her.  So why would Speights state he is not an Arias supporter?  Most likely it is because he believes it will give him the benefit of appearing "unbiased."   Why does Roman claim Speights is not a supporter? For the same reason.   He believes by saying Speights is not a supporter it gives him more credibility.   Romans' goal is to silence those who support the fact Arias was correctly charged and to discredit them as well.  He believed he could do this by portraying Speights as the gentle victim who had no ulterior motive because he did not support Arias. His use of Speights as an innocent victim was an attempt to paint me as vindictive.  However,  he failed at his attempt.   Speights' actions will always show his true colors and multiple people can attest to this.

Speights attacked me  for debunking his medical claims.   However,  instead of supporting his claim with evidence he made inflammatory allegations about my intelligence.  In his allegation, Speights used the fact I focused my time on research, free-wrote my article, and did not take the time to edit it. He implied I was not intelligent and must be wrong about the evidence.  Now,  Roman is doing the same.  And,  he also does it later in his article about Kristin Randle.  The message Roman is trying to exert is "Pay no heed to the research, ignore the links to facts,  and never mind what the evidence shows. Just know she is wrong because of the way she writes."  It's an ad hominem attack like no other.  Proper writing style has no bearing on who is correct.  If it did,  it would mean Jodi's writing style must indicate her story is not correct.  When put that way,  it's silly; isn't it?

Roman also alleged  Speights would not have wrote his article without the proper research.  The mistakes Speights' made support that is not entirely true.  For example,  Speights reported the knife hit the superior vena cava and stated it was a major artery between the lungs and the heart.  That statement supported Speights lacked the medical knowledge to understand what he was writing about.  Anyone who has a medical background understands that "vena"  is vein.  They know the superior vena cava is a vein which carries blood back to the heart from the upper circulatory system. And, they know why a wound to the superior vena cava is  often synonymous with a death sentence. His statement also showed a lack of research. One google search would have made him aware the vessel was a vein, not an artery. It's an important fact because a hole in an artery would not continue to widen and tear like a hole in the fragile superior vena cava would.   It's a fact which leads to a lot of blood loss.  

Roman states that this blogger has treated Speights unfairly.  If providing factual evidence which shows he is wrong and calling him out on the same grammar mistakes he called me unintelligent for is unfair, then Roman would be correct.  However,  I don't call that unfair.  I call it setting the record straight.


Roman made the statement:

"She has portrayed herself at different times as a legal expert, a medical expert, and now, a computer forensics expert."
My first computer article:
  Rob conveniently left out parts of the truth which points to the context.  The first article I ever wrote on the computers I added a disclaimer so people would understand I am not a computer expert.  The disclaimer was written prior to publishing the article.  This fact can be verified by a comment from a well known Jodi supporter:

 The first sentence of my article is a statement that I am not a computer techie. How could Roman not have seen that?  Why is it not included in Roman's article?  It is because it does not work in the way he is trying to portray me. I am a firm believer in sharing the full evidence,  not just the part which would make one position stronger.  It is why I shared Roman's 'promise'  to post similar articles about Jodi supporters.  It has been too often that people conveniently only report the evidence which supports their viewpoint.  It's a trend I will continue to fight against.

Roman also stated I portrayed myself as a "medical expert."  However, Roman isn't being factual. The truth is I do know a little something about medicine.  However,  I never claimed to be an 'expert'.  In fact, I encouraged people to not take my word for it and look up the facts for themselves.

In addition to alleging I portrayed myself as a computer expert and a medical expert,  Roman alleged I portrayed myself as a 'legal' expert.   Again, Roman is not being factual.  I have only discussed those things which I have looked up and researched.   However,  I guess in Roman's perception  if one talks about something it must mean they claiming to be an expert.  If so,  Roman would be portraying himself to be an expert on many things:  medicine, grammar, psychology, law, guns, etc.

Roman tells a story of a debate he and I had some time ago.  This was before I had enough of his snide remarks and decided to avoid him.   In his story,  he is not telling you the truth.   The debate we had was not over an alleged belief I had that felony murder was proven.   The debate was  whether or not the jury understood the jury instructions.   In an attempt to discredit the jury, Rob used the fact multiple jurors determined felony murder as evidence they did not understand the jury instructions.  I pointed out to him  jurist were following the jury instructions as they were written. From the jury instructions:

Nowhere in the jury instructions did it express to the jurist the felony associated with burglary could not be murder.  I pointed out to Roman the DT tried to get the felony murder charge dropped based on the fact the felony could not be murder.  I also pointed out to him the judge denied the DT's claim because she stated the felony could have been an attempt to commit felonious assault, not murder. Finally,  I pointed out to Roman that none of this was explained to the jury.   In the end,  I was under the impression Roman agreed with what I stated about the facts not being fully explained to the jurist and it was why they found felony murder.  After all,   he asked me why I was still debating the subject because he agreed.   Now, Roman alleges in the midst of said debate, I abruptly ceased the conversation and that is not true. Neither is his allegation I stated felony murder was proven.  What he did was take a conversation and twist it to fit his needs. It's a trick Jodi's DT has used multiple times.

Roman's allegation that I have portrayed myself as any expert is completely false.   In fact, I have asked before if others believe I am wrong to please provide the contradictory information and I will review it and amend my statement if I was wrong.   I have also encouraged people to seek out the information for themselves because the truth is always out there.

Rob seems to contradict himself in his article.   On one hand,  I am being unfair, mean, nasty, and unpleasant with him in our debates.  But then I am also refusing to debate with him.  Which is it?   And why in the world would anyone want to debate with someone who is being unpleasant, mean and nasty to them?  I know I don't which is why I try to avoid Roman.

I think not.  Fact means it can be supported by evidence, and it appears Roman's article is nothing but his opinions.

 He failed to provide the evidence of his "fact"  I have been mean and nasty to him.

He failed to include the fact I avoid him because of his intermittent snide comments when someone disagrees with him.

He has been proven wrong in his statement Speights is a patient man who is always respectful and responds well to criticism.  ---this fact was well known before my article debunking his 'medical fact'  came out.

He failed to do his research or he just decided to leave out the fact I implied I was not a computer expert when he claimed it 'fact'  I portrayed myself as one.

He failed to report the full context of the debate we had which included a discussion about felony murder.  And,  he was not honest when he alleged I abruptly ran out in the middle of the conversation.

Roman alleged that this blogger cannot handle criticism.  However, he provides no proof.  I have encouraged others to challenge me if they believe I am wrong.   I have freely admitted that I am not beyond making a mistake.   And  when I do,  I admit it:

If Roman's definition of not handling criticism is when one addresses the situation head on when someone is providing half-truths, then he is correct.  If his "not handling criticism" definition is providing evidence to show the criticism is unfounded,  he is correct.   If his definition includes demonstrating the hypocrisy of a person claiming superior intelligence and then making the same type mistakes as the one they attacked,  he is correct. If his definition for not handling criticism is to freely admit one is wrong to an opposing view,  he is correct.  If his definition for not handling criticism includes a person encouraging anyone who has evidence to the contrary to present it,  he is correct.  If his definition for not handling criticism is the avoidance of the 'mean and nasties' who attack,  he is correct.   However,  the true definition of not handling criticism is far from what Roman believes it to be.   The true definition of not handling criticism is a person who attacks another and calls them names just because they have a different opinion from what they posted.

In all fairness,  it's possible Roman is just confused about who he has debated with.  After all,  he believes I am Canadian.

He is as correct about me being Canadian as he is about my alleged hatred for Jodi or her supporters. Since I was born and raised in the US,  I guess it's another "fact-based" reporting fact Roman forgot to verify.

I have said it before, and I will say it again;  I neither hate nor like Jodi Arias. I can't because I don't know her.   Again,  his statement is based purely on his opinion.   It's not "fact-based" reporting as his website claims to be.  He has provided no evidence to support my alleged hatred for Jodi or her supporters. Other then his baseless allegation,  he can't show anything to support a hate for Jodi or her supporters. 

I have made it known to many I am in direct opposition to the death penalty.  And,  I have been very open with all that I don't want Jodi to get the DP.  Yes,  that is my alleged 'fanatical hatred' for her.    I have openly stated how unnecessary it is to call Jodi the derogatory names some use.  Yes,  that is my alleged "fanatical hatred" for her.  I have defended Barwood against another who stated he was only in it for attention for himself.  I told her I felt Barwood really believes Jodi was abused and really wants to help her. Yes,  that is my alleged 'fanatical hatred' for her supporters.  When Jodi attackers call me names instead of attacking them back,  I ask why they are attacking me.  Yes,  my attempt to diffuse the situation is my alleged "fanatical hatred"  for Jodi supporters.  And,  if they continue to attack I take the higher road and avoid them instead of retorting with equally angry slurs.  Yes,  that is my alleged "fanatical hatred" for Jodi supporters.

Roman can't provide evidence of my alleged 'fanatical hatred'  for Jodi because it's not true.  His claim I "hate"  Jodi and her supporters is only a failed attempt to make my statements seem less credible.  What people like Roman forget is no matter how hard they try to discredit,  those same facts I share will always be out there for those who seek.   And,  I strongly encourage all readers to seek and  verify all which is shared.

Actions always show a person's true intentions.   It seems like Roman is upset about the fact I will not debate him anymore.   Roman makes mention of Wendy Murphy,  Kristen Randall,  and myself in his article.  He either has exaggerated the truth or come right out with insults.  It's no wonder why we will not engage with him.  And,   is that what his article really is about?  Is it a temper-tantrum to get noticed and elicit a response?  Roman's comments have given him away:

"Now  let's see if................ she will respond to them (any comments)" translation:  " I wrote the article because she will not engage with me."

Roman's statement shows his true purpose for writing the article.   Wendy Murphy would not answer Roman and neither would Randall and that is why he has included them.

"Now let's see if Deborah will accept any comments from me...."
It's obvious Roman has been reading my blog.  He has had the ability to comment at any time but chose not to.  His statement again appears to be one made to paint himself as the 'victim'.  IE- "I commented before, but she hasn't accepted them.  Now that I wrote the article, let's see if she will allow them."

 "It's about treating people like lepers just because they support the defendant"   IE "She will not interact with me because I support Jodi."

A leper is one that is avoided.   When Roman wrote the statement,  he knew I often openly debate on a page ran by a very outspoken Jodi supporter.  It's a page in which a person can't even say Jodi is guilty.  Roman belonged to it too.     Roman's claim to victimization by me just because he supports Jodi is not true and Roman knows this.  Roman just cannot accept it is his own bad behavior which has resulted in my avoidance of him.  He wants to put the blame on anything else but his own actions.   He wants to play the victim.

Be nice to me,  and I am nice to you.   Be mean, nasty, condescending and tell lies about me,   and I avoid you.

I have removed comments which included personal information about locations of other posters.  I cannot see how a person's location has anything to do with this case.  I ask that posters please do not post any  personal locations.   There is no reason for a person to do this unless they are being spiteful to another.  So,  please don't do this even if it is in retaliation d/t another did the same.

Additionally,   I have removed comments which I found to be prejudicial in nature towards sexual orientation.  I  also removed others which were too inflammatory in nature.  Remember,   it is how a person behaves and their words which indicates how they will be perceived.

I stand by my article and have provided evidence to support my statements as any "fact-based article"  should be written.   I believe in fighting with fact instead of name-calling and weak allegations based on one man or woman's opinion.  I ask for posters to do the same and please support any allegation with evidence and links.     Otherwise,   it only ends up looking like a weak opinion of someone who is being nasty, mean, and condescending  A person's true colors of being a "mean and nasty to avoid" will always be evident in the way they behave no matter what they say.   In fact,  when a person says one thing and their behavior shows different,  it is often called "two-faced."

It makes one wonder what it really means when a person finds herself targeted again when she only shares the totality of facts about the Jodi Arias trial (not just the ones which could make her appear innocent),  does not write articles about Jodi Arias supporters,   and avoids those supporters who attack.   I mean,  it almost sounds like the purpose of targeting is because someone does not like the full evidence being shared which supports Jodi's guilt.   It almost sounds like there is an emotional link to the defendant which causes the attacker to feel violated just because  someone dares to share that which proves Jodi guilty as charged.

If it's not an emotional response related to a perceived attack on Jodi,  it must be one based on my avoidance to debate with any JA supporters who falls in the category of mean and nasty.  This article and any of the ones written by others shall serve to show why I choose to not debate with certain people.  Most of these people easily give themselves away.  I avoid them because of their bad behavior.   When one states it is because of a "fanatical hatred"  for Jodi supporters,  it's a big lie.  And,  the evidence shall remain to show how much of a lie it was.   


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. I recently saw that about Roman and the California stuff. However, it is not something I added to my article ---yes, that's my mean and nasty "fanatical hatred" for the Jodi supporter. If my goal was to degrade Roman, I would have. No, my goal was to set the record straight and demonstrate it it not I who was the unpleasant, mean, nasty one put Roman. I think I successfully demonstrated why I choose to not debate him.
      I am for freedom of speech. Personally, I don't like it when Jodi is called names but I understand why people are doing it. It's out of anger at what she did and her ongoing lies to degrade her victim. Her continued degradation of the victim is only leading to many believing she really has no remorse.
      With that said, Roman has "promised" to comment here. However, at the same time he implied I would erase his comment. I only ask that others be civil in response to him. However, I suspect if he comes in guns of snide a'blazin, he is going to be met with the same thing he promotes.

    2. Well he needed to call his troll friend to come and back up. Well that was an epic fail on his part since SW just spewed a bunch of lies. She's talking about people that don't exist in reality. Anyway, good job. Does RR not know how to read? Guess he decided to completely over look Richard Speights's tirades, laughable lawsuit threats while exposing himself as a total fraud. Now add, ebay fraud to his resume in place of fake "knife expert".

    3. This is an example of a comment I would never allow on my blog. It's exactly the kind of barren nonsense I like to avoid. The man writes some articles, the man is a total fraud. The man gets harassed by scores of prosecution supporters and he is the one who had a tirade after he finally got fed up.

      I have no need to go in guns blazing, never have, What would that accomplish? Nada.

      I needed to call my troll friend. No, she found this totally on her own. I never heard of Willow Tree ever before. Speights was in the miltary as a medic and he is an expert in hand to hand combat. Something about E-bay, have no idea what that's about, I have never been to California. Amanda went to school in California, not me.

      I'm a fraud and a decptive dope, and a rat. And you allow that? Deborah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You wouldn't allow a Jodi supporter to make those comments, would you?

      What a coward, when this person has never spoken to me and we are outnumbered 99 to 1 and pose no threat whatever. Your response shows you condone this? Think, Deborah.

      Rob Roman

    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    5. I will ask Willow Tree to tone it down with the name-calling. So, if you would oblige me Willow, I would be grateful. I am a firm believer a position can be better supported by showing evidence why someone is wrong instead of inflammatory statements.
      With that said, your one to talk Roman. You said you would not allow such comments on your blog? How is one poster calling you a "rat" any different than you calling two women who you never even corresponded with names such as "idiot" and "Dr. Dipstick"? Your the one who wrote those words just from reading articles right? Or are you stating it's OK for you to call people derogatory names but it's a problem when they do it for you? IMO, I think it only weakens a stance.

    6. No Deborah. I was talking about my comment section. I do not allow abusive comments from either side. I did let Heather S. spam a little and get a little ornery, but I finally banned her. I am working on a response to all your points, including the above. I do appreciate your asking to tone down. I have removed some things from my article that I feel were unfair. I will check it again later to see if I need to make more changes. There was no grammar error. I read the sentence wrong.It was late night. I should know that a Ph.D. is not going to make too many grammar mistakes. Wendy Murphy is atrocious, proven fact. Randle called me a psychotic, insane, and a woman-beater, so Dipstick in comparison is rather mild. One should expect so much more from a Ph.D. who claims to have a fascination with the subject, am I right?. I hoped to see an explanation or an analysis from Dr. Randle's experience. Really it's a self-serving screed, I think it's quite readily apparent.

    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    8. Oh lordy, now we know you're losing it SW. Willow Tree, me is a female in NY. I'll buy you ticket to come and see me. Care to take me on? Dirk is in Amsterdam. I've spoken to him for the first time ever 3 weeks ago via fb. Seems a yr ago he gave you back as good as you gave. Your response was to harass, steal his pictures (you do that to everyone) and incited hate against him. Heck, we aren't even the same age. He's much older than I. This is the same guy George Barwood lied about. George never provided proof Dirk contacted his daughter. We are all still waiting. Many asked George for proof. Nothing as of at least 6 mos now. Now, come to NY. You can even visit your buddy Joe Santos in PA while you are here. It's only a few hrs ago. So much for your research. I don't expect you to take that kind invitation on. You fear going out in public.

    9. What's even more hilarious is SW had one of her lacky's (probably one of her many fake aliases) get my ip which clearly stated I am in NY. They were not smart enough to figure out how to where an IP location is. I got a big hoot over that. SW, you got no cred ever. I put your bs in the same category as you stalking & harassing Paul Sander's now. How did that lying to get him kicked out of court work out for you? LMAO Not well. I expect yet another restraining order against. I can't imagine having one while yours are stacking up.

  2. Oh and by the way, sorry to keep adding as I can't just edit a comment. Rob Roman has admitted on Occupy HLN that is not their real name. Doh! The factless fool should really keep up with their lies a little better instead of trolling 24/7. Funny how they are sticking up for the Hodi trolls while they are one themselves. Hypocrite!

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This is an amazing article. Thankyou..And in the words of that wise man
    SOCRATES: When the Debate is lost, Slander becomes the tool of the loser

    1. I like that quote Adele because it is so true. I have seen that. People who debate with me know I am not mean nasty and condescending. I will stick to my guns and repeat myself when a statement is being ignored. So, I guess that can be considered "unpleasant" but not sure how it is "mean and nasty."

  5. One has to wonder why the fact less fool spends so much of their time trolling bloggers who know way more than that nut bag who knows jack squat when it comes to reality and only tells lies. They only prove to be jealous because they are an utter failure. Jack ass Johnny Folds is not doing himself any favors. He's become a joke. Bring out their imaginary Amanda Chen. That's always fun! connnect the dots people. RR is the queen of fake aliases while he acts like a jealous queen. Doh!

    1. Willow Tree; Do you know who Cheryl Handy is?

  6. I'm not posting here to debate on any specific points, or to take sides on anything. But I do read a lot all over because people's take and attitudes on all this fascinates me. I find themes that run through both sides, and in this article, I see the often repeated, in one way or another, belief that men who have taken an interest in this case must have a personal affection for Jodi. I have to ask, why is that? I've read Rob and George for a long time. I honestly don't think their efforts are motivated by any "crush" on Jodi to speak of. But it seems to me that by suggesting this, you and others who feel the same, are using that assumption to demean Jodi even more. It's as if to say she's just a pretty face, and that's the only reason these men would spend so much time supporting, debating, etc. I often wonder what motivates you and others to spend so much time researching and writing and supporting the prosecution. I mean, it's not like she can be found anyMORE guilty, is it?

    You said:
    "Many who have debated with Roman can attest to his rudeness and his snide remarks. He attacks anyone who would dare to say a negative word about his Jodi and calls them names. One can peruse any of his "fact-based" articles to see his rudeness, name calling, and snide remarks to anyone who dare share their opinion about his Jodi."

    1. Snooze, Rob who is using a fake name is snide, obnoxious, rude and a liar. I know. I've sparred with him. He knows jack squat about anything nor anyone. He is the company he keeps. A troll just like you.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    3. Amazing Sandra, coming from you, who's running theme is that ALL who believe/know Arias is indeed guilty of murder one, are "Jealous" of Jodi, and that is why we believe she is guilty. PLEASE.

    4. I can't believe you're not jealous of a high school drop out who couldn't keep a job, lived off of men, used them like toilet paper, had no home, no real belongings, had no real friends, abused animals, her family, Travis, a thief, a tire slasher and evil killer living in a cage. Oh I can't believe I don't have that life! LMAO Their argument is weak.

    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    6. It is quite evident on social media that a majority of men do not actually support Arias, although they say they do. What they are supporting is their own sexual deranged fantasies. Many comments have been made by Arias' male followers on "KY, Poprocks and 3 holes followed by I'd date her". In my opinion George Barwood may not be one of these men, however his motivation is money.

  7. Why write articles? Because it sets the record straight. It's important to do because people post 1/2 truths and their perception as fact three-times over. One example is those who report "She left pictures at the scene, does that sound like premed to you?".............It does when the full facts are included- "She put the camera in the washer and ran it after she deleted only those pictures which could incriminate her." Another is "She told Ryan to expect her, and she knew she would be late. Is that premed?" when the full amount of information is "She told Ryan to expect her but also that she might sleep along the way. Stopping at Travis' to kill him would have been an 8-hour detour- the same amount of time it takes to sleep."

    Another example is the altered perception so many often report as "fact." For example, your own in which you implied a theme in the article is a men like Barwood and Roman have taking an interest in Jodi because they have a 'crush' on her. Not sure how you can state that when I directly stated in my article I argued with another that I believe Barwood really believes she was abused and wants to help her.
    As for Roman, "His Jodi" supports the high level of almost a hero worship some have elevated her to. There's a problem when a debater gets so emotionally involved with a subject that they are condescending, snide, rude, and resort to name calling because another person expresses their belief Jodi is guilty. It has nothing to do with a belief Roman is supporting Jodi because he has a "crush" on her. That is just your perception and your allowed to have it. However, it only becomes an issue when you start reporting it as "fact" when it is not a "fact." It's quite interesting to me because I see many people re-reporting the evidence in a way which would support innocence- or like you have they re-report it to make her look victimized. If the true evidence is what those 'reporters' claim, whats the harm in reporting it as written? It's almost like someone is offering their perception as evidence instead of the factual evidence.

    1. Maybe I am a sap because I really am under the impression that George really believes Jodi is innocent and wants to help her. I will admit before I ever conversed with him I was under the impression he was in it for himself. But, after we have had our debates, I just felt he really thought he could help her. But, Willow Tree, my believe George really wants to help her must be a sign of my "fanatical hatred" for Jodi supporters, right?
      And you are right about the "harass and threat". It's the reason RR posted where I live and made the veil threat "There's more to come when I have time." well, my life is boring as all get up. Besides some serious health issues I went through, there really is not much to tell about myself.

    2. So now you think Rob worships her as a hero? Really? Well, that's your perception. I don't see that either. I wonder why it is so hard to believe that there are people, both men and women, who view the case and trial as incredibly flawed. A do-over and more, in a fair and impartial court, should be agreeable to both sides, unless the state feels it can only win if it cheats. Honestly, I don't read your blog in detail because I don't have the time or energy. But again, I'm always intrigued by people who invest so much in their efforts. Rob posted where you live? You mean what country? Sorry, didn't catch that. I really do think there is an enormous amount of misunderstanding between people....especially when humor and sarcasm is used. Rob and I both use it a lot. BTW, and I'm an old timer, Rob and Amanda are for real. "Willow Tree", however, is!

    3. Rob Roman is not real. Get your head of your behind. Amanda is not real either. So much for your research. Now you've got your head up his azz too? What part of "Rob admitted to using a fake name" did you not get. We've all seen him bring out his Amanda Chen persona when it suits him. You're the last observant person while you seem to be everywhere while not really living in any kind of a reality. I know exactly who he is as do most know. Psst, you're always the last to know. Every notice that? You don't have time to read this blog nor the energy? Yet, here you are stalking again. Your word is worthless to me Sandra. There is never any validity to it. You're like the nosy neighbor because they have no friends nor a life. What effort is RR putting in by writing pure bs? Not much, I assure you. Please stop talking. You really have no clue what you're talking about ever.

    4. I know Sandra has more aliases than I own thong underwear, but don't you find it odd that she chooses to speak for Rob & George all the time? The other odd thing I find is SW exposed Jason Weber as a total fraud, lengthy arrest record & is a major alcoholic. Jodi wants nothing to do with him & his fellow scammers, yet they still insist they know better? Lies aren't helping Hodi obviously. Another odd coincidence. How come the fake Rob Roman & George Barwood joined his imaginary board knowing Jason is a scammer? George was telling people not to let that info out. Why? Because you know it's a scam. Their taking a play book from Simon Hall aka SJ of JAII.

    5. Oh no. Now I have a mental picture of Dirk Hartog wearing thong underwear. You do make me laugh, Dirk!

    6. Dirk isn't here. Go troll else where. You're trying to help Jodi remember? Of course we know you're not, but I'll play along w/your little game. Why aren't you taking my challenge? Are you not allowed out of Florida? Didn't think so. As par for your loser game in life. You're all talk. Hey, maybe you can let Joe tie you to a tree & you can slap him with a fish. Seems you're into stuff like that. Carry on while I live a very happy life here in NY. You obviously did not read my posts. You glazed over them. What did you accomplish today so far SW? Nothing. I make more in one hr than you make in a yr collecting disability. That's why I offered to buy your ticket. Why not take me on? A free flight and you get some from Joe at the same time? I didn't think so.

    7. Sorry Debbie, I highly disagree with you on George Barwood. Your statement: "I believe Barwood really believes she was abused and wants to help her." It is my opinion Barwood looks at "ONLY" high profile cases when he chooses to help someone. Why? Money? Recognition? George Barwood has his own agenda, everytime he posts a comment he posts a link trying to sell a book. I am certain there are abused women in his own country that he can exert his time and energy on, but as we all know Arias' trial has been very "HIGH" profile since Arias did all her media interviews and George Barwood does not waste his time on low profile cases. Helping her helps himself.

  8. Hi Deborah. It's customary to provide a link to an article you're discussing

    Let's set the record straight. I had one article where I recommended your computer article and I was complimentary in part of the current article. As far as my comment to Ms. P. that I had yet to see a comment that was worth my consideration, this was the truth and was in response to a multiplicity of troll-like comments from Ms. P. that were personal comments (also called ad hominem type comments) which are not allowed in the discussion group.

    After the fourth or so comment, I made that comment, meaning am not going to respond further unless Ms. P wants to debate or discuss the issues presented. Everyone else in the group was not a problem. We had a nice discussion.

    You're from Toledo, Ohio, I knew that but I made a mistake. It's already been corrected. I'll get to the rest when I have more time.

    Rob Roman

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. you have been proven to be wrong on multiple factors and it's also been proven your article is not "fact-based."
      you have been proven wrong about the "victimization" of Speights through your misrepresentation of him as a man who is 'patient and respectful" when criticized.
      You have been proven wrong about my alleged portrayal of myself as a computer forensics 'expert'. It was your words I copied and whether or not you said a nice thing about the article is only your attempt to distract. you said I portrayed myself as a computer expert when it was very evident I was making it known I was not. Your statement was not very fact-based or well researched, was it?

      You have been proven wrong about my alleged "fanatical hatred" of Jodi supporters -- after all I freely admitted to Barwood when I was wrong in a statement. And, when others have attacked me for my belief in her guilt, I have not returned the same. And, if the continued to attack I choose to block them instead of returning the same.... Really hateful of me, correct?

      You have been proven wrong about my alleged inability to accept criticism-- after all I freely admitted to Barwood when I was wrong in a statement. What person not taking criticism says "yes George, I was wrong."?

      You have been proven wrong about my alleged fanatical hatred for Jodi Arias ---- THere are numerous times I have stated I do not wish for the DP and my lack of using the derogatory names for her. In fact, it's been said on a thread you have been on that I don't wish to see her die. In fact, I recently posted on the same page you post that I believe there is no reason to call those names.

      And, you have proven the point about how some people use Nazi-like propaganda tactics to silence those who are willing to share the truth via evidence.
      IE "Your from Toledo, OH. I'll get to the rest when I have time." What does sharing a hometown have anything to do with the case? NOTHING. And what does a statement which implies you are going to share any personal details you find have to do with the case? Nothing. What you are doing is implying "Keep posting the truth and I'll make you pay by posting your personal information out there." It's a threat meant to punish a person for posting the evidence which present a different view from the one you want people to believe. And who else punished people for posting facts to show their "truth" was not true?

      And, as for you being the alleged victim- your derogatory statements about women who never even communicated with you shows the truth (Murphy and Randle). These women never did anything to you and you are using terms such as "idiot" and "Dr. Dipstick" to describe them. All they did is post something which was in disagreement with your views. I think people get the jist of how you react at times when in direct contact with a person during a debate when they have an opposing view.
      there are plenty of others out there who know how you get condescending, snide, rude, etc to people at times. All "P" said was you were talking out of both sides of your mouth....and a second person reiterated that. "P" was just an easy to find example of the attitude you display when people disagree with you or call you out for changing your statements.

    3. There is too much here to respond to. I have addressed all your points and will respond. You are mistaken about Ms. P, she was engaged in the exact same type of behavior that Willow Tree is. I don't get upset by that, but I want to discuss the case, not go back and forth with people who cannot discuss. Calling someone two-faced is not discussing the case. I wrote an article stating that last week in court with McGee and the letter were a disaster for the defense and added insult to injury, imo. That doesn't change my other views, and why should it? Many of my views will not change and hold true regardless of the guilt or non-guilt of Jodi Arias.

    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    6. Rob or whatever your name is. When you dish it out which you do often. You prove you can't take it back. Buck up! Can't take the heat. Get out of the kitchen. You're making some big mistakes because of that. You've got a lot of people on to you and your net games. I'll say it again. "The company you keep is yet another reason you get no respect." How did you expect other wise?

    7. One has to wonder fake alias(s) Rob Roman feels the need to point out where Deborah may or may not live?

  9. Debbie,
    You are correct in all your statements. In fact, at one point I would read Rob's blogs but as of the last couple of articles I realized they are not fact based. He lists all of the horrible" prosecution supporters" and only posts the good "Jodi supporter" comments. When I read his Richard Speights comments, I knew then that he had an agenda because I have seen with my own eyes the things he says and the attacks on people's grammar when those same people want to talk about the evidence. When Rob states that "many things Jodi said were proven to be true" he offers no evidence they were true or offers evidence that he misrepresented "Travis friends testified to his angry outbursts". That is incorrect. They testified that Jodi and Travis had regular argument just as any couple would. And he states that other lies were proven true like " Travis was a virgin and that was proven just like Jodi said" I have gone through everything over again and not one person said he was a virgin. They said he didn't talk about his private life. I saw that as misrepresenting facts to try and make it look like it proved she was not guilty. And in the article where be claims that prosecution supporters call people names, he calls people names in the next few paragraphs. Another, when he claims that christine Reynaldo?(I am not sure as I haven't read it) is not a doctor he offers no proof. Another person throwing out "fact based" reporting and it's not. I am disappointed because it seems there is an agenda there too. Richard is a Jodi supported, like you said "that's OK" but don't pretend he is not or you are not and you are there to get the truth but then turn around and misrepresent and fake evidence or misconstrue it. And when someone disagrees calls them names or call out their grammar. To bad rob, I at first thought you were here for truth and facts and all that but you played me.

    1. Just so you know, I did not post the article to degrade Rob. The article was posted to make it clearly known his "fact-based" article about me was nothing more than his opinion and irritation I no longer debate with him. And yes, Roman's bad behavior had to be shown in order to support my stance that it is not because he is a Jodi supporter I avoid him but because he behaves in a certain way during a debate. He's already called two women he never even corresponded with insulting names just because he disagreed with their viewpoint. He's been nasty to me before and I see him doing it to others. Why in the world would I want to continue to debate with him?

  10. Deborah, I am going to retract all parts of the article mentioning you. I'm replacing it with a talk about Zealots, minions and Decepticons in general on both sides of the case, and I will state that you are not one. It will be changed within 24 hours.
    Rob Roman

    1. Although I refuse to read your blogs, I hope an apology to Debbie Maran was included.

    2. Smart move. It's a waste of net space. Nothing factual to it. In fact, RR never followed the case. They have been tested on that and fails jodi 101 every time.

  11. Oh boy, we can't wait for to you dare deflect your behavior. Should provide much laughter around the net. Is "decepticons" a word? Tell us one thing. How much you think you're going to make with scamming fraud Jason Weber & George Barwood? FYI, you just described them to a T. Doh!

  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  13. Interesting. Glad I came across this. Personally I like the spotlight on law blog but I just found this one and I like it as well. I am not on either team, I think there is still a lot more to the case then we know. I hope both the Alexander Family and the Arias Family can start the healing process. I truly feel for both families. I haven't read through your blog completely but what I have read I respect and appreciate you sticking to facts not feelings. I had a lot more empathy prior to seeing the JAII after seeing Travis's body in a body bag with Justice Served captioned I could not in good conscience try to stick up for her anymore and to call the Alexander family names/ anyone who disagreed with their beliefs pedo-huggers is a reflection of Jodi's character because she choses to support that site. There is no doubt in my mind that if the JAII site did not exist and if she had not taken the stand she would have had a lot more room for a potential chance of freedom someday. I used to hope she would get a chance at parole someday but to be honest I am worried she is a danger to society. If for whatever reason I am wrong Jodi has no one else to blame for the public's lack of empathy other than SJ. Anyways I can tell you get a lot of slack so I wanted to give you some support from an unbiased prospective and I really appreciate how detailed your writing is.

  14. Odd RR (fake name in some foreign land) feels the need to speak for the impostor RS. Where's a high sheriff when you need one? LOL

    1. Fake/real, I don't know for sure now. I thought the person posting was a fake because RS was gone for 8 months w/o a word and removed those articles with statements of "I am a second-generation" green beret from him business related site. Then, after RR posts his article on me using a non-truth about my interaction w/ RS, NS shows up and is almost frantic to get the Stolen Valor article taken down.

      I thought it was an imposter, but then NS changed RS's facebook page, so now I don't know. After my statement about how it was not possible to leave the army in 1985 and graduate from a four-year college in 1985, RS/NS changed his Facebook page from "graduate in 1985" to "went to school from 1985 to 1990." He also said he never wrote in the 1985, that Facebook did it automatically...... As I demo'd in my article update, the user has to check "graduate" and write in the words 1985..... so......

      Whoever RS/NS is, implied they are going to "sue me/ ruin me" for defamation... He said "You called me a liar and a fraud."
      No, I called the fake NS a fraud for posing as him. The liar part? Well we will use his words to let the facts decided that:

      'I JOINED the army 1978"

      "I didn't give you permission to post MY dd214"
      (the one that shows he spent 7 years and 1 month in his MOS)

      "I LEFT the army in 1984"

      1978 + 7 years = 1985.

      How can both his statement about time served and the DD 214 both be true? It's like Jodi's gas can story in SLC, math doesn't lie. 1+1 = 2, 13.5 + 10 = 23.5 (not 25.3), and 1978 +7 = 1985 (not 1984)

      So, I think the facts speak for themselves. RS/NS can try to deny it, but I have screen shots saved for his statements link to his website, I have screen shots saved for the school stuff linked to his FB page, and multiple other things saved for his harassment and abuse.

      NS/RS claimed to live in Montanna. I have that SS too.... Montanna has a law about cyber harassment that RS/NS should look into because he is going to get himself in trouble. I do believe posting an address and phone number 29 times of a person, posting professional license numbers, saying one is going to write work places, schools, neighbors, and a licensing board over what is a civil matter would constitute cyber harassment. The truth, as I just showed with math, is defense against defamation. RS/NS has no defense against harassment except to claim it was someone impersonating him. However, given the fact he changed his FB page after I pointed out the discrepancy in date, now it doesn't appear that he is.

      RS/NS's actions are threatening in nature. He posted an address 29 times to say "I know where you live." The fact he felt the need to post it 29 times in 9 minutes is very concerning. The fact he removed it later is also concerning because it shows the 29 times was an impulsive act. Is this a person who is going to react impulsively? I don't know. Top that with the fact he has used threats and obscenities towards me, it violates the statute about cyber-harassment.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.