RECOGNIZING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN THE DEBATE + trial day and who testified.

Because I failed to take the time to edit my article which debunk his sinus theory, Richard Speights has made an untrue statement to imply that I am uneducated, stupid, and have a lack of medical knowledge.  His act of defamation is only based on my lack of editing.  However,  he implies I cannot write in the proper fashion.  I feel the truth is the best way to argue a lie, so I present a recent article to prove my writing ability.

 Please see my last article:   http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/2014/07/prevent-stolen-valor.html

The article will clearly show that I am educated and able to express an idea through the written.  Speights has placed links to my unedited articles on his website, the following article being one of them.





RECOGNIZING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN THE DEBATE + trial day and who testified.
There are multiple sites, blogs, Facebook pages, etc. on the Jodi Arias trial in regards to the justification of the verdict.   Whether they are labeled "haters" or "supporters"  each author will tell you that their view of the verdict is correct.   This site will be just another one of those sites.
                                      except for one difference
                                             I am going to tell you how to determine
                                                           HOW TO TELL WHO IS TELLING THE TRUE STORY

It is  PRETTY SIMPLE

DEMAND that the CLAIM BE BACKED UP WITH TRIAL EVIDENCE.  And only trial evidence.  Refuse to allow the introduction of the authors own speculation as fact and verify it by doing your own search of said evidence.  Compare that authors "evidence" with actual trial testimony on YouTube.
It's just that simple.

KEY SIGNS OF DECEPTION IN THE AUTHOR'S DEBATE
 -- -Omission  - purposely leaves out key points of a situation in order to make their view more favorable
---- Rapid fire - when challenged to support a claim in which they cannot --  this is the sudden throwing at you of statements jumping from subject to subject in order to misdirect.  It is done to hook you onto something else because they cannot defend the first.  DON'T FALL FOR IT. Politely tell them that you would prefer to discuss the original question and once done, you will move on to the rest.  IF THEY TRY TO REDIRECT - BRING THEM RIGHT BACK.
-- The blanketed evidence -offering broad based ideas not offered in the trial as evidence and claiming it is proof.
--- Displaying confirmation bias  - they allow their own pre-determined conclusion to interpret the evidence instead of the evidence to interpret the conclusion.
-- Minimization - over-simplification of evidence if that evidence leans towards guilt thus discouraging a closer view at it supporting data.
-- Making up their own evidence -will state their  personal opinions as fact without backing it up with actual evidence -  ALWAYS verify the trial testimony and determine for yourself.
--- Changing the verdict criteria  -  Uses beyond ALL AND ANY doubt as basis for determining guilt instead of beyond REASONABLE doubt   **
When they do this politely remind them that just because it is possible to be true does not mean it is reasonable to think so.   That is why all cases are decided on beyond a reasonable doubt and not beyond all doubt  (copy and paste this phrase for further use;  you'll find that you will need it a lot)
--- Turning a blind eye -  minimizing or completely ignoring all logical points as if they just did not see them.
--- "This case is just too complex for you to really understand" - the I am smarter than you defense gets nowhere unless the author has the prowess to support it.
---  I know better than the expert witnesses  - which some may.  Just ask the author to verify their credentials, so you have all the information to make an informed judgement.  If they truly have the expertise and knowledge to support such a claim,  they will be able to share more than a blanketed claim of IQ level.
----purposeful misinformation -  stating facts and evidence that never happened or presenting made up evidence outside of the trial to support their view


I reserve the right to add to this list as more of those "old tricks" of deception I have seen come to mind.

Close inspection will tell you that using factual, verifiable data and evidence from within the trial that Jodi being innocent was unfounded beyond that of a REASONABLE doubt.  There simply is no way around this fact.


WHICH TRIAL DAY TO LOCATE A SPECIFIC WITNESS

I want to make it as easy as possible for you to verify the truth as it is told.  Thus,  here is a list of which witness testified on which day so you can personally get the FULL and REAL statement that were said to verify for yourself.

DAY ONE opening arguments
DAY TWO Detective Flores, Crime scene tech and latent print examiner Heather Conner Mesa PD
DAY THREE Heather Conners, ME Kevin Horn, Forensic Firearms Elizabeth A Northcutt Mesa PD
Day FOUR Ryan Burns,  Maureen Smith (latent print examiner), Kevin Biggs (latent print examiner), Heather Conner (crime scene/latent print examiner) and Esteban Flores (lead case agent)
DAY 5 Nathan Mendes Special agent US dept of Interior. Redding, Ca. Det. Siskey Co sheriff office. Major crimes unit. Lisa Perry crime lab Mesa PD, forensic scientist, bio unit. Detective Flores, Jodi Legg Mesa crime lab, forensic scientist Bio dept.
DAY 6 Micheal Menedez, Mesa PD analyzed electronic devices, Det. Flores, (police interview tapes)
DAY 7 Joey Citizen Verizon wireless custodian, Larry Gladish Mesa PD Homicide investigator, Det Flores, More police videos
DAY 8 Micheal Galieti Cottonwood heights PD UTAH, Rapheal Joseph Colombo car rental agent, Det Flores, more police videos
DAY 9 Det Flores, Jeff Strohn Sprint Nextel Telecommunications, Lesile Udy
STATE REST
DAY 10 Daryl Brewer
( Side conduct hearing, Chris Hughes, Abe, Gus Searcy)
DAY 11 Lisa Daidone, Desiree Freeman, Daniel Freeman
DAY 12 Daniel Freeman, Lonnie Dworkin computer forensic examiner
DAY 13 Lonnie Dworkin, Bryan Neamaister Forensic video enhancement, Jodi Arias
DAY 14 – Day 30 Jodi Arias
Day 31 - 35 Dr. Richard Samuels
Day 36 Dr. Richard Sameuls, Alyce LaViolette
Day 37 - 46 Alyce LaViolette
DAY 47 (side hearing- Grace Wong Turner broadcasting in regards to juror - Byran Neamaister – testify eye reflection ) stipulation reached that Arias did not have a knife or gun in her hands when pic taken
Rebuttal starts
DAY 48 – 50 Jeannine DeMarte Psychologist,
DAY 51 Jacob Meford PPL, Amanda Webb Walmart, Chelsea Young Tesoro girl, Deanna Reid, Micheal Melendez
Day 52 Robert Brown Det Computer forensics unit, Flores (shelf testimony)
Day 53 Dr Kevin Horn
Surrebuttal
Day 54 Dr. Robert Geffner, Dr. Horn, Jill Hayes forensic Neuropsychologist
Day 55 closings






This blog will take you through the evidence and discuss jury deliberations over the key debates in the trial to show how Jodi's accounts that the killing was self-defense was determined to be fictitious by the jury.


Proofread and edited on July 25, 2014.