Speaker 1: When you make decisions for your company, you look for
Speaker 1: the no brainers, and if you have a lot of
Speaker 1: mailing to do, stamps dot com is the ultimate no brainer.
Speaker 1: Mail checks, invoices, documents and everything you need to keep
Speaker 1: your business running. Get rates up to eighty nine percent
Speaker 1: off usps and ups, and with a mobile app, you
Speaker 1: can take care of mailing on the go. Make the
Speaker 1: same no brainer decisions as over one million other businesses
Speaker 1: with stamps dot Com. Sign up at stamps dot com
Speaker 1: with Code Program for a special offer. That's Stamps dot
Speaker 1: Com Code Program.
Speaker 2: Lucky Land casino. Asking people what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 2: gotten lucky?
Speaker 3: Lucky? In line at the Delhi I guess ah, in
Speaker 3: my dentist's office more than months?
Speaker 4: Actually do I have to say?
Speaker 2: Yes? You do?
Speaker 4: In the car before my kid's PTA meeting?
Speaker 2: Really? Yes? Excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: I never win? And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 4: You can get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot
Speaker 4: com play for free right now?
Speaker 2: Are you feeling lucky?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: Be necessary? Foid my long eighteen plus terms conditions of
Speaker 2: plus what's every hey guys, it is Ryan.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure if you know this about me, but
Speaker 4: I'm a bit of a fun fanatic one.
Speaker 6: I can.
Speaker 2: I like to work, but I like fun too. It's
Speaker 2: a thing.
Speaker 4: And now the truth is out there, I can tell
Speaker 4: you about my favorite place to have fun, Chumba Casino.
Speaker 4: They have hundreds of social casino style games to choose from,
Speaker 4: with new games released each week. You can play for
Speaker 4: free anytime, anywhere, and each day brings a new chance
Speaker 4: to collect daily bonuses. So join me and the fun.
Speaker 4: Sign up now at chumbacasino dot com.
Speaker 5: No pur necessary day lost the terms conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 2: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 2: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 2: the bride and broom?
Speaker 6: Sorry?
Speaker 2: Sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo
Speaker 2: when we lost track of time.
Speaker 4: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 4: quicker than a guess registered.
Speaker 2: But in that case, I pronounce you lucky.
Speaker 5: Thanks for free.
Speaker 2: At Lucky Landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting.
Speaker 3: No purchase necessary boid We're prohibited by W eighteen plus
Speaker 3: terms conditions apply see website for details. Now you can
Speaker 3: be more cyber safe with Canada's most comprehensive all in
Speaker 3: one protection tell Us Online Security powered by Norton LifeLock.
Speaker 3: Safeguard your data, devices and identity, starting at only ten
Speaker 3: dollars a month. Learn more at talis dot com. Slash
Speaker 3: online Security conditions apply.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: You can be more cyber safe with Canada's most comprehensive
Speaker 3: all in one protection tell Us Online Security powered by
Speaker 3: Norton LifeLock. Safeguard your data, devices and identity, starting at
Speaker 3: only ten dollars a month. Learn more at talis dot com.
Speaker 3: Slash Online Security conditions apply hold Now you can be
Speaker 3: more cyber safe with Canada's most comprehensive all in one
Speaker 3: protection tell Us Online Security powered by Norton LifeLock. Safeguard
Speaker 3: your data, devices and identity, starting at only ten dollars
Speaker 3: a month. Learn more at talis dot com. Slash Online
Speaker 3: Security conditions apply. Now. You can be more cyber safe
Speaker 3: with Canada's most comprehensive all in one protection TALS Online
Speaker 3: Security powered by Norton LifeLock. Safeguard your data, devices and identity,
Speaker 3: starting at only ten dollars a month. Learn more at
Speaker 3: talis dot com Slash online security conditions apply Radio.
Speaker 7: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 7: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 7: written about them. Gacy Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker BTK every week,
Speaker 7: another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous
Speaker 7: killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host
Speaker 7: journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Speaker 5: Good Evening. Through two trials, America watched as Juan Martinez
Speaker 5: fought relentlessly to convict Jody Arius a murder one, perviciously
Speaker 5: stabbing her ex boyfriend Travis Alexander to death. What emerged
Speaker 5: was a story wrought with sex, manipulation, and deceit that
Speaker 5: stunned the public at every turn. Arius, always playing the
Speaker 5: wronged and innocent woman, changed her story continually as her
Speaker 5: bizarre behavior surrounding the crime and its aftermath came to light. Unwavering,
Speaker 5: Arius and her defense team continued to play off the
Speaker 5: salacious details of the case until she was finally found
Speaker 5: guilty and controversially sentenced to life behind bars. Now speaking
Speaker 5: openly for the first time, Prosecutor Martinez will unearth new
Speaker 5: details from the investigation that were never revealed at trial,
Speaker 5: exploring key facts from the case and the pieces of Evan.
Speaker 5: Then he chose to keep close to the vest throughout
Speaker 5: the trials. His bullish and unfaltering prosecution strategy was both
Speaker 5: commended and criticized, and in his book, Martinez will illuminate
Speaker 5: the unique tactics he utilized in this case and how
Speaker 5: they led to a successful conviction, and for the first time,
Speaker 5: discuss how he felt about losing the death penalty sentence
Speaker 5: he'd pursued for years. Pardon Me Now. Speaking of Pardon Me,
Speaker 5: going beyond the news reports, Martinez will explore the truth
Speaker 5: behind the multiple facades of Jody Arius. Sparring with her
Speaker 5: from across the stand, Martinez came to know Arias like
Speaker 5: no one else could, dissecting what it took for a
Speaker 5: seemingly normal girl to become a deluded, cunning, and unrepentant murder.
Speaker 5: This book is the definitive account of the case that
Speaker 5: shocked America. The book that we're featuring this evening is Conviction,
Speaker 5: the untold story of putting Jody Arius behind bars With
Speaker 5: my special guest prosecutor and author One Martinez. Welcome to
Speaker 5: the program. And thank you for agreeing this interview. One Martinez.
Speaker 6: Well, it's good to be here. Thank you for having
Speaker 6: me here so that we could talk about the book.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, and I apologize for stumbling through
Speaker 5: that intro. Before we start. Let's have a little bit
Speaker 5: of a background on your career as a prosecutor in Arizona,
Speaker 5: and just in that brief introduction, you can tell us
Speaker 5: a little bit about the office that you do work
Speaker 5: in and the a community that you do serve. So
Speaker 5: if you could tell us a little bit about your background.
Speaker 6: Please sure. I work for the America BA County Attorney's Office,
Speaker 6: and I started with the America BA County Attorney's Office
Speaker 6: back in October of nineteen eighty eight. This is the
Speaker 6: agency in America the county that has charged there's other agencies,
Speaker 6: but primarily charged with dealing with the felonies and felonious
Speaker 6: sort of actions that take place in Americopa County. I
Speaker 6: started there, as I said, in nineteen eighty eight, and
Speaker 6: for the first eight years, I did not so much
Speaker 6: lower grade felonies, but not murder. I would say that
Speaker 6: I did kidnappings, armed robberies, that sort of thing, and
Speaker 6: I continued on in nineteen ninety six when I was
Speaker 6: moved or to what we called back then what is
Speaker 6: now known as the Litigation Capital Litigation Bureau with the
Speaker 6: Homicide Bureau, and since October of nineteen ninety six, that
Speaker 6: is the place that I have called home. So since
Speaker 6: then I've been doing the sort of the high profile
Speaker 6: kind of case, well, murder cases, and now specifically I
Speaker 6: do only or i'll do mostly but only really restricted
Speaker 6: to the capital prosecutions where the state is seeking the
Speaker 6: imposition of the death penalty.
Speaker 5: Right now, how it please tell us the sort of,
Speaker 5: I guess, quite ordinary way that you were assigned to
Speaker 5: this case. Tell us that procedure, how you came to
Speaker 5: take or be assigned to this case the Jodiarius murder trial.
Speaker 6: Back then, the group had every attorney was assigned to
Speaker 6: an on call day or maybe a weekend. And on
Speaker 6: that particular day, I was assigned on call from June
Speaker 6: ninth at eight o'clock in the morning to June tenth
Speaker 6: at I'm sorry, eight o'clock in the morning to eight
Speaker 6: o'clock the next morning. And what happened in this case
Speaker 6: is the police called on June tenth at a thirty
Speaker 6: in the morning, and by that time my shift was over.
Speaker 6: Actually was at the office getting ready to do other
Speaker 6: things because it was past eight o'clock. And when I
Speaker 6: received the call from the sergeant at the Mason Police Department.
Speaker 6: And when he called, he said, well, we have this
Speaker 6: thing out here in East Mesa, and he kind of
Speaker 6: realized that my on called duties were over, and he
Speaker 6: was sort of apologetic and said, well, you know, if
Speaker 6: you want, I will go ahead and call the next
Speaker 6: person on the list. And I thought, well, no, I mean,
Speaker 6: he had told me that the police had been there
Speaker 6: the night before and that's when they discovered the body,
Speaker 6: and it was really just thirty minutes past the time
Speaker 6: that my duties were over. So I just thought, well,
Speaker 6: in fairness, I should get out there and take a
Speaker 6: look at what's there, rather than turning to the next
Speaker 6: person that was on the list. So I guess it
Speaker 6: was just a situation where I didn't want to slough
Speaker 6: off the work to somebody else.
Speaker 5: Now, as you point out in the book, I and
Speaker 5: it's fascinating the information that you get because of your
Speaker 5: unique perspective as a prosecutor. And like I'll say to
Speaker 5: the audience, and probably everybody that's a real true crime
Speaker 5: fan knows that this does not happen very often. I
Speaker 5: mean there has been obviously there's Marsha Clark and Helter Skelter,
Speaker 5: and there's a few books. But so with that, not
Speaker 5: everybody knows that the involvement that the prosecution, you as
Speaker 5: a prosecutor, is involved with the crime initially, so that's
Speaker 5: why you're there, involved in going to the crime scene.
Speaker 5: But tell us the relationship and how it is separate.
Speaker 5: Obviously you're there at that time at the crime scene,
Speaker 5: but you're not per se involved with the investigation. So
Speaker 5: tell us how that actually works.
Speaker 6: The police department called me and as they were with
Speaker 6: any other killing, and I remember when I got there
Speaker 6: that it was already getting hot, and so I remember
Speaker 6: standing outside because as a person who is not a
Speaker 6: member of the Mesa police department, I'm not allowed to
Speaker 6: go in until they've secured the scene, they've taken a
Speaker 6: look at things and done whatever it is they need
Speaker 6: to do, and so I waited approximately thirty minutes to
Speaker 6: go inside. As you pointed out, my role in going
Speaker 6: inside is just to observe so that whatever the person
Speaker 6: who committed the killing is apprehended, I will have a
Speaker 6: better understanding of the facts involved in this case and
Speaker 6: specifically the crime scene. So when I'm there, my role
Speaker 6: is just to look around, take a look at what's there.
Speaker 6: For example, in this case, it was this two story house,
Speaker 6: whether or not it had an east west it faced
Speaker 6: the east west, things like that, or where the body
Speaker 6: was found. In this case, it was the shower, and
Speaker 6: just generally look at the layout. And I remember specifically
Speaker 6: in this case that I was struck by the cleanliness
Speaker 6: of the home. Usually when there has been a murder,
Speaker 6: there's there's there's furniture that's in disarray, knocked over, pushed about.
Speaker 6: Not in this case, and the bottom there was it
Speaker 6: was very clean. The only thing that I remember being
Speaker 6: out of place was a dry vacuum cleaner, a wet
Speaker 6: vacuum cleaner. Somebody I had obviously been cleaning the tile downstairs,
Speaker 6: and and the downstairs actually belied what was upstairs, And
Speaker 6: so walked through the bottom, then went upstairs. And when
Speaker 6: I went upstairs, that's when I walked through the walked
Speaker 6: through closet from the master bedroom into the into the bathroom,
Speaker 6: where really you could see everything that had happened. But
Speaker 6: my role there was not to advise the police and
Speaker 6: tell them do this or do that. It was just
Speaker 6: to take a look it's and see what was there,
Speaker 6: so that I wouldn't just have to rely on pictures
Speaker 6: and it would make my presentation that much more effective
Speaker 6: at trial.
Speaker 5: Now, tell us you talk about a detective Flores, and
Speaker 5: of course he is very important figure in this so
Speaker 5: as you explain that your job is just to sort
Speaker 5: of get a feel for the place, but also tell
Speaker 5: us it was very interesting to me to learn again
Speaker 5: how does the relationship progress. The police do the investigation,
Speaker 5: but it's not like you are not in contact with
Speaker 5: the police. So tell us, please explain that relationship of
Speaker 5: what you do with the information that the investigators gather,
Speaker 5: what do you do with that information?
Speaker 6: The mesa police department in this case, assigned Detective Estevan
Speaker 6: flodis to be be what is called the case agent.
Speaker 6: And as a case agent, he is in charge of
Speaker 6: sort of being the person that's the individual that if
Speaker 6: there are any questions that need to be directed, assignments
Speaker 6: that need to be taking care of, he's the person
Speaker 6: that does that. And part of his duties include keeping
Speaker 6: me in the loop or informing me of any new
Speaker 6: developments that they made me have in the case. And so,
Speaker 6: even though, as I said before, I don't direct investigation,
Speaker 6: he would call me with updates and he would let
Speaker 6: me know how far the investigation had progressed, what was
Speaker 6: going on, so that when there came a time when
Speaker 6: I believed and at that point it would be my judgment,
Speaker 6: when I believed that a charge was appropriate, I would
Speaker 6: already have, if you will, all of this background to it,
Speaker 6: because he'd been filling me in as he went along,
Speaker 6: and he would submit the case, and at that point
Speaker 6: I would decide what charge to bring forth in this case.
Speaker 6: Based on everything that I saw and everything that was presented,
Speaker 6: I decided to file the charge of first degree murder.
Speaker 5: One another thing that I thought was interesting is that
Speaker 5: you stress that you alone prosecute these cases, unlike other
Speaker 5: people that would have an assistant, and it is a
Speaker 5: big workload that you embark upon as well. So tell
Speaker 5: us why this is important to you that you prosecute alone.
Speaker 6: Well, I would say, probably because I'm not easy to
Speaker 6: get along with it. It probably would be the first
Speaker 6: things I would say. But no, the reason that I
Speaker 6: do it is that it just makes me feel more
Speaker 6: comfortable because if I'm the only one that's prosecuting this,
Speaker 6: if I'm the only one with the case, then I
Speaker 6: am entrusted or have the duty to make sure that
Speaker 6: I review every bit of evidence that comes in. And
Speaker 6: the benefit to me of that is that I can
Speaker 6: take something that perhaps is designated or applies to something
Speaker 6: else and take a look at it and then pull
Speaker 6: it in and say, well, wait a minute, it actually
Speaker 6: applies to this other thing. So it makes me I
Speaker 6: think a bit more prepared, although I will say that
Speaker 6: that requires a lot of work. I mean, I know
Speaker 6: that there were many many weekends that I missed and
Speaker 6: that I'm not sure where I'm going to get those back,
Speaker 6: But there were many many weekends that I missed because
Speaker 6: I was reading the documents in this case. This was
Speaker 6: this was the most document intensive case that I've ever
Speaker 6: dealt with, And so that way when I go in,
Speaker 6: I would I know everything that's that's been presented to me.
Speaker 6: I know everything that's gone on to the defense. So
Speaker 6: for example, when it comes down to making either an
Speaker 6: argument to the court or or cross examining somebody, I
Speaker 6: will know what's in the file. I mean, that's not
Speaker 6: to say that for other people that the other approach
Speaker 6: doesn't work, But for me, maybe perhaps I'm a bit
Speaker 6: of a I don't know, a person who wants to
Speaker 6: be in control of the case. And and I guess
Speaker 6: you know that there has to be one one general
Speaker 6: and I guess that would be me or one chief.
Speaker 6: I guess that would be sure.
Speaker 5: Now you talked about that you went to Mace, Arizona
Speaker 5: and to Travis Alexander's home. He had a nice home
Speaker 5: and he rented it out to a couple other people.
Speaker 5: But when you were in there, you spoke with Detective Flores,
Speaker 5: and one of the things that he had is that
Speaker 5: they discovered what everyone that's followed this case nose. They
Speaker 5: found a camera in the washing machine. Can you tell
Speaker 5: us about that conversation and how important?
Speaker 6: Yeah? And initially when Yeah, initially, when we did the
Speaker 6: walk through, the main focus of the walkthrough was actually
Speaker 6: upstairs where we saw the body. And as you went in,
Speaker 6: you saw the blood on the tile and the sink,
Speaker 6: and then you saw the big ovoid sort of pattern
Speaker 6: there between the breach between the holloway and the master bedroom.
Speaker 6: So that's sort of what called. That's where we spent
Speaker 6: the majority of the time. And as we walked downstairs,
Speaker 6: he said, but you know, there's this camera that's in
Speaker 6: the washing machine. It's been run through the cycle, so
Speaker 6: you know, I'm not really hopeful that anything won't come
Speaker 6: from it, but I wanted to just take a look
Speaker 6: at it, see where it is and how it sits.
Speaker 6: And he opened the lid and we looked inside and
Speaker 6: and there was this camera and it was sort of
Speaker 6: nustled among a towel and I think another article of clothing.
Speaker 6: At that point, I to give them what I know.
Speaker 6: It didn't seem to me that they were going to
Speaker 6: be able to extract anything from from that camera, or
Speaker 6: any photographs or anything that was a noteworthy. But I
Speaker 6: remember thinking, well, why would somebody put a camera in
Speaker 6: the washing machine? It just didn't see It just seemed
Speaker 6: out of place. And I could I could, I could
Speaker 6: understand why he wanted me to see what was there,
Speaker 6: but at that point I can't speak for him, but
Speaker 6: I thought to myself, well, I'm not sure that we're
Speaker 6: going to be able to get anything from this. Probably not,
Speaker 6: but it just sure does raise a red flag.
Speaker 5: Sure, no Detective Flora is as well, we've cut to
Speaker 5: the chase. I mean, obviously Jody Eiras's name comes up
Speaker 5: almost immediately, is in terms of a person of interest
Speaker 5: on her behalf. What does she do with her interaction
Speaker 5: with Detective Flores? Who contacts who?
Speaker 6: That's another aspect of the case, just like the washing machine,
Speaker 6: just like the camera in the washing machine, washing machine.
Speaker 6: That's another thing that just didn't seem to make sense.
Speaker 6: But what happened was that that same day, while the
Speaker 6: detective was at the crime scene, Jody area Is called twice,
Speaker 6: not once, but twice, asking to speak to somebody about
Speaker 6: the case. And a lot of the times you get
Speaker 6: ex girlfriends and people that are feel close to the
Speaker 6: victim they call in. So when he told me about it,
Speaker 6: I was at the crime scene and her name up
Speaker 6: came up as someone who was somewhat of a stalker,
Speaker 6: kind of claim kind of girlfriend. When her name came up,
Speaker 6: we just kind of looked at each other and he said, well,
Speaker 6: I'm gonna call her back. I'm going to record it,
Speaker 6: but I'm not sure that anything's gonna come from it,
Speaker 6: but you know, I'll just call her. Maybe she knows something.
Speaker 6: But at that point, we really didn't think. I didn't
Speaker 6: think that it was going to lead to anything for
Speaker 6: a number of reasons. Number one, mister Alexander was a
Speaker 6: pretty big guy, and it seemed that a woman would
Speaker 6: have a difficult time overpowering him. And if someone had
Speaker 6: done this, you wouldn't expect them to be calling the police.
Speaker 6: So we kind of agreed that that was a falloup
Speaker 6: that we had to make sure was completed. And but
Speaker 6: again she made the call, and in fact, on June
Speaker 6: tenth of two thousand and eight, he actually got her
Speaker 6: on the phone and they discussed a number of things
Speaker 6: and he recorded it, and that actually turned out something
Speaker 6: to be very important because that was something I was
Speaker 6: able to use later where she indicated that during that
Speaker 6: conversation that mister Alexander did not have a gun in
Speaker 6: his house and if he was going to defend himself,
Speaker 6: he would only use his fist.
Speaker 5: Well to let the audience know that. And again, there's
Speaker 5: so many people that followed this to the letter. But
Speaker 5: there was a twenty five caliber casing that was found.
Speaker 6: Right right it was. It was found just in front
Speaker 6: of the sink, the vanity area where there was a
Speaker 6: large amount of blood and it actually had landed on blood,
Speaker 6: so it did. It was clear that there had already
Speaker 6: been blood on the on the tile and the casing
Speaker 6: fell there. That was part of the but the the
Speaker 6: detective did not bring up the fact that there was
Speaker 6: a gun involved, did not bring up the caliber. When
Speaker 6: he had that conversation with Jody Arias on June tenth,
Speaker 6: all he asked was how's it going that sort of
Speaker 6: thing and just let her speak, And she's the one
Speaker 6: that brought up the thing about the gun. And then
Speaker 6: the detective asked her, well, does he have a gun
Speaker 6: sort of thing, and that's when Arius said, no, he
Speaker 6: doesn't have any Kuna.
Speaker 3: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 2: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 2: the bride and groom? Ri Sorry we're here. We were
Speaker 2: getting lucky in the limo and we lost track of time.
Speaker 4: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 4: quicker than he gets registered.
Speaker 2: In that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play for free
Speaker 2: at Lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting, no
Speaker 2: purchase necessary boid.
Speaker 3: We're prohibited by lock eight team plus terms and conditions
Speaker 3: applag see website for details.
Speaker 2: Step into the world of power, loyalty, and luck. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna make him an offer he can't refuse. With family
Speaker 2: canoli's and spins mean everything. Now you want to get
Speaker 2: mixed up in the family business. Introducing the Godfather at
Speaker 2: Champa Casino dot com. Test your luck in the shadowy
Speaker 2: world of the Godfather slot. Someday I will call upon
Speaker 2: you to do service from me. Played the Godfather now
Speaker 2: at Champa Casino dot com. Welcome to the Family vdW group.
Speaker 3: No purchase necessary. If we were privited by loss, he
Speaker 3: terms and conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 6: If anything was going to if he was going to
Speaker 6: defend himself, he would use his fifth So I think
Speaker 6: it was pretty astute of him to not even indicate
Speaker 6: that there had been a gun involved. And she's the
Speaker 6: one that actually started talking about it.
Speaker 5: Now, of course, all these modern trials of the last
Speaker 5: few years are going to include all available evidence and
Speaker 5: a lot of really fantastic evidences of course, text messages
Speaker 5: and emails and phone a cell phone location reports. So
Speaker 5: what does Jody Arius do based on the police being
Speaker 5: able to gather travicks Alexander's digital correspondence. What does she
Speaker 5: do in the next few days.
Speaker 6: Well, one of the things that police were able to
Speaker 6: pick up, which was actually again it was something that
Speaker 6: when you look back, you wonder why she would do it.
Speaker 6: But she killed him on June fourth, sometime around after
Speaker 6: five point thirty in the evening, and after that she
Speaker 6: drove on the freeway up to Utah, which she claim
Speaker 6: was her ultimate destination. But sometime around midnight she called
Speaker 6: his home or his cell phone and left the message saying,
Speaker 6: you know, I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance
Speaker 6: to stop there. I know that you're going to be
Speaker 6: coming up to visit me up here in northern California.
Speaker 6: We can go into Oregon. So she leaves a message
Speaker 6: clearly indicating that she's never been there, sort of to
Speaker 6: throw I guess the police offer trail. Not content with that,
Speaker 6: she also sends mister Alexander a text message asking him
Speaker 6: if he received a check that she had sent him.
Speaker 6: She had actually bought the body car from him and
Speaker 6: was making payments, and so she sent him a text,
Speaker 6: knowing that he was dead, for asking him whether or
Speaker 6: not he had received it. And the last thing that
Speaker 6: she did is she sent him an email again indicating
Speaker 6: that she's sorry that she couldn't show up, So she
Speaker 6: tried to cover her tracks using what was available out
Speaker 6: there electronically, and that actually is something again when you
Speaker 6: take a look at it, it just goes into the planning,
Speaker 6: the lack of confusion that was associated with this, and
Speaker 6: so in a sense, rather than help her out, those
Speaker 6: are some of the things that actually made it seem
Speaker 6: that she had planned this a little bit more than
Speaker 6: she wanted to admit and was not in this fog
Speaker 6: or did not have any memory issues like she claimed.
Speaker 5: Now, what is the progress with the digital with the
Speaker 5: camera and when do you find out again, give us
Speaker 5: a sort of a timeline of when do you find
Speaker 5: out that they're the results of what they can and
Speaker 5: can't do with that camera.
Speaker 6: Well, they actually were able to get the memory card,
Speaker 6: memory stick, whatever term you want to use, and they
Speaker 6: were What they were able to do is apply a
Speaker 6: forensic tool to the camera to see if they could
Speaker 6: bring up any photographs, and not just content with going
Speaker 6: to look at the photographs that were there, they actually
Speaker 6: went further into the memory card into something called unallocated space,
Speaker 6: which is where everything goes that gets deleted, so they
Speaker 6: weren't looking for any items that were deleted, and what
Speaker 6: the police were able to find worth three sets of photographs.
Speaker 6: The first set, which was on June fourth of two
Speaker 6: thousand and eight, was sometime around one point thirty and
Speaker 6: it shows the couple of the two of them engaged
Speaker 6: in some sort of sexual escapade, let's say. And that
Speaker 6: was part of what due to the the media's attention
Speaker 6: to the case, because there were some salacious photographs of
Speaker 6: him and her enjoying themselves in a carnal sort of way.
Speaker 6: Then after that there was another set of photographs, the
Speaker 6: ones that mister Alexander posing in the shower. Obviously he
Speaker 6: doesn't have any clothing on, so it's not like he
Speaker 6: has a gun on him, a NiFe or anything like that.
Speaker 6: And Jody Arius is taking those photographs. But what really
Speaker 6: sets this case apart, and all of those were deleted,
Speaker 6: the ones that those photographs that I've talked about, all
Speaker 6: those were deleted. But what makes this case even probably
Speaker 6: more interesting or unique than all the other cases, is
Speaker 6: that there's what I'm labeling is that third set of photographs,
Speaker 6: and these were taken immediately within forty eight within forty
Speaker 6: five seconds, or approximately forty five seconds after the ones
Speaker 6: in the shower and in it. The first photograph that
Speaker 6: you get is a photograph that is inadvertent or accidental
Speaker 6: of the lights above the shower. Clearly that's about the
Speaker 6: time that attack is either has started or is taking place.
Speaker 6: And then a couple of minutes or so later, you
Speaker 6: actually see Jody Arius's foot in front of Travis Alexander's
Speaker 6: head as she goes to lift his right hand, and
Speaker 6: you could see these already bleeding from throats, so she's
Speaker 6: already sliced his throat. And what's again what makes this
Speaker 6: remarkable is that this was an invertent photograph. It is
Speaker 6: clear that what happened is she probably dropped the camera
Speaker 6: or stepped on the camera, but more likely than not,
Speaker 6: she dropped the camera causing it to strike the button
Speaker 6: to take the photograph which showed her foot. Then subsequently,
Speaker 6: as she's dragging the body back, there's another inadvertent photograph,
Speaker 6: so there's a total three that shows her actually dragging
Speaker 6: him down. This last one shows the baseboards as she's
Speaker 6: going along towards towards the sink where she shot him
Speaker 6: in the head. So what really makes this case unique
Speaker 6: is those three inadvert photographs. It's just it's something that
Speaker 6: I've never seen before. It's something that I don't think
Speaker 6: most people will ever see that in the middle of
Speaker 6: a killing, inadvertent photographs are being taken as the events unfold.
Speaker 5: Now we have to we talk about the July ninth,
Speaker 5: you present your case to the America Copa County grand jury,
Speaker 5: and you talk about a true bill. I hadn't really
Speaker 5: heard that term before, the true bill. So maybe you
Speaker 5: can explain if that has any if that's a unique term.
Speaker 5: I just never had not heard of that true bill before.
Speaker 5: And tell us about Detective Flora Is is really incredible.
Speaker 5: The access obviously you have, and so you relate the
Speaker 5: story and it's very vivid about the confrontation with Jody
Speaker 5: Arius about this kind of evidence and her reaction. So
Speaker 5: tell us when that happens in relation to this July
Speaker 5: ninth grand jury that you present to them. And so
Speaker 5: tell us about those two things, so that we know
Speaker 5: the timeline of when those two things occurred.
Speaker 6: What the law permits is a presentation to a grand jury,
Speaker 6: and at that time, the grand jurors are asked to
Speaker 6: make a decision as to whether or not they believe
Speaker 6: the person that's the suspect against and the person who
Speaker 6: is alleged to have committed certain acts, including the murder,
Speaker 6: whether or not that person is the person that did that,
Speaker 6: and what they did, whether or not a constituted in
Speaker 6: this case, premeditated murder. The jurors are allowed to deliberate
Speaker 6: after the presentation of the evidence. I was the person
Speaker 6: who questioned Detective Flores, and their deliberations are unsecret, and
Speaker 6: after that they make a decision whether or not the
Speaker 6: case will go forward, and they take a vote, and
Speaker 6: that vote signifies if it's something that the case is
Speaker 6: going to go forward. Then they issue what's called a
Speaker 6: true bill, and true bill is nothing more in indication
Speaker 6: that they have agreed that a charge is appropriate, and
Speaker 6: in this case, the charge that they indicated was appropriate
Speaker 6: was premeditated first degree murder. Within the week, Detective Flores
Speaker 6: went to Guayrika, California, because that's where Jordy Arius was living,
Speaker 6: and he went there not to say alone, not to
Speaker 6: do anything like that. He went to arrest her. He
Speaker 6: already at that point had an arrest warrant, and when
Speaker 6: he went there, he was able to find her, they
Speaker 6: were able to take her into custody, and after taking
Speaker 6: her into custody on the fifteenth of July, he began
Speaker 6: to question her, and initially her story was that, well,
Speaker 6: I wasn't at the Travis Alexander's house, wasn't there on
Speaker 6: the date that he was killed, so it really wasn't me,
Speaker 6: even though the detective already had the photographs showing that
Speaker 6: that wasn't true. After that initial day of conversations, the
Speaker 6: next day there was more discussions and at that point
Speaker 6: Jody Arius changed her story and said, you know, got
Speaker 6: to tell you what I told you yesterday was not
Speaker 6: the truth. And what actually happened was that while I
Speaker 6: was taking those photographs in the shower of him in
Speaker 6: the shower, two individuals showed up, a man and a woman,
Speaker 6: and according to them, what they were there was to
Speaker 6: kill Travis Alexander. And she even went so far as
Speaker 6: to say that the gun was put to her head
Speaker 6: and that she was lucky to have escaped with a
Speaker 6: warning that if she ever said anything, well, they were
Speaker 6: going to do damage or harm to her family, and
Speaker 6: that's why she hadn't said anything. So she had quite
Speaker 6: the story, but and it was all recorded, so she
Speaker 6: couldn't go back and say, well, no, I didn't say
Speaker 6: what the police are claiming that I said. So she
Speaker 6: initially gave two stories. One she wasn't there. She changed
Speaker 6: that and then said that it was actually two other
Speaker 6: people that had killed mister Alexander.
Speaker 5: And she repeated this same fanciful tale to media forty
Speaker 5: eight Hours and Inside Edition as well.
Speaker 6: She did, Yeah, she was adamant and that that's what
Speaker 6: had happened. And so she spoke to the news magazine
Speaker 6: forty eight Hours on two separate occasions, for more than
Speaker 6: than a couple of hours each time, or approximately a
Speaker 6: couple of hours each time, and every time she repeated
Speaker 6: that no, she had nothing to do with this. She
Speaker 6: was actually the innocent bystander that it just happened to
Speaker 6: be there when these two horrible people came and did
Speaker 6: all of this to Travis. She couldn't explain why they
Speaker 6: let her go and why they would allow her to
Speaker 6: leave if she had seen what had happened, and she
Speaker 6: couldn't explain what she didn't call the police. One would
Speaker 6: think that if you had seen your ex boyfriend murdereds
Speaker 6: somebody that you'd been intimate with, that you would have
Speaker 6: at least called the police once they let you go,
Speaker 6: But of course she didn't do that. So it uh
Speaker 6: not not only did she continue with that story, but
Speaker 6: what that showed me is that she was someone who
Speaker 6: relished being in the limelight, somebody who relished being the
Speaker 6: center of attention. And so uh that that told me that,
Speaker 6: uh that later on she would throughout this these proceedings.
Speaker 6: Maybe that's that's the role that she would partake of,
Speaker 6: that she would always want to be in the center
Speaker 6: of attention. Specifically, Uh, take the witness stand. I took
Speaker 6: that to mean that she probably was going to take
Speaker 6: the witness stand, and and ultimately that turned out to
Speaker 6: be the case.
Speaker 5: Yes, she'd have to take if she was trying any
Speaker 5: kind of self defense or anything where she would have
Speaker 5: to she would have to testify to those She could
Speaker 5: not not go on a stand and try to relate
Speaker 5: those facts could could.
Speaker 6: Spright because the evidentiary rule, her statements are any story
Speaker 6: that she gave, she would have to give because nobody
Speaker 6: else could give it for her, because that would be hearsaying.
Speaker 6: I mean, that's the legal basis for it. But so
Speaker 6: she needed to go up there and explain to them
Speaker 6: what happened. I mean, the strength of that for her.
Speaker 6: The thing, the reason that's beneficial for her is that
Speaker 6: mister Alexander, unfortunately, the other person that was there, could
Speaker 6: not contradict what she was saying because he was dead.
Speaker 6: She'd removed the only other witness that was president. So
Speaker 6: in a certain way, I knew that she was going
Speaker 6: to take the witness fan and she, of course probably
Speaker 6: well she knew that mister Alexander wouldn't be there to
Speaker 6: contradict it. So in a sense, that's a pretty good tactic.
Speaker 5: Now, the police, you talked about premeditation, and we won't
Speaker 5: get into like the we won't talk about the fine
Speaker 5: definition of that, but suffice to say that if you're
Speaker 5: trying to build a premeditated first degree murder charge, there
Speaker 5: has to be some evidence of planning. And that's what
Speaker 5: you're trying to ultimately build, is a first degree murder
Speaker 5: conviction for this person. So on two evidentiary fronts, we'll say,
Speaker 5: the rent a car and you and so there was
Speaker 5: a rented car, so you can tell us about that,
Speaker 5: but also after that we can talk about what was
Speaker 5: found at the house the car. The car was parked
Speaker 5: in front of her parents place to rent a car.
Speaker 5: Then there was an investigation from there. But it's also
Speaker 5: what you found in the home. And we're talking about
Speaker 5: the infamous shoe box with receipts, right, So first tell
Speaker 5: us about how police proceed with the rented car.
Speaker 6: Well, the police determined that or we're able to find
Speaker 6: that for her trip on June fourth, Arius had actually
Speaker 6: rented a car and she rented it from Budget. And
Speaker 6: what she did is, rather than rent the car and
Speaker 6: there were two car rental agencies in way Rica where
Speaker 6: she lived, rather than rent the car in Wuyirrika, what
Speaker 6: she did is she drove ninety miles to south to
Speaker 6: a place called reating, California to be airport. It is
Speaker 6: clear that she did that so that she wouldn't she
Speaker 6: would run less of a risk of being recognized because
Speaker 6: way Rica, Backman had a population of approximately seven thousand people,
Speaker 6: so it was a very small town. And if she
Speaker 6: was renting a car, chances are somebody would know that
Speaker 6: it was that it was her that was renting the car,
Speaker 6: and so it would increase the chances of her getting caught.
Speaker 6: So she rented the car and reading, and when asked
Speaker 6: about the car and she was given a red car,
Speaker 6: she told the person renting it, well, you know, I
Speaker 6: really don't want the red car. And the reason I
Speaker 6: don't want the red car is because that caused attention
Speaker 6: and the police may notice it more. I want a
Speaker 6: white car. And she was actually took the white car
Speaker 6: so that it would be less noticeable to the police.
Speaker 6: Of course, we did have those receipts, and the police
Speaker 6: did find them in this in from the shoe box
Speaker 6: that they found during the execution of the warrant of
Speaker 6: the place that she lived in way Rica. But what
Speaker 6: they didn't find was any receipts for gasoline here in
Speaker 6: the state of Arizona. They only found a number of
Speaker 6: receipts there for purchases or buys that she made in California,
Speaker 6: specifically Pasadena, and then there were other receipts for items
Speaker 6: that she bought, for example, on her trip back from Utah.
Speaker 6: So there was this big, gaping empty hole where there
Speaker 6: were no receipts for that time. What I was able
Speaker 6: to find was that there was one receipt from Selinas, California.
Speaker 6: I was at that point already alerted or had already
Speaker 6: learned that she had tried or had actually called an
Speaker 6: ex boyfriend to borrow two five gallon gas cans for
Speaker 6: her trip. And I'm sort of fond of saying or
Speaker 6: because i remember thinking, well, why would she ask why
Speaker 6: would she need gas cans, especially two five gallon ones
Speaker 6: to travel on the road there? I know, and I
Speaker 6: don't live in California, but I'm positive that they have
Speaker 6: gas stations there. So immediately that was kind of a
Speaker 6: bit of a red flag for me. But then as
Speaker 6: I looked at the receipts, there was one from Salinas, California,
Speaker 6: a Walmart, and in it it had the notation the
Speaker 6: last item something about a Carol Carb k E ro
Speaker 6: O carb. When I called Walmart, they told me that, well,
Speaker 6: that's actually another that's a five gallon gas can. So
Speaker 6: then she has the amount or she has fifteen extra
Speaker 6: gallons of gas can. And if you multiply that out,
Speaker 6: let's say thirty miles a gallon was firing a little more,
Speaker 6: that gives her a range of four hundred and fifty
Speaker 6: extra miles. And if you add, if you multiply that
Speaker 6: might or add that to the miles that she already
Speaker 6: got for the tank of gas, which was which was
Speaker 6: approximately twelve point five gallons. You could see that she
Speaker 6: could make the trip from California from the border of
Speaker 6: California all the way through Arizona and her way all
Speaker 6: the way up to up to Utah without having to
Speaker 6: stop for gas. Because if you add that up, you're
Speaker 6: looking at approximately maybe eight hundred miles that you could go.
Speaker 6: That was a range, and there's approximately four hundred miles
Speaker 6: from California to Mesa and then another three hundred from
Speaker 6: Mesa to Las Vegas, so you're looking at seven hundred
Speaker 6: So it's a trip that she not only could make,
Speaker 6: she actually did make with the eight of those three
Speaker 6: five gallon gas cans.
Speaker 5: Now, it's very important this discovery, and we just skimmed
Speaker 5: over the very very interesting way you did discover this
Speaker 5: is because in your unrelenting sort of review of the information,
Speaker 5: and also you got to say a little bit of
Speaker 5: luck because she has different lawyers, and those first lawyers
Speaker 5: prepare some documents, and again you're sort of fanatical in detail,
Speaker 5: so you're going over things and racking your brain very much.
Speaker 5: Sounds very very much movie esque in this in this
Speaker 5: part of the book where you're you're looking and and
Speaker 5: this is the thing that stumps you. This is the
Speaker 5: big breakthrough is these gas cans. And of course, even
Speaker 5: when you see that information that Darryl Burro Brewer said
Speaker 5: that Jody Arius had called a couple of months before
Speaker 5: and said, I'd like to borrow these gas cans, that
Speaker 5: it wasn't evident to you at first. But you've got
Speaker 5: to say that you were fortunate that you even had
Speaker 5: that information in the first place, weren't you.
Speaker 6: Absolutely? And I think that I, you know, I will
Speaker 6: never turn my back on luck, because I think that
Speaker 6: that sometimes, well a lot of the times is what
Speaker 6: what what? What assists you in the case, But in
Speaker 6: order to take advantage of that luck, you have to
Speaker 6: be prepared to do so. And I think that, as
Speaker 6: I said, yes, I do believe that I was a
Speaker 6: bit lucky that I I because the line involving the
Speaker 6: gas cans and the ex boyfriend Daryl Brewer was just
Speaker 6: buried and all these documents and there was hundreds of pages,
Speaker 6: maybe thousands, I don't remember the count right now, but
Speaker 6: buried in there was two or three, maybe four or
Speaker 6: five lines saying setting that out, and it was sort
Speaker 6: of like a throwaway kind of part of the conversation
Speaker 6: because mister Burrow was being asked about her character and
Speaker 6: what kind of person she was, what her relationship was
Speaker 6: with her with his child, and so when that that interview,
Speaker 6: for whatever reason, he said, well, you know, I received
Speaker 6: a call for her in from her in late May
Speaker 6: asking to borrow two gas cans for a trip to Mesa, Arizona.
Speaker 6: That immediately told me that this wasn't a trip where
Speaker 6: she was impulsive after speaking to Travis and decided to
Speaker 6: just on that on the on the spur of the
Speaker 6: moment go to Arizona. That that told me that she
Speaker 6: was it was planned, and it also told me that
Speaker 6: that that she planned to kill him before she left
Speaker 6: Wa Rica, because nobody would undertake such elaborate preparation. But
Speaker 6: I will admit that having those items turned over to
Speaker 6: me by the defense certainly provided one of the keys
Speaker 6: to the prosecution, probably the primary key I would not
Speaker 6: have been. I would not have thought to ask Daryl Browray,
Speaker 6: did she call you to borrow?
Speaker 3: Now you can be more cyber safe with Canada's most
Speaker 3: comprehensive all in one protection tell Us online Security powered
Speaker 3: by Norton LifeLock safeguard your data, devices and identity starting
Speaker 3: at only ten dollars a month. Learn more at talis
Speaker 3: dot com. Slash online security conditions apply some gaskets.
Speaker 6: I just wouldn't have thought of that. So yes, luckily
Speaker 6: for me that was there, and luckily for me, I
Speaker 6: was able to take advantage of it.
Speaker 5: The other part I think that it's fortunate too, is
Speaker 5: the character of these perpetrators. If she would have been
Speaker 5: very wow, if she wouldn't have been I guess so
Speaker 5: arrogant and confident, that she might have done what most
Speaker 5: people would do is get a good lawyer and keep
Speaker 5: her mouth shut, and that would have made a huge
Speaker 5: difference in this case. But despite that, that didn't happen.
Speaker 5: But what I found was the most fascinating of this
Speaker 5: book is the cunning and the clever tactic that Detective
Speaker 5: Florist did in this as well, because you got to
Speaker 5: see his interviews and you went over those interviews and
Speaker 5: those telephones, every bit of information that he had gotten.
Speaker 5: You were reviewing it. Which so even though you weren't
Speaker 5: working together, there was a sort of a tandem cooperation
Speaker 5: between you in terms of you definitely benefited from the
Speaker 5: information like him pushing her to tell the circuitous route
Speaker 5: that she tried to claim that she did, and showed
Speaker 5: it to be, you know, basically an impossible, incredulous route.
Speaker 5: But you also at that time were learning in preparation
Speaker 5: for trial, as you say, what you were going to
Speaker 5: be facing at trial in the character of Judie Arias,
Speaker 5: weren't you sure?
Speaker 6: I had taken a note during the interview with the
Speaker 6: interviews with Detective Force that she was very skilled at
Speaker 6: her use of the English language in the sense that
Speaker 6: she was able to craft stories, for lack of a
Speaker 6: better term, that almost seemed believable. The way I try
Speaker 6: to describe it, or the way it seems to me,
Speaker 6: is that we all know that the sun rises in
Speaker 6: the east, and so if I not that this happened,
Speaker 6: but if I'm sure that, if I would have asked her,
Speaker 6: isn't it true that the sun rises in the east,
Speaker 6: she would have looked at me and said, well, I'm
Speaker 6: not too sure because I have a room that has
Speaker 6: a west facing window, and every morning when I wake up,
Speaker 6: there's sunshine coming in, So I'm not really sure if
Speaker 6: it rises in the east. So I mean that showed
Speaker 6: me that this was the type of person that was
Speaker 6: very skilled at sort of turning what is an obvious
Speaker 6: true truth and then maybe spinning it, and then conversely
Speaker 6: taking what is not true and making it seem like
Speaker 6: the truth. So I knew that going in and so,
Speaker 6: and of course I was able to see that when
Speaker 6: she spoke to Detective Floor. So when when it when
Speaker 6: it came down to it at the end there, I
Speaker 6: knew that this was somebody that I could not take lightly.
Speaker 6: This was somebody that I needed to perhaps be a
Speaker 6: bit firm with her, because if I wasn't, she would
Speaker 6: just tell her story the way that she wanted. And
Speaker 6: so in fact, that's why I adopted the strategy that
Speaker 6: I did, to be, like I said, extremely stern with
Speaker 6: her on the witness stand and asking her questions like
Speaker 6: isn't it true? Whatever the question was. Sometimes I would
Speaker 6: even say is that a yes or no? Because she
Speaker 6: wouldn't answer questions directly.
Speaker 5: Right now, you say normally in book, normally that within
Speaker 5: two years they're ready for trial, but this took four years.
Speaker 5: And in that time, of course, there's still the ongoing investigation.
Speaker 5: You were talking to people like Daryl Brewer. You're talking
Speaker 5: to everybody you possibly can to get a sense of
Speaker 5: what her character is and what she might be be
Speaker 5: prepared to do at trial. And also there is a
Speaker 5: development in that she changes lawyers. And that's like we
Speaker 5: talked about how you got the document about Daryl Brewer.
Speaker 5: What is the reason for the change in lawyers, And
Speaker 5: as a result of the change in lawyers, what do
Speaker 5: you notified about and what do you see is coming
Speaker 5: down the pike?
Speaker 6: Well, she did. There were lawyers that assume the case
Speaker 6: after the first set of lawyers. I'm not privy to
Speaker 6: the reasons why she may have changed lawyers lawyers or
Speaker 6: why they were other lawyers were substituted in, so I
Speaker 6: really can't speak to that. The only thing that I
Speaker 6: can say is that the first set of lawyers disclosed
Speaker 6: a number of documents or provided a number of documents
Speaker 6: to me. The second set of lawyers took a little
Speaker 6: bit of a different tact. And by a different tact,
Speaker 6: I mean they changed the plea. In other words, they
Speaker 6: indicated that they had a different defense than the previous set,
Speaker 6: and they indicated that it was their view that they
Speaker 6: intended to present evidence to show that this was a
Speaker 6: case of self defense. What that meant to me immediately
Speaker 6: was that the two stories before that she had said
Speaker 6: before were not true, the one about her not being
Speaker 6: there and the other one about the two individuals of
Speaker 6: the man and the woman being there. What she was
Speaker 6: now saying was that that what she did, the killing,
Speaker 6: the stabbing, the slicing of the throat, and the shooting
Speaker 6: of the head, that that was all justified. And that's
Speaker 6: the term that's use. And the reason it was justified,
Speaker 6: according to her was that there was a history here,
Speaker 6: and there was a history of physical and verbal abuse
Speaker 6: along with sexual abuse. And then just to sort of
Speaker 6: round out this idea that under the circumstances, she was
Speaker 6: justified in killing him or that it was the right
Speaker 6: thing for her to do legally. And I mean, it's
Speaker 6: like you can say that the defense can be even
Speaker 6: if you cut it down to the bone, you can say, well,
Speaker 6: the person had a coming to him, They had a
Speaker 6: coming to him because of what they were doing at
Speaker 6: the time, and in her case, what he was doing
Speaker 6: at the time was that he was attacking her, and
Speaker 6: based on everything that had happened in the past, well,
Speaker 6: her belief that he was attacking her and might kill
Speaker 6: her was reasonable, That's what she was saying. So he
Speaker 6: sort of had it coming to him. And not only
Speaker 6: did he sort of have it coming to him, he
Speaker 6: was an individual who was a pedophile. With all of that,
Speaker 6: then we sort of I had to step back, take
Speaker 6: a look at everything else and see what there was
Speaker 6: to contradict what she was saying. One of the things
Speaker 6: that that I had to keep in mind back then
Speaker 6: was that the investigation had been geared to identifying the
Speaker 6: person who had done all of this. When when when
Speaker 6: she said no I wasn't there or was somebody else,
Speaker 6: we still or not we I mean the police were
Speaker 6: still in the process of identifying who did this. Well,
Speaker 6: once she said this was in self defense, all of
Speaker 6: their investigations sort of went out the window because now
Speaker 6: it's just a new issue. The issue is, yes she
Speaker 6: was there, but was she justified in doing the the stabbing,
Speaker 6: the slicing, in the shooting. And that's when I, of course,
Speaker 6: if you will, have to have to sort of turn
Speaker 6: the focus of the investigation and look at other things
Speaker 6: so that I could deal with it at trial.
Speaker 5: Now it's fascinating to talk about how attorneys their attorneys
Speaker 5: and also you in the prosecution's office take advantage legally
Speaker 5: of certain things. And so tell our audience what you
Speaker 5: hold back in terms of you explain that if you
Speaker 5: were to ask Detective Flores about something, he would have
Speaker 5: to write up a report of that conversation between you two.
Speaker 5: So there is a little bit of a play here
Speaker 5: in terms of did you hold back something from Detective
Speaker 5: Flores that you can use at trial because you do
Speaker 5: not want to share with the defense. So tell us
Speaker 5: what that key issue is that is held back.
Speaker 6: Well, police officers, when they ever they touch a case
Speaker 6: or when they do something, they generally, and I would
Speaker 6: say most of the time if it's a minor thing,
Speaker 6: perhaps not, but they write a report. And in this case,
Speaker 6: if I had, for example, ask Detective Flores to check
Speaker 6: on the receipt from Walmart and he started making the calls,
Speaker 6: that he would have had to write a report that said, oh,
Speaker 6: I was calling around and I spoke to somebody a
Speaker 6: Walmart and they told me that this item was actually
Speaker 6: a gas can. So rather than do that, I was
Speaker 6: the one that actually did the calling, and I was
Speaker 6: the one that took a look at all this stuff,
Speaker 6: and I would hell that information from him. I part
Speaker 6: of it was that if if I'm out there talking
Speaker 6: about it, who knows what what maybe said later on
Speaker 6: down the line by people. So that information was with
Speaker 6: me totally, and I made the decision not to let
Speaker 6: him know. And I remember when I asked her about
Speaker 6: the gas cans and or I asked Daryl Brewer about
Speaker 6: the gas cans, because he took the stand before her.
Speaker 6: When I sat down, he kind of looked at me
Speaker 6: and he said, what the heck, what was that all about.
Speaker 6: I didn't know that about these gas canons? And I
Speaker 6: told him, of course she didn't. And the reason was
Speaker 6: that I just they had given me the information so
Speaker 6: I could in turn use it, and so I didn't
Speaker 6: have obligation to let them know what I was thinking,
Speaker 6: and so I did not tip my hand to the
Speaker 6: information that I was using. So it's not that it
Speaker 6: was any games that were being played or anything. It
Speaker 6: was just my strategy with regard to the case. I
Speaker 6: remembered that even an opening statement they were maintaining that
Speaker 6: had her trip to Mesa was spur of the moment.
Speaker 6: When I heard that, I knew that that couldn't be true,
Speaker 6: that couldn't be the case because there were these pre
Speaker 6: gas cans that indicated that she had actually planned it.
Speaker 6: And again I waited till the very end to ask
Speaker 6: her about the third gas can, and I remember asking her, well,
Speaker 6: what is it this? You know, you claim that you
Speaker 6: took the third gas can back from Walmart, and why
Speaker 6: is it that you were using it to fill up
Speaker 6: with that you filled it up with gas in Salt
Speaker 6: Lake City. I vividly remember that at first she didn't
Speaker 6: have an answer, but she responded as she did, as
Speaker 6: she always used seemed to do, and she responded and said, well,
Speaker 6: I was never insulting. So of course I could prove
Speaker 6: that she was there because of all the receipts. But
Speaker 6: I mean, that was the strategy involved with me with
Speaker 6: the gas cands. And so if the jury sees that,
Speaker 6: hopefully they are swayed that this person is not somebody
Speaker 6: that is credible.
Speaker 5: Now just before the trial, just to and again this
Speaker 5: is something that I guess people that might have followed
Speaker 5: the trial and did not read your book would not know.
Speaker 5: But we talk about you talk about the Bob White
Speaker 5: letters that were deemed inadmissible, but not for lack of trying.
Speaker 5: So tell us about this fascinating part before we again
Speaker 5: just talk about the trial. So talk about the Bob
Speaker 5: White letters, where they came from, and how they were
Speaker 5: investigated away.
Speaker 6: At around the time that immediately before the defendant indicated
Speaker 6: that she was changing her defense to the self defense,
Speaker 6: it appears that some copies of some letters ostensively or
Speaker 6: putatively or allegedly written by Travis Alexander were emailed to
Speaker 6: defense counsel, and they in turn noticed them to me
Speaker 6: or provided me provided me the email the uh, the
Speaker 6: these letters, and these letters of course were ostensibly written
Speaker 6: by mister Alexander. After looking at the letters and a
Speaker 6: number of things in those letters, I came to the conclusion,
Speaker 6: obviously I'm not an expert, but just based on what
Speaker 6: I knew about the case and based on what I
Speaker 6: had seen, that they were actually not written by mister Alexander.
Speaker 6: And so one of the things that I did is
Speaker 6: that I actually made a request of the court, and
Speaker 6: it called emotion, that these letters be excluded because they
Speaker 6: were forged or fraudulent. And one of the things that
Speaker 6: I did to try to advance my position was to
Speaker 6: go to the jail to see if there were any
Speaker 6: writings from Jody Arias, so that I could see what
Speaker 6: her writing was like. And one of the some of
Speaker 6: the items that had been confiscated from her was a
Speaker 6: three by five card that had some writing on it,
Speaker 6: and that writing was almost exactly alike like the writing
Speaker 6: that was in the letters. So immediately it seemed to
Speaker 6: sort of again sort of have the bell ring in
Speaker 6: my head saying something's not right here. I then obtained
Speaker 6: original letters written by mister Alexander, and I had a
Speaker 6: handwriting analysis done, and the person who did the handwriting
Speaker 6: analysis his opinion, he's a documentary examiner. His name's Alan Kreidle.
Speaker 6: He's with the Arizona Department of Public Safety, but his
Speaker 6: opinion was that more likely than not, those letters were forged.
Speaker 6: And not only were those letters forged, the three by
Speaker 6: five card that I had that had been seized or
Speaker 6: taken from Jody Arias, whoever had written that three by
Speaker 6: five card was actually trying to emulate or simulate mister
Speaker 6: Alexander's writing, and that that was the person who probably
Speaker 6: wrote the letter. So I was able to show through
Speaker 6: this what we call circumstantial elevenents, but really the circumstances
Speaker 6: that she had actually probably was the person that they
Speaker 6: were forged, and that she was probably the person who
Speaker 6: forged them. Adding to this, while I was again at
Speaker 6: the jail standing there at one time, and I noticed
Speaker 6: that there was a she had a visitor, and she
Speaker 6: attempted to give a couple of magazines to this visitor.
Speaker 6: And in those magazines, the people at the jail were
Speaker 6: able to find that she had written messages on various
Speaker 6: pages sort of encrypted, and the message was and we
Speaker 6: don't know the I don't know who these messages were too,
Speaker 6: but they were right before the hearing involving the letters,
Speaker 6: and it's saying something you messed up. And obviously it
Speaker 6: was a much harsher word from you messed up when
Speaker 6: you spoke to my lawyers, something like that, you need
Speaker 6: to come in and see me so that we can
Speaker 6: get your story, so that it corroborates what I've been
Speaker 6: saying for the last year or so. So given all
Speaker 6: of that, what ended up happening is that that was presented,
Speaker 6: the letters were withdrawn and they never saw the light
Speaker 6: of day.
Speaker 5: Now, just before we get to the trial, and again
Speaker 5: this is a trial that captivated America, and the world. Basically,
Speaker 5: there was so much attention to this it something resonated
Speaker 5: in people and they were following this very much. Maybe
Speaker 5: not quite like the OJ Simpson case, but there hasn't
Speaker 5: been a case since OJ that seemed to attract as
Speaker 5: much attention this one person involved. Now you cite a
Speaker 5: case of and because the death penalty is important, we
Speaker 5: won't get into any kind of debate even remotely, but
Speaker 5: you do talk about Joseph Andreano and you cite this
Speaker 5: example of how you justify pursuing this death penalty case
Speaker 5: because you use the example of Joseph Andriano and then
Speaker 5: the provisions that there must be an infliction of physical
Speaker 5: or mental anguish. She should should know or should have
Speaker 5: known that he would have suffered. So tell us why
Speaker 5: Jody Arius qualifies as compared to Joseph Andreano. Tell us
Speaker 5: how you why you compared them, and how you justify
Speaker 5: that Jody Arius deserves the death penalty that you pursued.
Speaker 6: Well, both of the cases that you just cited, the
Speaker 6: Aria's case and the when Deandian. Okay, so I want
Speaker 6: to talk about that one first. In that case, the
Speaker 6: killing was especially cruel, and what that factor speaks to
Speaker 6: is the physical and emotional suffering of the person who's
Speaker 6: being killed prior to death, so they have to be conscious.
Speaker 6: In the one Deandreano case, part of the reason I
Speaker 6: pointed out is because they involved a woman and a woman,
Speaker 6: and there was also a sense of overkill with that one.
Speaker 6: He was dying of cancer and was already going to die,
Speaker 6: but that wasn't enough for her, so she went on
Speaker 6: the Internet and under the name of Van Newton, purchased
Speaker 6: some chemical that is used in propellant for airbags, so amazing,
Speaker 6: and gave it to him, and of course he didn't
Speaker 6: die quick enough. He was vomiting, but he didn't die
Speaker 6: quick enough. So what she did actually after that is
Speaker 6: that she beat him over the head and he would
Speaker 6: have died from that, and then after that she slit
Speaker 6: his throat. So I cited it because it had some
Speaker 6: of the same elements and she was the first person
Speaker 6: sentenced to death by a jury. I didn't do it
Speaker 6: to say that the jury was wrong or anything like that.
Speaker 6: I just show that that case is and I do
Speaker 6: not make the decision as to whether or not a
Speaker 6: case the definitely is going to be sought. That is
Speaker 6: made by the county attorney, that is the political person,
Speaker 6: and so I had nothing to do with that, and
Speaker 6: that was his decision and his decision solely. And so
Speaker 6: of course, not every case that goes to trial there's
Speaker 6: a conviction. And so just because the state believes that
Speaker 6: the definitely is appropriate, that's not That's not how it works.
Speaker 6: And in this case, the jury decided, at least on
Speaker 6: the second phase that by a vote of eleven to
Speaker 6: one in favor of the definitely, it has to be
Speaker 6: unanimous here in Arizona that that would not be that
Speaker 6: would not be the case because it was not a
Speaker 6: unanimous verdict. And for me, I mean, I accept what
Speaker 6: the jury has to say. I'm I understand that's how
Speaker 6: the system works. And I don't even really after the
Speaker 6: comes in. I do not waste my time worrying about
Speaker 6: why they did it, why they didn't do it. I
Speaker 6: don't speak to the jurors and say, well, what caused
Speaker 6: you not to vote for it? What caused you to
Speaker 6: vote for it? That's their decision, and you know, I
Speaker 6: believe that their deliberations are sacred and they should be protected.
Speaker 6: So in this particular case, once the decision was made,
Speaker 6: that it was going to be in a sense hung
Speaker 6: jury and that that would mean the imposition of life.
Speaker 6: I just moved on.
Speaker 5: Now we talk about your preparation. You talk about in
Speaker 5: the book the incredible preparation you had for this and
Speaker 5: when the defense, her defense changed her strategy. Again, a
Speaker 5: lot of the investigator information they gained through the investigation
Speaker 5: was really not so useful because they had to counter
Speaker 5: what her defense was saying and the strategy that they
Speaker 5: were using to try to tend her from these from
Speaker 5: these charges. So you had this four years to prepare.
Speaker 5: You reviewed those interviews, You listened to the phone calls.
Speaker 5: You knew Jody arias as well as anybody possibly could.
Speaker 5: What was your strategy in terms of how you would
Speaker 5: we touched on it, but how you would try to
Speaker 5: get rattle her on the stand. She was the star witness,
Speaker 5: so she was the most important witness. What was your
Speaker 5: strategy and what was your approach before you went into
Speaker 5: the trial.
Speaker 6: I knew that she was going she needed to take
Speaker 6: the witness stand and earth for her claim to be
Speaker 6: seriously considered by the jury. So going in, having reviewed
Speaker 6: all the items that you've mentioned, I knew that be
Speaker 6: a typical approach where I would stand there with legal
Speaker 6: pad in hand in the left Haian and maybe a
Speaker 6: pin on the right, and having all these questions written
Speaker 6: down would not be productive. It just wouldn't, because that's
Speaker 6: not the type of conversation that would be conducive to
Speaker 6: anything other than having her repeat what she had said before,
Speaker 6: because it would be a bit too slow. The other
Speaker 6: thing was that I had already I already knew that
Speaker 6: unless she was pushed, she would keep to that position,
Speaker 6: and so I decided to be strident. I decided that
Speaker 6: I'm not going to use notes, and I didn't use
Speaker 6: notes when I was questioning her, and I was going
Speaker 6: to at every turn have something showing or proving up
Speaker 6: what I was asking. So, for example, when I started
Speaker 6: out asking about I remember the first day asking about,
Speaker 6: what I wanted to really go into was that she
Speaker 6: claimed that mister Alexander had damaged her left pinky when
Speaker 6: when he had physically abused her, I had a photograph,
Speaker 6: and she gave a date. I had a photograph subsequent
Speaker 6: to that that showed her pinky was straight, and that
Speaker 6: the only way that it could happened was when she
Speaker 6: attacked him. So I didn't just go chronologically and say, look,
Speaker 6: let's start with day one, then go to day two
Speaker 6: and day three. If I'd have done that again, she
Speaker 6: would have been able to follow it. It would have
Speaker 6: been very prepared. I decided to jump around from subject
Speaker 6: to subject so that she wouldn't have as much time
Speaker 6: to prepare or think of the answers. And I remember
Speaker 6: starting the first day by asking her because there was
Speaker 6: a telephone call that she had recorded surreptitiously and in
Speaker 6: it where she and mister Alexander were heard involved in
Speaker 6: some sort of masturbatory activity, and in that phone after
Speaker 6: sort of the embers are cooling off, she says something
Speaker 6: about her dumb sister, and I remember thinking, well, I
Speaker 6: want to ask her about that, not because I just
Speaker 6: want to embarrass her or anything like that, but because
Speaker 6: she chided mister Alexander for being critical of the family,
Speaker 6: of her family, and yet she could do it. So
Speaker 6: it was a way for me to show there was
Speaker 6: a double standard and then segue into the into the
Speaker 6: thing involving the left little finger. So started out asking
Speaker 6: her by that she didn't expect that, and if I
Speaker 6: asked her in an unexpected fashion, one of the things
Speaker 6: that she even did. She admitted, well, yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 6: think my sister's stupid and my sister's dumb. But then
Speaker 6: she also added that she was stupid. So the approach
Speaker 6: was to sort of not be linear in my in
Speaker 6: my questioning and to be strident. And if that called
Speaker 6: for me to say yes or no, I want to
Speaker 6: know what the answer to this question is, wouldn't so
Speaker 6: be it? And I mean she was even much she
Speaker 6: was up to the challenge. She she For example, if
Speaker 6: she had a question that she didn't know the answer to,
Speaker 6: she would ask me to repeat it, or she would
Speaker 6: say that she didn't remember, or that she had memory problems.
Speaker 6: And then if I use the word problems, she wanted
Speaker 6: to use the word issue. So and then she even
Speaker 6: resorted to say, well, you're just like mister Alexander. You're
Speaker 6: trying to scramble my brain because you're raising your voice. So,
Speaker 6: I mean, she was very adept. I don't know. I'm
Speaker 6: not going to say prepared, but I'm just going to
Speaker 6: say that she was very adept when she was on
Speaker 6: the witness stand, And my way of dealing with it
Speaker 6: was to be very assertive with her.
Speaker 5: Now, we didn't touch on this. But an important part
Speaker 5: of this trial is this Again you talk about the
Speaker 5: salacious nature, and what I didn't know of is that
Speaker 5: Mesa has a big community, a strong community of Mormons,
Speaker 5: and the Latter day Saints and the Mormon religion are
Speaker 5: important in this in terms of I guess the community
Speaker 5: that's in Mesa, but also the tactic that Jody Arius
Speaker 5: used and her defense to try to of course, they're
Speaker 5: going to have to try to make Travis Alexander seemed
Speaker 5: like a violent person. So tell us again not to
Speaker 5: dwell on it, but how important this salacious nature and
Speaker 5: the sex and the forbidden religion kind of thing played
Speaker 5: in this.
Speaker 6: Well, it's true that mister Alexander was LDS or Mormon.
Speaker 6: But one of the things that I attempted to show
Speaker 6: was that, and that shouldn't get lost in this, was
Speaker 6: that Jody Arius was also LDS. So any of these
Speaker 6: sins as she wanted to portray him somebody was a
Speaker 6: sinner applied to her as well, because if he was
Speaker 6: involved in this, well so was she. So that's the
Speaker 6: first point to be made here. There was a prohibition,
Speaker 6: or there is a prohibition, pretty strong prohibition that in
Speaker 6: the LDS faith that says that premarital sex is to
Speaker 6: be strongly discouraged. You just shouldn't do it. And so
Speaker 6: in her bring that up, pointing it out, not only
Speaker 6: was she saying, is he's sexually abusive to me, but
Speaker 6: he's somebody that should be looked down upon because look
Speaker 6: at the type of character that he has. Not only
Speaker 6: he presents himself a certain way during most of the
Speaker 6: time when he goes to church. That sort of thing
Speaker 6: is somebody who is a very good Mormon, but then
Speaker 6: he turns around and does these things. What she forgot,
Speaker 6: of course, was that she was doing the same thing,
Speaker 6: and she's supposed to be a good Mormon girl. Additionally,
Speaker 6: just because somebody engages in sexual activity, whether they are
Speaker 6: lbs or not, does not mean that they should pay
Speaker 6: for the sins because those were sort of what they are.
Speaker 6: They should pay for the sins by having the Grim
Speaker 6: Reaper in the form of Jody Areas strike him down
Speaker 6: by stabbing him in the heart, then you know, slicing
Speaker 6: his throat and then shooting him. That's not the way
Speaker 6: the church sees it. And maybe she tried to fortray
Speaker 6: that him as an individual that perhaps again was a
Speaker 6: center in somebody who deserved I guess a little bit
Speaker 6: of punishment and maybe try to confuse the issues. So
Speaker 6: that's how she tried to use the religion.
Speaker 8: I thought you've probably been asked this many times, and
Speaker 8: it's not a rhetorical question, but it might be an
Speaker 8: unanswerable question in terms of conclusions.
Speaker 5: Why do you think that this case captivated the American audience,
Speaker 5: the American America so much? I mean, part of it,
Speaker 5: I believe was your vigorous approach to questioning her. I
Speaker 5: don't think everybody has seen that, it has experienced that,
Speaker 5: but still to get that kind of attention from the
Speaker 5: public and from the media, there must have been something
Speaker 5: to her character, not just your character attacking her. What
Speaker 5: was it about Jody Arius that captivated America?
Speaker 6: Well, in speaking to people, and I've received letters and
Speaker 6: calls that sort of thing, it seems that the general
Speaker 6: feeling is that this is one of the cases where
Speaker 6: justice or good if you will, triumphs over evil. If
Speaker 6: you mentioned this earlier, there's this case of oj Simpson.
Speaker 6: The majority of people believe that he's guilty, but he
Speaker 6: was acquitted. We also have the Zimmerman case out in Florida,
Speaker 6: and some people there believe that he's also guilty, and
Speaker 6: he was acquitted. And you know, there's a poster child
Speaker 6: involving alleged child abuse and she was not convicted either
Speaker 6: Casey Anthony, So what made this case I think different?
Speaker 6: And I think what captured the as you say, the
Speaker 6: attention and maybe the imagination of people in this country
Speaker 6: and perhaps internationally, is that in this case, there was
Speaker 6: somebody who was ending up for justice.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 6: Maybe I was and I was standing up in a
Speaker 6: in a sense in a way that I was not
Speaker 6: shy about it. And uh and and I guess in
Speaker 6: a way it made these people feel good. I I
Speaker 6: know that I received calls from people who said that,
Speaker 6: for example, a situation where their mother was suffering from
Speaker 6: terminal cancer and one of the things that when she
Speaker 6: was feeling the worst, and maybe the medication wasn't doing
Speaker 6: the best that it could, one of the ways that
Speaker 6: that this woman who was suffering from cancer, one of
Speaker 6: the ways that she would feel better is to watch
Speaker 6: this trial because it was able to sort of draw
Speaker 6: her in and make her forget and and and and
Speaker 6: it drew her in because it was a struggle between
Speaker 6: this right versus wrong, and right seemed to be winning,
Speaker 6: and so I think that's part of it. And then
Speaker 6: the other part, of course, was the uh, it was
Speaker 6: the salaciousness of it. I mean, we heard in very intimate,
Speaker 6: mi new detail, everything you could possibly hear about two
Speaker 6: individuals who were involved in a sexual activities. I mean
Speaker 6: it was a sexual a clinic worthy of masters in Johnson.
Speaker 5: Yes, in your estimation, and of course you detailing in
Speaker 5: the book. So it's not just a little again, not
Speaker 5: just a little determination like I'm asking, because it's more
Speaker 5: complicated than that. But to dumb it down a little bit,
Speaker 5: what did you feel was the most crucial point in
Speaker 5: the cross examination of Jody Arias?
Speaker 6: That was a breakthrough when I was able to show
Speaker 6: that she was somebody who was not credible, someone who
Speaker 6: would not stop and would be able to misrepresent things
Speaker 6: to the jury, And when I was able to show
Speaker 6: that that she had that third gas can, even though
Speaker 6: she had claimed she had returned to Walmart, according to
Speaker 6: her Walmart with her Walmart didn't give her any receipts
Speaker 6: because you know the rules didn't apply to Jody areas
Speaker 6: at Walmart apparently, and she had returned it for a refund.
Speaker 6: I was able to show that what she was saying
Speaker 6: wasn't absolutely untrue. No one could adapt that she had
Speaker 6: actually had that third gas can never returned it to Walmart.
Speaker 6: And at that point pretty much anything that she said
Speaker 6: was there was doubt cast on just about everything that
Speaker 6: she said. So when she then claimed or everything that
Speaker 6: she had claimed about mister Alexander well then about whether
Speaker 6: or not even attacked her, that was also called end
Speaker 6: of doubt. And I think that that was the point
Speaker 6: that probably the jury seized on. Again. I didn't speak
Speaker 6: to them, but it seemed to me that the way
Speaker 6: I saw it, that that at that point everyone knew
Speaker 6: without a shadow of a doubt, that Jody Areas could
Speaker 6: not be trusted.
Speaker 5: Now, not everybody after prosecuting a case, especially if they're
Speaker 5: not retired, And you explain this, and I guess, I
Speaker 5: guess I'll get you to explain this. Why did you
Speaker 5: feel it was important to write the book? And most
Speaker 5: people wait till they're retired, So tell us why you
Speaker 5: didn't wait till you're retired, and why did you feel
Speaker 5: it was important to write this book?
Speaker 6: Every every case, I guess that you do, or you
Speaker 6: see there's some value, some teaching value to it, and
Speaker 6: I believe that in seeing what I see out in
Speaker 6: the media and other things that everybody watches TV, and
Speaker 6: I know everybody realizes that it's condensed and all that,
Speaker 6: but it was just a way to sort of, I
Speaker 6: don't know, I educate the public a little bit about
Speaker 6: what actually happens in the trial, what actually goes into it,
Speaker 6: because that's what makes it interesting, and so that they
Speaker 6: can know what is going on. And the idea that
Speaker 6: it's open to the public is also I think it
Speaker 6: is also a good idea. So those things were part
Speaker 6: of the reason that I wrote the book. I do
Speaker 6: think it's educational. We talk about direct examination, cross examination,
Speaker 6: and redirect and you know how Juri's can ask questions
Speaker 6: in Arizona, that sort of thing, and what the rules
Speaker 6: allow and don't rap allow. So there's that component, and
Speaker 6: I just thought that my thoughts were a good story
Speaker 6: and in this fight for justice, they could see what
Speaker 6: was going on, what exactly was that I used to
Speaker 6: arm myself to bring this case to a conclusion, to
Speaker 6: a conviction, And that's why I chose the title. The
Speaker 6: reason I didn't retire is that I'm not ready. There's
Speaker 6: nothing that says that I can't write about something that
Speaker 6: has happened. I don't handle the case anymore. That's with
Speaker 6: the office of the Attorney General. I don't have anything
Speaker 6: to do with the case. So there didn't seem to
Speaker 6: me to be any reason to wait. Why wait five
Speaker 6: ten years after retire. I may never retire. I may
Speaker 6: live another twenty years and work there. So there really
Speaker 6: isn't anything magical about it. I followed the rules, I
Speaker 6: obtained permission before I wrote it. I made sure that
Speaker 6: I abided by the rules, and so it just seemed
Speaker 6: that it was the right time to do it. And
Speaker 6: as far as retiring, well, again, as I said, I
Speaker 6: don't see that as a sort of a line or
Speaker 6: that would indicate that a book shooter shouldn't be written.
Speaker 6: I know that other prosecutors have retired and done that,
Speaker 6: but maybe I'm a little different that way. I just
Speaker 6: don't want to leave the job.
Speaker 5: Well, that's great, absolutely, Now, before I let you go,
Speaker 5: I wanted to ask this question where what has been
Speaker 5: the reaction. I know the public has been mad over
Speaker 5: this book. You've have rave reviews. I'm sure the sales
Speaker 5: have been incredible and the interest in this. I mean,
Speaker 5: you can find out so much information, so many videos online.
Speaker 5: But what has been the reaction from your colleagues, which
Speaker 5: is probably most important to you.
Speaker 6: I have to admit that, you know, it's not something
Speaker 6: that I like to discuss with people that I work with,
Speaker 6: so I don't it's not something that it's a topic
Speaker 6: of conversation at work. When I'm at work, I'm there
Speaker 6: to deal with the cases that are there, and so
Speaker 6: I can't say what the reaction is the people that
Speaker 6: I work with because I don't discuss it. That's something
Speaker 6: that's separate apart, and I really do not bring it
Speaker 6: into work with me, if you will, the idea that
Speaker 6: I wrote a book. But obviously I do know that
Speaker 6: that people in my office know that I wrote it,
Speaker 6: and I mean I've heard comments perhaps in the elevator
Speaker 6: or something like that, where people have said that they've
Speaker 6: enjoyed it. So beyond that, there really isn't too much
Speaker 6: discussion about it with my colleagues.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's very interesting how you basically have stated, I mean,
Speaker 5: you stayed in the book as well. This is seven
Speaker 5: years of your life from the beginning to the end,
Speaker 5: and you have an ability to put that away and
Speaker 5: continue with your life, your private life, and this is
Speaker 5: just another chapter and you are continuing with the work
Speaker 5: that you enjoy and that you love and serve the
Speaker 5: community that you are a big part of and want
Speaker 5: to be end so.
Speaker 6: And you know, I want the case was like sure
Speaker 6: in the case was like a relationship. It was not
Speaker 6: a good relationship.
Speaker 5: It was a bad relationship.
Speaker 6: But like our relationships, you know you're happy when they're
Speaker 6: done because they are a bad relationship. But you miss it.
Speaker 6: And of course I think about it and I think
Speaker 6: about it, but it's done and I've moved on.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I've got to commend you on this book. It's
Speaker 5: just a brilliant a brilliant book and especially interesting for
Speaker 5: people like myself, and I think our audience, the savvy
Speaker 5: audience I have too, will find the unique aspects of
Speaker 5: this book coming from a prosecutor in this incredibly high
Speaker 5: profile case, and every single detail and again fantastically written
Speaker 5: on your edge of your seat, even though you know
Speaker 5: the outcome of the case. You can't get a better
Speaker 5: testament for those that might want to. Of course, they
Speaker 5: know where to buy the book Amazon, but also is
Speaker 5: there is a Facebook page, a fan page, So could
Speaker 5: you tell us how people might want to communicate or
Speaker 5: call meant or find out more about the community itself
Speaker 5: that's involved with this book. Could you tell us a
Speaker 5: little bit about that.
Speaker 6: Well, I know that the book is available at Amazon
Speaker 6: and at Barnes and Noble. I do know that there
Speaker 6: are a couple of ways to communicate with me, of
Speaker 6: course HarperCollins. If people contact them, of course the messages
Speaker 6: will get to me. One thing I must say, I
Speaker 6: don't have Facebook. I'm not really somebody who. I don't
Speaker 6: know how to say it other than say that I
Speaker 6: just don't have a I don't have a computer, So
Speaker 6: there's no way to communicate with me that way. Obviously,
Speaker 6: I do have a workplace. People want to call me there,
Speaker 6: I mean I will return the calls probably, but not
Speaker 6: during work hours, because again I devote my time to
Speaker 6: work when I'm there. But then the best way to
Speaker 6: get a hold of me is through HarperCollins. They're out
Speaker 6: of New York, and any calls or any messages there
Speaker 6: are always forwarded to me. Any inquiries by people are
Speaker 6: always sent to me, and I respond to them. All.
Speaker 5: Well, that's great, I want to thank you very much
Speaker 5: Jan for coming on talking about your incredible book Conviction,
Speaker 5: the untold Story of putting Judy Arius behind Bars. It's
Speaker 5: been fascinating and thank you for taking the time to
Speaker 5: come and share this incredible story with our audience.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Hei, thank you for having me on.
Speaker 5: Thanke care you have a great night.
Speaker 8: Thank you, good night.
Speaker 3: Now you can be more cyber safe with Canada's most
Speaker 3: comprehensive all in one protection tell Us Online Security powered
Speaker 3: by Norton LifeLock. Safeguard your data, devices and identity. Starting
Speaker 3: at only ten dollars a month. Learn more at talis
Speaker 3: dot com. Slash online security conditions apply. Now you can
Speaker 3: be more safe with Canada's most comprehensive all in one protection.
Speaker 3: Talis Online Security powered by Norton LifeLock safeguard your data,
Speaker 3: devices and identity starting at only ten dollars a month.
Speaker 3: Learn more at talis dot com. Slash online security conditions apply.