Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Travis Alexander

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 138.162.128.54 (talk) at 14:09, 9 May 2013 (→‎Travis Alexander was never a missionary.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Media section

"She was "miraculously" spared after the assailants gun misfired which gave her time to flee the home, naked, but she did not make any attempts to get help for wounded Alexander." I don't see anywhere in the cited material that she ran out naked. Also, change 'assailants' to 'assailant's' (Aa400415 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The Huffington Post

TheRedPenOfDoom removed this information[1] because he said that "huff post is a fine source for notable opinions, not for this."

My question is: What's wrong with using The Huffington Post for facts about this case, as opposed to their personal opinion? It's a respected news source, including by Wikipedia standards (WP:Reliable sources). If we shouldn't use it for the information that TheRedPenOfDoom removed, then we shoudln't use it for any other information about facts, as opposed to the source's personal opinion, about the case. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huff post is not a NEWS organization, it is an OPINION organization. When dealing with details and information about living people and crimes, we need the most highly reviewed and accurate information possible. If there is a news source that supports the claims, then fine and use the news source. If the only source that is carrying something is the Huff post then it is very likely that inclusion in the article is UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we probably shouldnt be using it for other fact based claims in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. The Huffington Post is called a news source by a lot of reliable sources, and this is also why it's billed as an "American news website, content aggregator and blog" in its Wikipedia article. I know that blogs are generally not reliable sources for use on Wikipedia, but WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability say that news blogs can be. If it's better not to use The Huffington Post for facts about this case, as opposed to their personal opinion about it, or as opposed to use of them in the media section to show the diversity of the media attention this case has received, I understand and I'm fine with that. It's easy for me to stick to other reliable sources for facts about this case. However, I don't understand how it'll be easily enforced to keep The Huffington Post out of this article for facts about this case, as opposed to their personal opinion about it. And it seems odd to me to discriminate against it as a news source unless it's just personal commentary. Should we ask about this at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or the WP:BLP noticeboard? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
given that they have won a pulitzer for journalism, i withdraw my objection to its use. they have apparently expanded their purview since I was last paying attention to them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Huffington post can be used.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I normally have no problem with using Huffington Post news articles as reliable source, however in the case of the trial of Jodi Arias I have some concerns. For example this quote from David Lohr's March 22, 2013 article, headlined "Jodi Arias Trial: Psychologist Richard Samuels Hammered For Changing PTSD Test Score"; "The prosecution contends Arias stabbed 30-year-old Alexander 27 times, shot him twice in the face and slashed his throat in a jealous rage." That he was shot twice in the face is factually incorrect, as is the assertion that the prosecution is contending that. Lohr was notified of the error via email as soon as the article was published, but has not corrected it. The autopsy report can be found here: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/redactedtravisautopsy.pdf ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC) ETA: There was another factual error in a previous article by this journalist that was significant, where he attributed a text message by Jodi to Travis in the reverse. He said it was from Travis to Jodi. It was the 'I want to fuck you like a dirty horny little schoolgirl' text. You can verify that fact by watching trial video on youtube, "Jodi Arias Trial - Day 24 - Part 1" at 44:44. Sorry, can't post link due to spam filter. He was notified and did correct that one. Kudos to him for that. Unfortunately, he did not correct the number of gunshot wounds in the subsequent article. Make of it what you will, but this shows that his work does need verification. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information. A lot of reliable news sources were reporting some incorrect information during the early days of the case (such as Alexander being stabbed 27 times, as opposed to what we now know to be 29 times) because facts were still being worked out, and some of them are still reporting some incorrect information, but a news source not correcting it when they are told that it's wrong is problematic. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defense expert testimony

This definitely needs a section or at least reference to the expert testimony there are more sources the HLN, but this accounting is very detailed http://www.hlntv4u.com/article/2013/03/19/live-blog-arias-defense-witness-cracking. Anyone else agree we need some content on this?Gray106 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a moment to review the previous disucssions on this page. I withdraw this recommendaiton at this time. There are a number of salient issues up for dispute that I did not recognize until now. Thanks all.Gray106 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest there should be some mention of the defence case. The article is current rather one-sided, with a long section "Discovery and investigation" but nothing almost nothing on the defence side of events.

I also suggest avoiding sources such as ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner, who have a financial interest and are not neutral POV. Instead use associated press reports, or reports by the local reporter Michael Kiefer. Geebee2 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Alexander's parents were drug addicts.

Why is there no info or even a mention about Travis Alexander's parents being drug addicts? I found a link a Headline News-http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/01/arias-jodi-nancy-grace-mysteries-investigation-day-2-victim-profile And he also states his parents were addicts on his own blog. The Travis Alexander being better blog. I know we can't use the blog as a source but surely headline news is a credible source? If not I can find another credible source.--BeckiGreen (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the parent's alleged drug addictions connected somehow with Travis Alexander's killing? Or just a background detail? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not alleged. If you google Travis Alexander's being better blog, (sadly he never closed the comments section so people there are always posting things) he writes about his parents being drug addicts,among other things he delt with growing up. I guess what he was trying to say is that he overcame a lot in his life to be successful and a Mormon. I haven't read his blog in a while so I can't remember everything he wrote. Anyway,I don't think it's background detail,because I have been watching the trial and at night a lot of his friends have been interviewed and the friends have spoke about how he had drug addict parents and how much he overcame etc. Also on Travis' Being Better Blog he has a entry titled something like why I would marry a Golddigger,and he mentions that he wants to make sure his date is not a axe murderer. I know that doesn't belong in the article but I thought that statement was sadly foretelling. Also there is no doubt that the being better blog is Travis',his family and friends have verified that on the news as well. Also on the CBS 48 hours page,CBS has the entire Jodi Arias episode up to watch and the narrator or anchor person talks to Travis' family and friends about his parents being drug addicts as well.--BeckiGreen (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really skeptical about the claim; for all intensive purposes, they probably were, and apparently there are sources saying so. What I'm asking is, is this really a component of the "Killing of Travis Alexander"? If this were a biographical article on Alexander himself, assuming he was notable enough to have his own stand-alone article, the stuff where he wrote about his parents being drug addicts and how he overcame all of that and ended up being successful would probably be relevant. As it's written, this article isn't really a WP:BLP but instead an accounting of his homicide, the ensuing legal proceedings against the suspect, and the media's attention on the case. As a result, the window of what's relevant in the "Victim" section is kind of narrow, and that's probably why there's been no mention of it therein so far. If you want to build a case for why that section should be expanded and include things like their drug addiction, I won't stand in your way, but you might want to solicit opinions from others here too.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I don't really care if the info is added, I just thought that it not being added was odd,since it is mentioned in newspaper articles etc. that is why I brought it up on this talk page, to see what others think.--98.87.169.30 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC) For all intesive purposes? Intents and Purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.168.251.103 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "Killing of Travis Alexander" this is not the "Travis Alexander wiki" why mention family at all? Ortega (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I would atleast like to make the suggestion that we change the article name to The State vs Jodi Arias. This article is essentially about the trial and Jodi Arias. I can accept Killing Of Travis Alexander too, but I think that a name change could atleast be discussed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While im at it does anyone know how further this trial will go on is it near to end or? I am following the case but it isnt clear for me how the trial is really progressing. Just so we can know when to keep an extra eye on the article for alot of expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As of April 10, 2013, we're at least a month away from jury deliberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B105:C374:B16F:A34B:8B4F:D016 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
per our WP:BLP policies we do not use such names while the trial is still underway (and generally not ever unless the case is precedent setting) see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Arias trial for how it landed at this title. This has an article not because of anything about the trial, but solely because of the media circus surrounding the murder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the media circus is all around the trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for how we landed at this title, people should see Talk:Killing of Travis Alexander/Archive 1. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pled guilty" in lead section

The lead section said she pled guilty, but the fact that she's on trial seems to contradict that, so I changed it. However, a transcript of Nancy Grace on CNN says that she tried to plead guilty to a lesser offense but was denied, but I am reluctant to consider that a reliable source, especially since I can't find anything else to back up that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyWZ (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She plead not guilty on the grounds of self-defense. She did offer a plea deal to 2nd degree murder but the State turned it down. Here's a link to the redacted plea deal in PDF format. http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.50.226 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting is this http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/072011/m4810307.pdf which states: "THE COURT FINDS the assigned prosecutor does not have the authority to offer a plea to the Defendant nor does he have the authority to accept an offer by the Defendant." That doesn't sound exactly like "turning it down". The correct legal understanding of this situation eludes me. Geebee2 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They tried to pleas bargain, it got turned down and no plea bargain will be accepted. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prosecutor didn't put forth the plea deal, Arias' attorneys did - hence why the redacted copy has her attorney's names & work addresses on it. Also, the prosecuting attorney themselves don't accept or reject a plea deal. The DA does - hence why I said the "State".

Alyce LaViolette

This is just a thought that I wanted to bring here to this Talk Page. Is it appropriate to create an article on Alyce LaViolette? I was surprised to see that there is not one (or, at least, not yet). What do people here think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say, go for it and create an article about her. It is needed and would be appropriate. Could become a good article considering her latest testimonys in the trial of Jodi.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually a very strong NO . per WP:BLP1E the only thing of any measure of note about her is her participation in this trial.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She seem to be notable beyond the trial. As usual I think users are evaluating notability out of one single event and not seeing the full picture.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
notable for what and how? when you have google limit its search to content not related to Arias, you get zero hits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that "up" on this topic. But (a) she is the author of at least one book. And (b) she is considered an "expert" in her field. Sounds like the makings of notability. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sufficient reliable sources about her to enable us to write a reasonably complete biography of her, not just an article that reads "Alyce LaViolette wrote a book and testified at a trial, the end."? polarscribe (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliable sources

CBS News, ABC News, etc. are inherently reliable sources - they are major media organizations in the United States and unless there is significant reason to believe otherwise, their coverage must be considered as a reliable third-party view. Simply saying "financial interest" is not a magical talisman. Please discuss the removal of these sources on the talk page. polarscribe (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The court minutes state that Mr. Bodney was Counsel for the ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner. The financial involvement of ABC News and and CNN-HLN Network/Turner is clear ( there are many reports that HLN has benefited fonancially from the trial ). Therefore they are not neutral and such articles should not be cited. The inflammatory headlines and content of these articles show them to be opinion and not proper neutral court reporting. Geebee2 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a public records request does not make a media organization "involved" in a case. polarscribe (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HLN have a clear financial involvement.

"The cable channel's coverage of the Arias murder trial -- she is accused of killing her ex-boyfriend in 2008 at his Arizona home -- gave its first quarter numbers a nice boost, according to Nielsen. In March alone, HLN saw its total day ratings increase by 53% and prime time was up almost 50%. For the first three months, HLN is up 17% in total day and 12% in prime." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-arias-trial-lifts-hln-ratings-20130402,0,7659076.story

Note that the counsel was for "ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner", which shows a link between these organisations. Therefore articles from these news/entertainment/opinion sources should not be cited, since they do not have neutral POV. The lack of a neutral POV is also evident from the headlines and content of these articles. Geebee2 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is a complete and total non-starter, and a transparent and rather dubious argument to get rid of sources you don't like. All news organizations benefit financially from exciting news coverage of lurid crime cases. That's not a sufficient reason (or even a valid reason at all, in and of itself) to discount them as reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the coverage of these organisations with the neutral AP coverage. HLN in particular has run a series of prejudicial interviews with Chris Hughes, and is acting as an advocate for the prosecution, with clever use of selective editing of the coverage.Geebee2 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on new contributor

Geebee2 is undertaking major changes to this page that don't reflect Wikipedia policy. Please discuss major changes such as removal of reliable sources and moving the article to a different title before undertaking them. polarscribe (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mis-characterising why the sources should be removed : they are not neutral POV.
I'm happy to discuss this issue - perhaps you could ask for a 3rd opinion from a neutral editor, if you are familiar with the dispute-resolution methods of wikipedia.Geebee2 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources such as major media outlets are neutral unless proven otherwise. Simply asserting that "they are not neutral POV" is not evidence of inherent bias. polarscribe (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 67.10.111.105 consolidated and collapsed

Geebee2 operates her own anti-prosecution wiki sites about the trial. 

   http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Prosecution-and-Press-Lies  "Kermit" is prosecutor Juan Martinez 
   http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Minute+entries

She is also a rabid poster on the moderated http://jodiariasisinnocent.com board, on which she posted this admission about her activity http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/free-speech-death-threats-prohibited-reproduction-jodi-arias-is-innocent-team-jodi/#comment-81091  : 

   geebee2 says:
   April 13, 2013 at 11:08 am
   You are very welcome BeeCee!

   Note: I’m just starting to work on the wikipedia wiki.
   This is a bit of a delicate job, so I’m treading carefully.
   At the moment I’m kind of probing for signs of any resistance.
   It may not prove to be feasible.

Geebee2 operates her own anti-prosecution wiki sites about the trial, and can't be considered a wiki novice by any means. 

   http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Prosecution-and-Press-Lies  "Kermit" is prosecutor Juan Martinez 
   http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Minute+entries  — Preceding unsigned comments added by 67.10.111.105 (talk) 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would characterise my wiki as 'pro-defence' not 'anti-prosecution'. Your language betrays your lack of neutrality. If you look at the wiki you referenced, you will see it is nothing whatsover to do with Juan Martinez, and relates to the case of Amanda Knox. I am a wikipedia novice - I have made only a handful of edits on wikipedia before Saturday (which has a very diffent user interface to wikispaces,which is WYSIWYG). Before indulging in personal attacks, please check the facts, thank you. I have to say I was outraged by the lack of neutrality in this article, concerning the trial of a woman facing a death penalty. I was also outraged by the lack of neutrality in the wikipedia articel on Amanda Knox up to the time she was acquitted. This was cited as one of the worst failures of wikipedia ever, and needed the personal attention of wikipedia's founder to correct. I can provide references if you need them. I am also outraged by the hate attacks on witnesses in this trial and the deliberate dehumanisation of Jodi Arias on HLN. Just so you know where I am coming from.Geebee2 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to have this article?

Would anyone be substantially opposed to nominating this article for deletion again? There doesn't seem to be anything especially noteworthy to set this case apart from any of the thousands of other sad, tragic homicide cases across the world that don't get a dissertation on Wikipedia. polarscribe (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is patently defective after the infiltration by Geebee2 ignited the [edit war] with more reliable posters, and resulted in justifiable page lock by the editors. Geebee2 has saved dozens of subtle edits beyond those objected to by users on this talk page, and it would be impractical to reconcile by diff the chopped and hashed truth. Moreover, those edits rightly objected to here are highly damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable knowledge base on this subject (arbitrary removal or endorsement of sources, paranoid arguments of when a wound is a wound, etc). The page was raided, and deletion is now additionally a recovery option.

Deletion is reasonable, but only if the process prevents re-creation of the same or a related page, to allow once again the exploitation of Wikipedia as a platform for partisan aggrandizement. If deletion is not chosen, then a full rollback to some savepoint pre-Geebee2 is certainly in order. The article text at that time was primitive and incomplete, as was developed knowledge of facts of the case, but at least it hadn't been subjected to hacking so bad that the site's moderators needed be called in. The trial should be over and the passion burnt out in a couple of months or so; it should also take that long for court observers and serious historians to get a sense of what it all meant in the first place. A page-protect until August 2013 should be included in the plan to deal with the nonsense here. 173.172.210.42 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am opposed. The trial of Jodi Arias (proposed name change) is highly notable for the very extensive media coverage, the firestorm of hatred and abuse on the internet, and the extremely slanted cover by ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner. It may well prove to be a turning point in the way trials are televised. Please consider restoring the name change, which reflects the content of the article. Thanks. Geebee2 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" It may well prove to be a turning point in the way trials are televised." wow can you crystal ball any more? The only reason it would merit an article is the media circus of the coverage, and the article should focus on that. The relegation of the media circus aspect to the final sentence of the final paragraph of the intro is a complete contravention of WP:LEAD. and the article would be better if content focused on the circus and prurient interest feeding the frenzy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And while I support deletion, i think it would be a futile effort with a swarm of "But look at all of the sources!!!!!!1!!!" overriding any actual notability of the case itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose. The prior deletion debate was in January 2013, only three or so months ago. If anything, the topic has gained notability since then. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the article would be better if content focused on the circus and prurient interest feeding the frenzy" Yes, please go ahead along those lines. I fully support that. Although the trial is also notable in other ways, for example the length of the defendants testimony (unparalleled I believe). As you can probably tell, I am a wikipedia novice. I'm happy to leave this in your obviously capable hands. Geebee2 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, are HuffPo and Daily Mail reliable or unreliable? Need agreement.

Geebee2 has repeatedly removed links to Huffington Post and The Daily Mail articles, claiming that they are unreliable sources. I am more or less in agreement that we can and should find better sources than HuffPo and a British tabloid that, while not the worst of the lot, certainly is prone to sensationalism.

Now he/she inserted two pro-defense sections, supported only by links to... Huffington Post and The Daily Mail articles. That's not cricket.

We need agreement - are such links going to be considered reliable or not? If not, we don't get to cherry-pick "good" articles that we like on those sites and use them as sources. Either they're in or they're out. polarscribe (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they are out. A good source of neutral articles is http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/category/254145/arias-case Many of these are associated press, and are generally neutral and balanced. For example : http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/21929025/testimony-resumes-in-jodi-arias-murder-trial Geebee2 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is right out of contention on issues of BLP. Anything worth covering will be covered by more reliable source. The Huff Post is more debatable. They have won (the first for an online org) Pulitzer Prize for Journalism and are not merely opinion bloggers any more. But I completely agree that if it is suitable for stuff that looks at one side of the trial it is good for the other, you cannot have it only when you like what it says.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree HuffPost may be ok for some purpioses, but remember it is an opinion site. I note editors have been using non-neutral sources again, reverting my edits. Please can you help sort that out. If this cannot be sorted out, I would recommend the article be deleted entirely. Geebee2 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do ABC and CBS not meet WP:RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above. They are not neutral in this case. Please use neutral articles only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, explain how these sources do not meet the policy of WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a statement in the "Restore the article to the condition it was in before its gutting" section about this. Halo Jerk1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And The Huffington Post is not reporting opinions when it's reporting on facts about the case. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and investigation section

I have numerous issues with this section. Firstly, it should be confined to matters preceding the trial, or renamed "Prosecution case" or something like that. Secondly, certain issues evolved as testimony proceeded, which means that total evidence only became clear incrementally. For example it turned out later that there was a third gas purchase at ARCO. This section is essentially a presentation of the prosecution case. To be balanced, I believe the wiki should devote an approximately equal amount of space to the prosecution and defence cases. Geebee2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your opinion is that Jodi is innocent and therefore you would like to see more of what you believe is correct added to this wiki. I think this wiki should be backed by research and evidence, not just opinion. I didn't pull my opinion out of thin air, i read what you wrote as your wiki online @ http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/.[1] 15:22, 18 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.165.215 (talk)

Death section

I think we need to check the trial testimony regarding the 29 stab wounds. Although reports, claimed police said this, it is not borne out by the trial testimony that I have seen. It sounds wrong in any case, because the injuries would be testified to by experts, not the police. This is a major issue of contention. Therefore I think we should use the primary sources ( trial testimony ), given that this is available. I will look this up. Geebee2 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the new section button to start a new section, this is now at the top when it ought to be at the bottom. You cannot use WP:PRIMARY sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY This article concerns a BLP, not just the guy who got killed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apologies about the new section. Repair it as you wish. Consider this testimony: (linkvio removed)Here Martinez (not accidentally I believe) says "stab", then corrects himself. This is a common theme throughout this portion of Horn's testimony. Geebee2 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:INDENT I have removed that link as it was a WP:LINKVIO The content in that youtube clip (not RS BTW) was taken from hlntv. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. HLN is not a remotely reliable source. It is trash TV. It is entertainment. It is misinformation. It is not remotely reliable. Geebee2 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better then just to use what was reported on Horn's testimony? Well, I'm not sure what to make of a situation where a supposedly reliable source is obviously false. Should we say "Press reports stated that the police said .... but primary sources show this to be false." I await your guidance. Geebee2 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at how I have formated your previous comments, that is indenting. If HLM is so crap when why the hell did you link to a youtube clip of it? Your suggestion of "Press reports stated that the police said ...." seems of the face of it reasonable per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err.. the link was a youtube clip of televised testimony, nothing to do with HLN AFAIK. Thanks for sorting the formatting. I'm getting the hang of it. I will follow your suggestiong.

So now you have reverted my edit when I followed your suggestion? And we have a blatant falsehood in wikipedia? Correct? I'm beginning to think the whole idea of having a wikipedia article on a live trial is crazy. There is so much misinformation floating around it's unbelievable. Geebee2 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources say 27 stab wounds, none mention the police saying 29. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the associated press report I reference does say "the police said". http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/20536892/2013/01/08/arias-trial-medical-examiner-explains-bloody-crime-scene-photos

I have been reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." What is wikipedia policy when supposedly reliable sources contain demonstrable errors? It also says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Which would seem to apply here. Geebee2 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the "demonstrable" errors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick Google I find various outlets saying 29 stab wounds and others saying 27, I have tried to clarify this in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google is useless. The news coverage is dominated by non-neutral coverage. The reliable reporting is the associated press reports, and reports by the local reporter.

Geebee2 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

google news gives multiples reliable news sources giving each number. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see the article now at least acknowledges the uncertainty. It is still a gross misrepresentaion of Horn's testimony. It seems to me that this misrepresentation in the press is an entirely deliberate attempt by the prosecution to demonize Arias. I used to have an idea that wikipedia was about truth, but I know see it is nothing of the kind, in spite of stated policies. I suppose critical thinker should be able to spot these lies with ease, but when a hateful mob develops based on such lies, I find that worrying. Geebee2 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This report : http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130108arias-murder-trial-traces-gruesome-wounds.html does at least make sense. It says : "With the medical examiner’s help, he[Martinez] inventoried the 27 stab wounds depicted in the photos." However characterizing all of these 27 wounds as stab wounds seems doubtful to me, based on my recollection of Horn's testimony. But I understand wikipedia is not interested in research, so I will research this elsewhere, starting with a transcript of Horn's testimony. Geebee2 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your concentration on testimony and not what has been published will not get you very far. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as promised I have done some research. The autopsy report indicates just 4 stab wounds. See http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/The+Big+Lie Now, you may argue I am not a neutral source, but at least I have no financial incentive here, unlike the sources you insist on quoting. I will try to get Michael Kiefer (who I do consider to be neutral) to issue a correction to his earlier report. In the mean-time I suggest that as per wikipedia policy, the controversial material should be removed immediately. Geebee2 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stuff that you posted on your wiki site is in NO WAY an acceptable piece of evidence to contradict news reports. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 April 2013

I have done very simple research. The autopsy report indicates precisely 4 stab wounds, according to my analysis. See http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/The+Big+Lie I have updated the talk section. In view of wikipedia policy, I ask that the controversial material is removed immediately, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources This includes material in both the "Death" section and at the top of the article. Specifically, I suggest "25" be changed to "several" or "multiple" at the top of the article, and the "Death" section be removed entirely. I support continued protection of this article. I also ask that the neutrality of reference sources be carefully considered, in view of the financial interest of ABC News and and CNN-HLN Network/Turner. I declare that I have no financial interest. Thank you. Geebee2 (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I count at least nine stab and slash wounds on the back alone. You write on your wiki that these are from scratch's from fingernails? Wow. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that the correct figure is clear, just that there is considerable doubt as to the correct figure.
Even the sources you quote differ. Under wikipedia policy. this is grounds for the material to be removed.

Sure, the cluster of 9 wounds on the back could arguably be included. You can stab someone with you fingernail, but in the context of the case, that's misleading. That makes 13. So it's 4,13,25,27 or 29 according to who you talk to. What's clear to me is that the 27/29 figure likely refers to the total number of wounds, not stab wounds. That's not a consensus at all, and stating this at the top of the article as a plain fact when it is highly contended is I think misleading. Note: I have asked Michael Kiefer to issue a correction or explanation. Geebee2 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under policy all figures are actually included if sourced to a RS, see NPOV. You do know that all stab wounds get counted right? Even those received when trying to defend yourself, such as the ones on the hands. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about saying "multiple" at the top of the article, and then explaing what is meant by a "stab" wound in the Killing section? That is it includes defensive wounds, fingernail wounds, falling over and hitting your head wounds, and cutting wounds that are not described as stabs in the autopsy report. None of these fall within the ordinary understanding of "stab" in a killing involving a knife. I'm saying the current text is at best highly misleading, a non-neutral spin on what happened, given undue prominence. Geebee2 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about you get some RS to back your claims rather than your WP:OR carried out here and on your wiki? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any RS. There were no associated press reports on that day. Incidentally, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab_wound for the wiki definition of a stab wound. It says "deeper than it is wide". You know perfectly well the claim is false, within any definition of "stab". You are defending it using a flimsy shield of ambiguous and inconsistent reports of doubtful neutrality. The wiki is currently Lie#Misleading_and_dissembling Geebee2 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS if you think ABC & CBS are not RS take it to the RSN board, I am not arguing this with you as it is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trial

I suggest Arias testimony regarding the killing be added on the basis of this article by Michael Kiefer http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/20/woman-describes-killing-lover/1934607/

I did previously supply suitable text, which has been deleted. Geebee2 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the source which says "she had no recall of the 27 times she stabbed Alexander and slit his throat" Which rather contradicts what you have written in the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 April 2013

The fact that Travis and Jodi met at a "Pre-Paid Legal Services" conference needs citation. Also, Pre-Paid Legal Services needs to be linked to it's article with [[]].

Nemeses9 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I'm not sure if it needs a citation because I don't know if that YouTube ref a sentence later supports it - and I ain't gonna listen to it. I'm not even looking to see if it's a copyright vio (shame on me). Once the lock expires, you're welcome to figure all this out and do what you think is appropriate. No wikilink was necessary because it's already wikilinked above. I did correct the spelling of the company name, though, and "removed" a second wikilink below per WP:OVERLINK.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Alexander was never a missionary.

Travis did not serve a mission, in Denver or anywhere else. Can you please delete that or source it properly? 38.100.174.190 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)person with no wiki account[reply]

A number of sources do state he served his Mormon mission and he is described as a Mormon from a young age, which means he had to serve a mission if he was active (which is stated earlier he was). Need a link stating he *didn't* serve a mission. Jncobbs (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Nancy Grace (HLN) reports that he served a 2 year mission in Colorado. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 April 2013

Alexander As -> Alexander. As [insert period]

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Funnily enough, another editor (fairly new account) made the same request on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I put it here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article to the condition it was in before its gutting.

The article should be restored to the condition it was in before Geebee2 gutted the article. Edits like these[2][3] show that Geebee2 is working from a purely WP:IDON'TLIKEIT standpoint on this article and doesn't understand how we are supposed to function on Wikipedia. We don't judge reliable sources based on what an editor says. We judge reliable sources based on what WP:Reliable sources says. And ABC, CBS, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post and HLN pass as reliable sources. We also previously discussed The Huffington Post as a reliable source higher up. There is no good reason that HLN, the main channel covering this trial, should not be used as a source for this topic (Nancy Grace aside). There is no good reason that the article should say "over 25 stab wounds" when we know that early reports were wrong when reporting 25 or 27 stab wounds and that Alexander was instead stabbed 29 times. If 25 was ever reported as the final number, that is the first I've heard of it. Most sources say 27 or 29. Since WP:CONSENSUS is against Geebee2, who hadn't edited with the Geebee2 account mostly since 2008 before showing up here to trash this article, the article should be restored to how it was before Geebee2 trashed it.

Besides general discussion of Geebee2'd edits, this section can be used to form consensus about restoring the article to the condition it was in before Geebee2's changes. I agree with Geebee2 that we shouldn't use Daily Mail as a source, since it's generally categorized as a tabloid newspaper. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report[4] at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard was a bust. Not surprising, since the arguments that Geebee2 uses to support gutting the article are poor. I've reported the issue at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.[5] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Jimbo recently spoke out against Geebee2 removing reliable sources.[6] What a pleasant surprise. Thanks, Jimbo. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the article to the condition it was in before Geebee2's edits.[7] I had to revert myself too on a few re-additions.[8] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good decision Halo. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of stab wounds is still being reported as 27.

Despite claims to the contrary, as of April 23, multiple reliable sources are stating the number of stab wounds is 27.[2][3] Per WP:UNDUE the article must represent the content in proportion to the prevailing mainstream reliable sources and we most certainly CANNOT misrepresent the conflicting reports by saying that 27 was "early" and implying that the number was later corrected to a different number, because it has not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE does not apply here. This is not an issue of opinion and equally presenting both sides. This is an issue of accuracy. And if it were an issue of presenting all sides, then, because sources may have also reported a different number, such as 25 stab wounds (a number mentioned one section up, where I criticized Geebee2), then that or other numbers should also be included. Or would you say they shouldn't be because WP:UNDUE singles them out as the minority? Whatever the decision, despite claims to the contrary, it has been confirmed that the re-examination of Alexander's body shows that he was stabbed 29 times and that two stab wounds were missed during the initial examination of his body. That's why HLN and its commentators keep saying "29 stab wounds" and correct others when they say "27 stab wounds." Calling that number of stab wounds "multiple" is not even close to accurate because people associate "multiple" with "three" or "a little more than three." So I changed "multiple" to "various"[9] until I correct the information with reliable sources saying that the intial report of 27 stab wounds was wrong. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
your one source does not overpower the multiple other sources that STILL report differently. (and there was no source that i have seen that says 25. Geebee2 was miffed that the lead had held a summary of "over 25 stab wounds" rather than getting into the disputed details of whether there are 27 or 29.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors." What you call my "one source" is the autopsy/medical examiner's statement[10][11] and the statement of numerous legal or news commentators, and doctors, who read the autopsy report. HLN is the main channel reporting this trial, and their commentators (including doctors) have read the autopsy report. That's why they say "29 stab wounds" and correct others when they say "27 stab wounds." You are arguing against the autopsy report because some news sources are still reporting the initial statement that Alexander was stabbed 27 times. That's like still reporting that Prince William went on a vacation to Hawaii, with no proof, when Prince William has clarified that he did not. The autopsy report overpowers "the multiple other sources that STILL report" wrongly, just like Prince William's word would overpower the multiple other sources (that have no proof and) that STILL report wrongly in his case. Statements in the trial do not say "27 stab wounds" (they say 29) and neither does the autopsy report. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While leaving the conflicting info about 27 or 29, I'll add that the autopsy report said 29. I'm not sure when I'll do that. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to say: The male lawyer on the defense team, Kirk, said "27 times" today. So even the lawyers can be or are confused about the number of stab wounds. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Really don't think we need the last sentence in paragraph one :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.45.157 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is supposed to place the subject in context. The only reason this trial is actually notable is for the media circus that is surrounding it. Rather than the last sentence, it should probably be incorporated into the First sentence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'd moved the info about the media attention back to the second paragraph after you moved it to the first paragraph[12][13] is because I think it's better to provide the details about the case first, then say why it's notable. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style says otherwise. The first sentence of the lead is supposed to identify why the subject is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline does not say that exactly. It says, "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Most Wikipedia trial articles, or any Wikipedia article I've seen, do not define why the topic is notable in the first sentence. Or maybe they do, but it's not explicit. By what the first sentence says, it's obvious why it's notable. Anyhoo, I reverted my edit after I changed yours today.[14] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's still not defined as notable in the first sentence. But it works. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Killing of Travis Alexander → ? – With the conviction of Arias on first-degree murder, this article should now be renamed "Murder of Travis Alexander". Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would clearly be permissible to change "killing" to "murder" now that there has been a conviction. As others have pointed out, however, this article is notable primarily because of the trial rather than the killing. Doing a Google search just now, I got 79,600,000 results for "Trial of Jodi Arias" and 3,880,000 results for "Murder of Travis Alexander" (and 5,980,000 results for "Killing of Travis Alexander"). That means the former is more recognizable at a ratio of ~ 20:1. Given this, perhaps an even better article name would be "Trial of Jodi Arias", kind of like Trial of Michael Jackson or Trial of Saddam Hussein, etc.? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using murder in the title is a bit POVish IMO. Azure's proposal I would happily support per his arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be content with "Trial of Jodi Arias", although I certainly do not think that "murder" in the title of a murder case is indicative of being POV. Let's get some more input, before renaming the article, one way or the other (or, perhaps, even a third suggested title). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox needs to list Arias as the perpetrator, not the suspect. Does anyone know how to change that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uhhh, no it doesnt unless or until the jury comes back with conviction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They did come back with a conviction, which is why I made the above two posts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the infobox! But, it now states "participants". Does not the "criminal" infobox have a parameter entitled "perpetrator"? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator is a little bit too definitive for an encyclopedia. But I did add "accused" and "convicted" to the infobox. What to do if someone is convicted and the conviction is later overturned is unclear, maybe remove the name? Apteva (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "perpetrator is a little bit too definitive for an encyclopedia". That is the standard terminology used in this encyclopedia. See: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, and 2012 Aurora shooting for just three examples. They all use the term "perpetrator". In fact, most (all?) criminal cases in this encyclopedia do so as well. The problem is that this article currently employs the {{Infobox news event}} template for the infobox. In fact, it should probably employ some other template for the infobox. I assume that there is some type of "crime" or "criminal" infobox template ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Death of John Lennon article, the {{Infobox civilian attack}} template is used for the infobox. It contains the term "perpetrator". That topic (Death of John Lennon) seems analogous to this (Death of Travis Alexander). Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{infobox criminal}}, and we can use that if we change the name to Jodi Arias. There is really no similarity to John Lennon. Apteva (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out the similarity to the John Lennon case, which is that one person committed a crime against another (namely, murder). That is how the two cases are similar. So, I went to look at what infobox was used in the Lennon article and the Mark David Chapman article. I assumed that Wikipedia has some sort of "criminal" or "crime" infobox that would be more appropriate in an article like this (moreso than the current infobox of "news event"). Perhaps the "civilian attack" infobox is more appropriate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 May 2013

Needs to be changed to MURDER ASAP! Scrybz (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion a couple sections up the page - it's being discussed. Kelly hi! 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage section

I am new to this article and the discussion, and have no personal axe to grind. I think the article reads very oddly, especially the final 'Media' section. It doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia article but like a page from a sensational 'murder-as-entertainment' blog or tabloid newspaper. I too have doubts about the validity of the article as a whole, due to the notability of the topic being limited exclusively to devotees of such literature. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to exist as a source of relevant information for the whole world, not just a particular class of American. I think proponents of the article are blinded by their personal passion about the topic and lack objectivity. "Notability" does not equal press popularity. Sincerely, Melba1 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been all too many examples of this recently. Apteva (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the sense of arrogance Jodi Arias possessed prior to the trial (such as the 'no jury' quote) contributes to the type of person Jodi is and no doubt had an effect on her outcome. She seemed to long to be in the media every chance she could get. Perhaps a rewrite to help convey that versus the 'murder-as-entertainment' style.Jncobbs (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
someone being arrogant is not notable. what makes the case notable for wikipedia is the media circus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/
  2. ^ Steve Stout (Apr 24, 2013). "Prosecution continues rebuttal in Arias murder trial". CBS 5 - KPHO. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
  3. ^ YAN OWENS (April 23, 2013). "Jodi Arias Defense Team Files Motion for More Expert Witness Testimony". ABC News. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Travis_Alexander&oldid=554291817"