Quick history to bring you up to date. Back in August of 2009 Victoria Washington was assigned the secondary position on the defense team, with Kirk Nurmi as lead. Ms. Washington was part of the team in August of 2011 when Jodi Arias took over as lead attorney, tried to introduce the Travis-is-a-pedophile letters, was denied, and then relinquished her role back to the real attorneys (where it belonged!). Then in December of 2011, Ms. Washington cited a conflict of interest, and received permission to pull herself from the defense team. I researched this conflict of interest issue, and believe it may have had something to do with her involvement in a case of one of the potential witnesses. One of Jodi's pod-mates was on the witness list--a woman who was convicted of kidnapping and drug/gun charges, I believe Ms. Washington may have represented her or worked on a team that represented her. In any case, Washington was out, and in January 2012 she was replaced by Jennifer Willmott.
Ms. Washington stayed out of the public eye in regards to the Arias case until several days ago when she joined up with the above-mentioned Facebook group. Her first few posts weren't noteworthy, until long-time Jodi supporter and part-time investigator, George Barwood (geebee), recognized her name and mentioned he knew her from the Arias case.
It's obvious from the above posts that Ms. Washington was a strong advocate for Jodi. She took her job seriously and showed a passion and a commitment to justice that is enviable. What's not so clear is why is she coming forward now and disclosing her feeling about this case, especially so close to the retrial of the penalty phase. My first thoughts were that she was somewhat naive about how social media and bloggers (like me!!! hahaa) exploit off-hand remarks like hers. I'm sure she felt she was involved in a benign discussion and her opinions would be viewed in a positive light. That might have been, except for her later posts where one has to question the impropriety and lack of judgement she reveals in her attacks on Jodi's current counsel and the prosecutor. Scroll to the bottom of the blog to read those screenshots, because there is something far more important I want to discuss.
This is the transcription of the above post:
because Jodi's defense attorney chose to present self defense, A LOT of Mr. Alexander's misbehaviors were suppressed as "irrelevant" to the issue of self-defense. Had the defense pursued a heat of passion defense, pretty much all of his dirt would have been brought to light. In which case the national mindset would have been more, "I'm not saying she should have killed him...but I understand" vs. "Jodi is evil and deserves to die".
Everything that can possibly be wrong with this paragraph is right there in that one statement. Let's bullet-point the hell out of this shit:
1. "because Jodi's defense attorney chose to present self defense": Jodi started off by telling Story #1- I wasn't in Mesa on June 4, 2008. In July 2008 she changed that to Story #2- I was in Mesa on June 4, 2008, but two intruders killed Travis. By 2011 Jodi tried unsuccessfully to plea to a lesser charge of Murder in the 2nd degree which was to spare the Alexander family and others the embarrassment and shame of learning of Travis's 'true colors'. Let's call that Story #3. In the paperwork filed on Jodi's behalf, she did not state her defense, but it appears because Travis was a bad person and had hurt Jodi and many others, including the Mormon Church, he somehow deserved to die. Story #4 can be said to be the I killed Travis in self-defense story that she carried on to her conviction of premeditated murder.
Now it appears we have a Story #5 - Travis's 'misbehaviors' culminated in a 'heat of passion' killing. WHAT THE FUCK???
How does this help Jodi? A prominent voice in the Arias defense admits that Jodi's current team is to blame for the self-defense story, and they should have gone for the heat of passion story? How about they should have gone for the TRUTH??? Where is the truth?
Let's move on before my head explodes:
2. "A LOT of Mr. Alexander's misbehaviors were suppressed as "irrelevant" to the issue of self-defense. Had the defense pursued a heat of passion defense, pretty much all of his dirt would have been brought to light." Ummmm, Ms. Washington did you even watch one day of the trial? All that 'dirt' and more was brought into the light. All that dirt was strewn around like rose petals at a wedding. This trial was more about Jodi trashing Travis, than it was about Jodi taking responsibility for a crime. Jodi couldn't get through one question without bringing up all the dirt. Can you kindly tell me why Travis's "misbehaviors" were so egregious, that he deserved to die? It appears this heat of passion defense is somehow tied to Travis cheating on Jodi, or taking Mimi to Cancun, or whatever else he was doing.
Tell me this Ms. Washington, if this was a heat of passion, how did Jodi get access to a gun AND a knife AND shoot, stab 27 times AND slit the throat of this man all within 2 minutes? Remember, Jodi needs the self-defense angle to explain why she got the gun. Also, remember Jodi said she had no jealousy of Mimi going to Cancun, and accepted that she and Travis would not be getting back together anytime soon.
Oh, and one more thing--a crime of passion is usually committed in the heat of an emotionally charged moment. The pictures show Travis showering in the 10 minutes before he was killed. There appears to be no real interaction between the two. The moment between the last picture where Travis looks scared and where Jodi is standing over him with his neck slit is about 2 minutes. What could Travis have done in those few seconds after the last living picture that would warrant the carnage Jodi left behind? Travis would have had to do or say something in just those first few seconds because quite honestly, it takes me longer to debone a chicken than Jodi took to massacre a grown man.
And while we're talking 'crime of passion'-- Jodi was on her way to a romantic few days with Ryan Burns. That would tell most people that she was already over Travis (we know that's not true though because she's a sociopath and could never let go). A jury would find it hard to believe that a crime of passion is the reason a young woman who is on the way to stay with a new potential lover, would kill a former lover.
3. "In which case the national mindset would have been more, "I'm not saying she should have killed him...but I understand" vs. "Jodi is evil and deserves to die"." Oh, I get it, because Travis had sex outside of marriage, and was a womanizer and said mean things to Jodi after catching her stalking him and violating his privacy, Travis is evil and deserves to die. That's what you're saying. Jodi has no responsibility in people believing her to be evil, when Travis really was evil. How about we say this, Ms. Washington, neither deserve to die, but Jodi is certainly evil. What do you care what the national mindset is? You should care about truth and justice--you obviously care about neither. You care about winning a case. That's what it boils down to--whatever tactics you can use that wins the case is 'justice' to you.
Ms. Washington while every person accused of a crime deserve a defense, that doesn't mean they are innocent and don't deserve to pay for that crime. I know your job is to defend their rights, but your job is not make up stories that match the evidence, though that's a strategy widely used.
And most importantly for all Jodi supporters: If you believe Ms. Washington, she states the case was a crime of passion case, NOT a domestic violence case. What does that do to you "Travis is an abuser" story. How about some of the most ardent supporters who ban people or ridicule them when they suggest Jodi should have gone with a crime of passion defense. Ms. Washington, who worked with Jodi a lot longer than Willmott, says this wasn't a self-defense case, it was crime of passion. All those "Jodi had to kill him, it was self-defense", and "I'll go to my grave sure that Jodi killed him in self-defense, there was no crime of passion"'. If I was a supporter, I'd be asking myself if any of these defenses are true, if the one I believed all along has been DEBUNKED by her own attorney!
Let's move on to the next post:
Now Jodi has lost two crucial witnesses as Dr. Samuels is fighting for his very license to practice because Juan turned him into the Board and made the same spurious allegations and Alyce is receiving death threats and too afraid to testify.
Juan did the right thing. Dr. Samuels made a mockery of his profession by not following established protocol. Jodi lied for much of her psychological assessment and yet after she radically changed her stories mid-stream, he neglected to re-administer key tests that were crucial to diagnosing her level of mental illness and/or personality disorders.
Not only that, he didn't take those lies into account when considering if the fact she lied so much was a component of another mental/personality disorder or the escalation of a known one. Dr. Samuels testimony very much hurt Jodi, not because Juan ripped him apart on the stand, but because Jodi was deprived of a true evaluation of her psychological health and the opportunity to have some insight into her issues. Dr. Samuels also deprived Jodi's defense team of accurate data that may have helped them in establishing a motive that could have brought her a lesser charge. Much of Jodi's defense was predicated on Dr. Samuels' assessment, and the fact he was negligent and lazy, means Jodi was deprived of the benefit of his expertise.
A big reason Jodi was sentenced for Murder 1, in my opinion, is because of Dr. Samuels.
As much as Jodi supporters want to angelicize Jodi and canonize her defense team, they prop Samuel's up as a great and noble healer, and deny the fact he failed Jodi. Isn't it odd that 'haters' over and over again manage to view this case in ways that are far more beneficial to Jodi, than her supporters? I, for one, seek out truth, in whatever guise it wears.
As for Alyce being too afraid to testify because of death threats, that's laughable in light of the fact that she and her fellow domestic violence clients are yucking it up and having a blast denigrating Travis and making fun of Juan. I've provided you the link to her latest video conference. Please note the laughter when Alyce talks about how the only way a woman can overcome the power of a man is by a gun, how it's the great equalizer--oh that's some really funny stuff: What Kind of Abuse Are We Talking About. I don't mean to be heartless, I understand domestic violence is a horrible cycle of abuse and degradation, but I don't think encouraging women to arm themselves against future attacks is as responsible as say, spending the time you'd be hunting for and purchasing a weapon, to spending the time hunting for and involving yourself in therapy to remove yourself safely from the situation.
Alyce proves in that video that she's not afraid of death threats. I imagine if she feels free enough to talk like that, that she probably received even more due to her complete disrespect for Travis Alexander.
In these posts Ms. Washington claims to know a defense attorney who was willing to take on Jodi's case. She doesn't explain why that person wasn't on the short list when counsel was being assigned, particularly because she talks about how Nurmi wanted to bow out and needed to name a replacement. I would imagine a defense attorney who was eager to defend Jodi would have been a shoe-in as replacement.
It's true Nurmi wanted off the case, and it's further true that the court forced him to stick with it until the end. This was done because the best interests of Jodi were at the forefront. Jodi has stated several times that she and Nurmi don't get along. She felt he wasn't sensitive to her 'emotional needs' (sound familiar, she said the same about Travis), he didn't take the case in a direction she wanted it to go.
I already know Ms. Washington is full of shit when I read that Nurmi "went 6 months without visiting her". That's not really fair now is it, because Jodi stated that he tried visiting her on two occasions, and she refused his visit. SHE REFUSED TO SEE HIM. What was he suppose to do, knowing Jodi refused to see him, keep on trying to meet with her? If he did that, Jodi would accuse him of stalking her. As long as her legal needs could be parsed out to other team members, Nurmi shouldn't have had to meet her in person anyway. I repeat, Jodi admitted he tried to visit, and she refused to see him. Not Nurmi's fault. He can't convince the jail to let in a visitor who rejects him. How many more times was he suppose to try after she made her wishes clear?
And Ms. Washington claims in the event Nurmi was released, that her choice for 2nd seat counsel was rejected by the court. Was this the same person she mentioned earlier who was eager to take on the case? Why would the court reject him/her? The court is interested in providing for Jodi's best interests in upholding her rights. It's pretty obvious they thought she'd be harmed and incompetently represented by Ms. Washington's choice. That's not judgement on the person, even something like not being adequately informed about the case could result in a rejection.
I don't know what to think of this former attorney speaking out so much. I believe it can only hurt Jodi. I don't know if what she's disclosed can be considered a violation of attorney-client privilege, but by revealing the defenses strategy in creating a defense plan, by admitting self-defense wasn't the motive, she has effectively admitted just one more lie in Jodi's defense arsenal. Jurors and the public could care less about the story, we want truth and justice.
Remember to check out the other Facebook post I didn't talk about, below.
Join us on the JustDaTruth forums. We have a lot of great people discussing the case. One of our members, Victorious, started a great forum that breaks down each day of Jodi's testimony, including dicussion of the daily videos from that time and a comprehensive commentary of that day's events. Go here:
All are welcome. We try to keep an open mind. It can get a little raucous at times, but we've managed to get opposing points of view which have been really valuable in understanding the case.