Human Rights

Did Jodi Arias make a false confession?  

Search for the truth

The Jodi Arias case has become extremely complex and convoluted over time for a number of reasons. As a result it will become more and more difficult to unravel and ascertain the TRUTH.

TRUTH! That is the big word which in the adversarial system has little value or meaning and in this case even less than usual as emotion has played too big a role.

It seems increasingly unlikely that the TRUTH will emerge in the foreseeable future, if ever, for the following reasons:

  1. Jodi Arias was charged with the First Degree Murder of Travis Alexander.
  2. She pleaded not guilty to the charge but pleaded guilty of killing Travis Alexander alone in self-defense.
  3. She was found guilty of the charge of First Degree Murder.
  4. She will soon be given a sentence which will, in all probability, be stiff even if she avoids the death penalty.
  5. Assuming she appeals against both the sentence and/or conviction this could take many more years.


Many unbiased, rational observers who have taken an objective and dispassionate interest in the case are disturbed by more than a few things, some of which have been consistent and some which have gradually manifested themselves. The view has become about as clear as a thick pea soup.

Many people have voiced opinions and some, like ‘Spotlight on Law’, ‘Inconvenient Truths’ and ‘Richard Speights’ have analysed the evidence in considerably more detail than, it appears the prosecution or the jury did.

I have always struggled to make sense of the prosecution’s presentation of so-called evidence, which is circumstantial at best, and could not see how a jury could possibly think that it had proved its case. But I can understand how jurors, influenced by media, physically and otherwise threatened, could return a guilty verdict.


Among many concerns I have has been the lack of credibility of so many witnesses. The longer witnesses who perjure themselves are examined the more evidence of perjury surfaces. It is not easy for anyone to maintain a credible level of dishonesty for too long. If perjury is considered a serious offence in Arizona then the courts could be in for a busy time when this case is finally put to bed. But I doubt they care.

Despite the fact that there appears to be overwhelming evidence of prosecutorial misconduct the prosecutor is still holding court. It is now difficult to believe that Martinez has not suborned perjury on more than one occasion. His own antics in the court room are enough to make any reasonable person cringe. I believe prosecutors have far too much power and because they are immune from liability during the course of a trial are able to misuse that power, if they wish, and thus undermine the integrity of the legal system and its ability to achieve justice. A police officer in a similar situation would be suspended pending investigation.

So if perjury and prosecutorial misconduct (add to that a wishy-washy judge, if you like) have pervaded throughout then by now the waters will have become so muddied as to render any chance of uncovering the TRUTH highly improbable.

Many questions still unanswered

But more than anything else I am still suspicious about Jodi Arias’ confession and why she did not even suggest the involvement of anyone else in the killing Travis Alexander. Previously she had claimed (in an interview with 48 hours CBS News) that there were two masked intruders in the house who told her to leave and threatened to kill her and her family if she said anything. Furthermore, to back that claim up, the evidence strongly indicates that it would have been physically impossible for her to have perpetrated the killing alone and left the scene as it was found.

What are we to make of this?

Was the story of the masked intruders purely a figment of Jodi’s vivid imagination?

If not, then why did she drop this claim when it makes more sense than her confession – she did it single-handed?

Was she still scared for her family’s safety?

Is the crime scene evidence misleading or is Jodi’s confession false?

Certainly the crime scene evidence is not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination and, in my opinion, it doesn’t support the confession. Whichever way I look at the evidence I cannot see how Jodi Arias could possibly have carried out the killing alone and left the crime scene as it was.

Because of the attorney – client privileges we are precluded from knowing what may or may not have been disclosed to the defence attorneys in this regard or whether the defence advised or supported the plea.

False confessions are not at all uncommon and a number of theories could be put forward in this case. For example:

  • Even though it may not be true, Jodi genuinely believes she did it alone.
  • Jodi is prepared to sacrifice her life to save another or others so she knowingly made a false confession.
  • Jodi was threatened with something worse than execution or incarceration by the intruders and said nothing about them.

There are still far too many unanswered questions and very little conclusive evidence to make me feel comfortable about the verdict.

0 thoughts on “Did Jodi Arias make a false confession?  

  1. You add in all possibilities accept the most obvious, she did it. If you take time to read whole g chat or what little of his journals remain, you see he was relieved for even one day free of Jodi and her drama. In the g chat which the defense used a few lines to show what an abusive man he was, he pleads her for answers, if she had not destroyed her own computer and hard drive maybe we would know what her motive was. Just because we cannot imagine how she did it doesn’t negate fact she did

    1. Thank you for your comment Anonymous. I will try and respond as best I can as I think you may have missed the point of my post. (Maybe I wasn’t clear in my objective). Your first point is that I missed the possibility that ‘she did it’. I can’t really answer that until I know what you mean by ‘it’ because JA must have done many things.

      We do know that she admitted to killing TA single-handed in self-defence. But her confession is only a part of the evidence admitted. Of itself it doesn’t prove anything. We know the Jury believed the first part of her confession but not the second, ‘self-defence’. But we also know that Juries make mistakes as is evidenced by thousands of unsafe convictions over the years.
      This case was decided on circumstantial evidence. The only proven eye witness is dead. Whatever anyone believes is just ‘a belief’ and not a concrete fact.

      You say Just because we cannot imagine how she did it doesn’t negate fact she did.

      Someone else might say I can imagine how she did it but in the absence of proven facts I do not believe the hypothesis put forward.

      The point of my post is:

      There are still far too many unanswered questions and very little conclusive evidence to make me feel comfortable about the verdict. And I am not convinced that JA’s confession/plea was truthful.

    1. Hi Patrick. They already made a movie before she was convicted which I thought was in very bad taste and apparently not good. Now she has life without parole but this saga is not likely to go away for a very long time if ever.

      1. You’re right, Jim. Jodi said on the stand, “the simple answer is…..” Either she can’t or isn’t willing to reveal the complex answer. Would that set her free? I don’t know. So many pieces of this puzzle don’t fit……

        1. Sandra. I watched the 2 part after sentence interview with Jenny Wilmott and Juan Martinez interview as well. Martinez, smug as hell and smooth as silk. Wilmott trying to convince us that she has no human emotions, no instinctive feeling for the people she defends and only deals with the evidence. It was just another case for both of them. It’s a cold profession. One thing that came across strongly to me, however, is that they both appeared, pointedly, to have no doubts that she committed the crime single-handed. That was interesting.

          1. Yes, I agree, they were doing what their profession requires. They also “appeared” to be firm in not discrediting either of their own stories, that Jodi was alone. Now, did Jodi convince them of this? Or is Jodi doing what she believes she has to do? Is she afraid, unwilling, and unable to access a bigger truth? On the stand a couple of times, she referred to “we” during parts of her trip, and then corrected herself. As always, more questions….

          2. Why did they both need to re-enforce the, JA did it all alone, story? Because it is inconceivable? If it was a proven fact there would have been no need to mention it. The interviews only served to put more doubt/suspicion in my mind as they seemed both contrived and totally unnatural.
            Martinez did not surprise me at all (except for the ultra Mr. Cool) but Wilmott’s attitude and stance was surprising.
            I wonder why she emphasised the point, on a number of occasions, that she developed no relationship with JA because she wasn’t a first choice defender and came into the picture later. As though it was an excuse!!!
            Some of her statements floored me; particularly. “She’s just a client, like any other client.” “It’s not about the person; it’s about the case.” “It’s over.” “I think this is all gonna go away.”
            As you say: “…more questions…”

          3. Yes, James, there was absolutely “overkill” on the emphasis of Jodi being alone. I’ve noticed it in a number of places.

  2. James, you’ve managed to sum up my thoughts very nicely, here! You’re right. Jodi has never fit any known criteria for a pathological killer, no matter what mainstream media and the masses want to believe. Nothing in her past, and nothing in her actions after Travis’ death, support this. Thank you for taking the time to veer off into this debacle and speak up.

    1. She did kill him, he wasn’t going to take her to cancun. Also if she dropped his camera like she says if he was in shower stepped out soaped up he would,ve slipped and fell how dumb does Jodi think people are? She is the dumb one! She killed him!

      1. She never expected him to take her to Cancun. That is illustrated in their communications. She wanted to keep Travis around as an “ex with benefits”. She had no motive to kill him. He was not “soaped up” . He was posing for photos with the spray of water from the shower.

        1. This has been over for a long time, but I can’t help noticing that a lot of people assume she was being truthful when she said Travis was posing in the shower and knew she was photographing him. The photos are considered lousy and ‘taken in haste’. As a photographer, she wouldn’t have taken lousy photos. I think he didn’t know he was being photographed and that the photo of him looking up from under the shower is when he first noticed her. She was only using his new camera as a prop to get close enough to kill him.

Your comments are welcome