Jodi Arias' Own Words (And Lack of Them) Come Back to Haunt Her in Cross

For the three weeks Jodi Arias was on the stand giving direct testimony, her story that Travis Alexander was an abusive pedophile who tried to kill her on the day of his death lined up perfectly with the script she and defense attorney Kirk Nurmi planned out. Yet, that scripted story is falling to pieces as prosecutor Juan Martinez uses Jodi's own words against her to prove she's lied about everything small and big. And she sure left quite a trail of words for Martinez to work with.

She kept a detailed diary writing about even the most mundane of things. The words she wrote in that diary, and more importantly the words she did not write, are serving as a check on her testimony. For example, Arias claimed under direct testimony that Travis was so abusive he one time bent and broke her finger. She claimed he bent her finger in January 2008, yet in her first diary entry after the alleged incident, just two days later, Jodi does not mention it. In fact, she writes there was "nothing noteworthy to report." So her boyfriend attacks her two days prior, yet there's nothing new to report?

She also had numerous text message conversations with Travis Alexander throughout their relationship, and such messages provide a log of what their relationship was really like, despite Arias' claims. For instance, she testified in one abusive attack, Alexander struck her with a backhanded blow. Yet, the very same night as the alleged attack she texts him asking to borrow his BMW and when he agrees, she says, "Thanks baby. You're the best." So someone who physically hurt her hours earlier is the best?

Then there are the things she said in the days just after she shot Travis in the head, stabbed him 27 times and sliced his throat, allegedly because he aggressively lunged at her and threatened to kill her. Just one day after his death, she told a friend she hoped her children and Alexander's children could play together in the future. So she hopes the children of a man who supposedly choked her once until she blacked out will play with her own one day?

Then she attends Alexander's memorial service and writes in a book in his honor, "Travis, you are beautiful on the inside and out...this world has been blessed because you have been here." So she writes the world's been blessed by a man she now claims abused her and masturbated to photos of little boys?

And then there is the jailhouse interview she gave to 48 hours, which has provided a rich log for Martinez to use against her. In the interview, she said that Alexander lit up the room when he walked in and that the world is a darker place without him in it. So she says the world is a darker place without a man she now claims was a sex-obsessed abuser?

In the same interview she said she was left-handed, though now claims she's ambidextrous. It seems like a little lie, but in the context, Martinez is trying to prove Arias is a pathological liar who will lie about everything from a bent finger to what happened on June 4th 2008.

Also in that interview she said no jury will convict her because "I'm innocent." Yet, that is a direct contradiction of what Arias claimed on the stand during direct testimony, when she said the reason she told Inside Edition no jury will convict her is because she planned to kill herself and wouldn't be alive for trial.

Yet more important than the words she did say in everything from her diary, to her texts to his memorial book are the words she never said throughout their relationship. She never once told police that Alexander had abused her. She never once filed a police report despite claims he backhanded her, bent her finger, choked her and more. While some jurors may not find such lack of evidence convincing as some domestic violence victims never file police reports, you would think if Arias kept such a detailed log of her life, then why did she never once discuss the abuse she suffered at the hands of Alexander?

While some trial watchers have been frustrated that Martinez keeps jumping around in the timeline and are eager for him to press her on the events of June 4th 2008, such a tactic is key to his prosecution. If he were to question her on events in a chronological order, it is easier for her to keep her story straight and stick to the script she has created. Yet, if he goes back and forth in time, it is more likely to trip her up and confuse her. More importantly, he is tracking her every lie over time because if jurors doubt her story on the minute details, then they will start to doubt her claim of self-defense and her version of events on the day of Alexander's death.