Re-thinking Jodi Arias (Updated)(x2)

So, passers by might have noticed an unusually large number of comments to my last post.

I post about a lot of things, but of course since this is mostly a legal blog, or “blawg”, cases with notoriety often receive attention.  Two years ago the world was abuzz with the Casey Anthony case, and I certainly did a lot of posting on that.  It took up a lot of time and I figured I probably wouldn’t go down that road again with another case.

So I hadn’t paid much attention to the latest in this line, the Jodi Arias case.  But lots of people were paying attention and it was the usual one sided news coverage and so on.

The people who came over here to comment discussed a lot of the details of the case and it appears that there were very strong evidence supported arguments that maybe Jodi Arias – who is now convicted of first degree murder – didn’t kill her boyfriend Travis Alexander at all, and that some other or others might have while she was present, and wound up not killing her as well.  This in fact was the story she originally told, but apparently no one believed her and by the time of the trial her lawyers were arguing self defense, taking the position that she did kill Travis Alexander.

Now, from a defense lawyer’s perspective, it’s very difficult to envision a scenario where you would opt for a self defense argument if you had a good argument that someone else “did it”.  One reason might be the judge.  Judges, who want to convict the defendant as much as the prosecutor, know how damaging to those prospects it can be if the defense offers another culprit when there is some good evidence to support it, so they will often refuse to allow any evidence of any other perpetrator to be admitted, under the rationale that it’s the defendant on trial, not someone else.

That’s completely illegitimate of course, but it often happens.

In any case, this blog’s format makes it difficult to keep track of comments to one post when there are so many, so here’s another post where people can comment and won’t have to scroll through hundreds of other comments to find the one they’re responding to.

Might post more on this later.

Update:  Actually I’ve been unfair to her lawyers.  The problem is the death penalty.  If you go with the third-party-did-it scenario, well then if the jury goes with it you get an acquittal.  But if they don’t they can only convict on the top count and they sentence your client to death.  But if you go with self defense and put her up there so they get to know her, you can ask for lesser convictions that don’t involve the death penalty and there’s evidence to support that.

That’s a legitimate strategy under the circumstances.   Sheesh.  What a lousy game.

Update 2:  I guess I should have seen this coming.  As if the government didn’t have enough advantages when prosecuting people, now there’s a move afoot to pass “Travis Alexander’s Law” to prevent criminal defendants from “trashing” murder victims.  Ugh.

615 Comments

Filed under Judicial lying/cheating, wrongful convictions

615 responses to “Re-thinking Jodi Arias (Updated)(x2)

  1. I have to admit that I have never commented on a blog first before now. I am so not a “starter” and so much more of a joiner. I read your story and felt terribly guilty for commenting on your blog, in your living room so to speak, without knowing who you are at all.

    Like

    • AA, don’t feel guilty. You’re welcome to comment over here, that’s what blogs are for. Or one thing, anyway. And you don’t have to know anything about the blogger. But I appreciate that you took the time to find out.

      Even though I didn’t really follow the Arias thing, obviously cases like this strike a chord with me because of what I have experienced, and I like to think learned from that experience.

      Keep the comments coming. I’m thankful for them, and the interest.

      Like

    • How did you do that? I don’t see a box where you can initiate a post….only “reply” buttons under other posts.

      I want to give my thoughts on PPL. I got briefly involved with PPL many years ago so my memory is not fresh. But what I recall is that you join it for $10 per month and have access to attorney’s in your area who will give you ONLY a free consultation and then if you want to retain them it costs whatever they normally charge…..MAYBE with a discount. It is a total B.S. program, in my opinion, and I never went further with it.

      Most anyone who joins ANY multi-level marketing company could not care less about whether the “product” is worthwhile….but only to make money on signing up others as your “down level” associates on which you earn money on the sign ups they create too. In my experience, it is mostly people who are desperate to make “lots of money” because they cannot find a job. I was one of the “desperate” at the time.

      I am sure Travis made money doing this because he was a really good “salesman”……i.e., a BULLSHITTER of the first order. I seriously doubt he was earning a “six figure income” from this. If he was, why was he borrowing money from Jodi….and why was Deanna giving him a computer? It has been speculated that Deanna gave him a “new” computer, but since it was registered to her name, she probably gave him a used laptop she didn’t need. Again…..why? “Six figure income” and you can’t buy your own laptop?

      If he had pedo stuff on that laptop…..like most pedo’s they are pretty adept at covering their tracks. There are many programs out there that can clean files PERMANENTLY from a computer hard drive.

      Like

      • In other words, people, you being involved in a mlm scheme……does not indicate a “successful” entrepenuer. (sp?)

        Like

      • Chris Hughes recently said that Travis was very successful the year before he started seeing Jodi (not sure if he meant 2005 or 2006) and did make $100,000, but who knows? After that, he got into dire financial straits. That could have been the economy or, as Chris implies, Travis spent less time on his business and more time on Jodi. Of course, we also know that Travis was spending a great deal of time on other women as well.

        Deanna testified that she bought Travis the laptop for a Christmas gift, but she couldn’t remember when. I also found it strange that the profile was in her name. I could explain it thinking that he was not computer savvy so she set it up for him but usually when people have done that for me, they have set up the profile in my name. I can’t help but wonder if there was another computer that someone removed from the house during those 5 days before Travis was found.

        It seems so suspicious to me that his body lay in that shower for 5 days, with his CTR ring (which he would not go out without) and watch on the counter, his wallet and laptop in the den, all in the same position, never moving, with the smell of decomposition wading through the house, and no one ever thought to look for him until Mimi Hall raised the alarm that she had not heard from him the day before the Cancun trip.

        Like

        • Heather

          AA have a look at this, found it on OccupyHLN:

          ”Please check this out! I have felt for a very long time that the Hughes family is connected to Travis’s murder. The Hughes family benefited a great deal financially by his death. Follow the money. Where did all of Travis’s Pre-Paid Legal accounts end up when he died? Chris Hughes was Travis’s upline! ”

          2△▽

          Reply

          Share ›

          roo•a month ago−

          I Agree something is unjust with the judge and martinez

          5△3▽

          Reply

          Share ›

          Like

          • Heather, some guy posted a comment a couple of days ago asking if anyone here was discussing the “M-L-M angle”. I thought his comment was an inappropriate joke and trashed it but then I put it back when I learned what he meant.

            Truth? This one sounds a little far-fetched and conspiratorial to me. But it still should have been investigated thoroughly. Lots went wrong here.

            Like

            • Heather

              John. have you looked at it on youtube yet? Itas a close up of Travis’ eye.. its interesting as they outline someone there in black in pupil. Worth a look.
              You’ve lost me there, what is this M-L-M angle, John?

              Like

              • M-L-M = multi-level marketing which is what this pre-paid legal and all the stuff about the Hughes gets into.

                What youtube are you talking about?

                Like

              • Heather

                Thanks John. Its a video called ”Picture Perfect”

                Like

              • Can’t find it. Got a link? Is this the close up photo of his full face in the shower? I would be interested to see any analysis of that photo.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, this “Picture Perfect” video is similar to the picture I wanted to send you. What I see is a bit different but I think the “man” in my picture in my “3 person scenario” is even more clear. And he appears to be holding something, it looks shiny to me. When I first saw this “vision” it gave me chills, felt like I was right there with them. But them when others pointed out different scenarios with 2 or 4, or like the defense only Jodi, I gave up on it as being too subjective. I was very surprised that the defense expert saw only Jodi, especially with his enhanced equipment. And maybe therein lies the answer, it really isn’t anything. With the self defense claim maybe they felt they couldn’t do more with it but if may have been more effective for her defense to, against Jodi’s will, move to modify the self defense claim based upon newly discovered evidence and throw it out to the jury for consideration.

                Like

              • I don’t see anything, not even Jodi, but then I’m not good at these visual puzzle type situations. If the defense expert had good enhancing equipment and said there was only Jodi, I’d go with that unless he’s a Mormon and affiliated with Hughes and this is some kind of Mormon conspiracy, which I don’t even want to think about.

                BTW who is Matt McCartney?

                Like

              • kim

                Matt McCartney was one of Jodi’s boyfriends, not the one she was living with when she met Travis, an earlier bf. JM, I’m going to give you my pic via twitter. I circle “the man” and “Jodi” for you. It’s quite the elementary drawing but that might help you visualize it. It literally took my 3 nights of staring at it to see something but now I see it clearly.

                Like

              • Three nights of staring? I have to be up for that? I know there are things you can look at and look at and then suddenly you see something that eluded you before, so sure go ahead and send it I’ll look. Somebody with some really good enhancing equipment should have been on this, I think.

                Like

              • kim

                JM lol yes, one of my twitter friends & I have opposing views on Jodi & she insisted I keep looking so I did. Of course once the defense expert contradicted what she saw she told me he had better equipment and we were all wrong. That’s why I circled what I saw, I clearly see a man with dark hair in what looks like a flannel shirt holding a straight (shouldn’t have said shiny) object horizontally. I see Jodi to the right of him in a white shirt, you can see outline of her auburn/brown hair, with a flash about waist high. I would assume that would be camera.

                Like

              • Kim. Well, this stuff gets eerie, but I can see at the top of where you circled the “man” what appears to be a face with dark hair parted on the side, looking somewhat to the left relative to me. I don’t see a flannel shirt, I don’t see a shiny object, I don’t see Jodi at all, much less auburn hair and a flash. And to be fair seeing that “face” could just be some weird combination of 1’s and 0’s that happen to resemble a face, having nothing at all to do with what is really there.

                However, I’ll study it some and keep coming back to it for a bit. I’ll let you know if anything in my perception of it changes. Thanks for sending it along.

                Like

              • kim

                You’re welcome JM. It may very well be “junk science” but it made me pause at some point to think about it during the trial, even though it was not a part of the trial. Quite honestly, if she receives DP, although it would take years and years of appeals, maybe she will go back to the intruder story and “come clean” with some evidence that can truly support the theory.

                Like

              • kim

                I sent it JM. Another person’s theory is that to the left of my “man” there is someone on their knees, who they think could be Jodi. IDK, it makes you crazy looking at all of the different scenarios. And depending upon which one you pick her culpability may remain, albeit at possibly a lesser degree.

                Like

              • Heather

                Yes, and Martinez scoffed and said he saw a dog.. hmmm I wonder why.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, the dog comment was an exaggeration of what I pointed out, we all see different things in that reflection. It proves nothing. Had she stuck to that story maybe her defense team could have admitted the reflection in as evidence.

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, if you don’t grasp this now, you never will:

                Matinez has REFUSED to have a number of pieces of evidence submitted, and, it ISN’T that JM sees things ”differently”, he was being facetious on purpose because he wants her DEAD. He is the State. It is the STATES CASE.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather you speak solely with emotion. You talk about the haters, your emotional rants and name calling are no better. I always thought I was “pro DP” but I never heard anyone argue for it today (and this was only the opening statement). I must say it effected me. However, that does not change my opinion of the verdict or the defendant based upon what was presented at trial.

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, there’s a difference between rants and speaking from the heart. I don’t know where you get the name calling from, I haven’t called anybody names, I haven’t sworn, calling her ”Tot Doc”, isn’t name calling; just be content that that is ALL I have called her! (I know malevolence and vindictiveness when I see it )
                I also don’t just see everything from emotion, I always look at the evidence and in this case the so called evidence for premeditation aren’t there; I can’t understand how you don’t see that its the State’s case and how they are determined to kill her, regardless of any ‘evidence’. Martinez had none to substantiate premeditation–simply because there isn’t any–that is why he concentrated on red herrings..

                Like

              • kim

                Heather we will have to agree to disagree. Calling a professional “tot doc” is name calling. There is a difference between passion for something or someone and emotional ranting, which I have seen you quickly revert to when someone has an opinion other than you.

                Like

              • Heather

                Yes we Will haveto differ; you say she’s a ”professional”, she’s barely out of school compared to Alyce and Sr Samuels–they are the professionals.

                Plenty of people call Demarte, Tot Doc, mainly because she IS..

                Personally I think you saying the words, ”pissed me off” are not very ladylike, but still…

                You think she’s professional, I think she’s a bad comedy act.

                Like

            • Heather

              Yes, John it does, I agree, its too easy to come up with all sorts of ‘possibilities’ that are way off course, but nonetheless, stranger things have happened ;)

              Like

        • Heather

          hmmm meant to paste the link.

          Please check this out! I have felt for a very long time that the Hughes family is connected to Travis’s murder. The Hughes family benefited a great deal financially by his death. Follow the money. Where did all of Travis’s Pre-Paid Legal accounts end up when he died? Chris Hughes was Travis’s upline!

          2△▽

          Reply

          Share ›

          roo•a month ago−

          I Agree something is unjust with the judge and martinez

          5△3▽

          Reply

          Share ›

          Like

        • Heather

          AA its on youtube, called ”picture perfect”

          When I erased the person’s name who posted this, the link went too!

          Like

          • I’ve watched Picture Perfect, Heather. Not sure what you’re referring to as I’m a little lost in the comments. However, I was referring, in part, to a Blog Talk Radio interview given by Chris Hughes the Sunday before the verdict.

            I have a little knowledge of MLMs myself as I became an Amway distributor back in the early 90s. I was given a great deal of assistance from my upline, who was a great guy. Most of my friends were single guys and I didn’t do very well, so I quit after a few months. In the meantime, I had recruited a few people under me. Several months later, I spoke with my upline and told him that I felt very badly about “bailing” on him because of all his assistance. He reassured me that it was not a problem as my recruits reverted to him once I quit. One of my recruits had become quite successful and recruited many to join under him. Therefore, my upline had benefited significantly from my feeble efforts. So, that post on OccupyHLN is quite appropriate.

            I would have to assume the Hughes have also benefited from their many appearances on various TV shows and in print articles of late.

            One theory floated around the interwebs — which may seem outrageous at first — is that Travis may have fondled one of the Hughes children. He did often serve as their babysitter which is unusual — although not unheard of — for a man of Travis’s age. (Remember Dr. Karp’s report that Jodi told her Travis had fondled two little boys. And also remember Nurmi discussing with Chris on the stand during an evidentiary hearing that his wife, Sky’s reaction to learning about the letters was to thank Nurmi and her question was about Travis’s age of attraction for children. Also, remember that neither Chris nor Sky have been willing to answer as to their whereabouts on June 4, 2008, when asked. Also, the Hughes had left for the Cancun trip ahead of the others and received the news that Travis was killed while in a hotel there. And don’t forget that Chris Hughes was calling potential witnesses for the defense and/or asking others to call them — as Gus Searcy testified during one televised evidentiary hearing. It would appear that Chris Hughes views himself as having considerable influence over Mormons, especially those in PPL, within that community.) Implausible?

            Like

            • Heather

              AA The comments were just one person’s thoughts.

              Like

              • I’m lost Heather. What comments?

                Like

              • Heather

                Oh, sorry, AA, not being able to see the thread its easy to confuse someone. I was referring to where I found the link for Picture Perfect; those words were just someone elses possible theory. ;)

                Like

              • Was it a comment on the video itself?

                By the way, I can’t sleep so I’m watching today’s court hearing (anxiety again). It’s just horrible to watch. Martinez took a pregnant pause of 2 minutes in duration which he claims came BEFORE the throat slash. But I thought everything occurred in 62 seconds during the trial? Jodi is sobbing. I wouldn’t advise you to watch it EVER.

                Like

              • Heather

                No it wasn’t, AA. But back to what you were saying about Chris Hughes.. the post the girl put on OccupyHLN, she was thinking that Chris Hughes would have gained financially as he was the person next in line at PPL.. have a look, I posted it. Then put together what you wondered about TA babysitting.. okay.. well, ok this is just a thought–supposing the Hughes’ knew..
                Then there’s Dustin, he had a grudge against TA, Chris Hughes tried calling TA and got no answer, he didn’t alert TA’s friends.. did he know something? The Hughes’ are definitely hiding SOmething..
                These of course are just possibilities.. then there’s the friends who called 911 when they found TA after 5 days.. and they were very quick to point the finger at Jodi.. ALL were Mormon..
                Things are definitely not cut and dried in this case, are they?
                Hope you have managed to sleep.

                Like

            • Heather

              No, AA, not at all. That Hughes and his wife are vile and a pair of liars. I knew he called TA a number of times while he was in Cancun, the first soon after he arrived there.. so why didn’t he alert someone to see if he was ok? Something doesn’t sit right, does it.
              And yes, its quite possible he did interfere with their children while he babysat. Thev Mormons are a vile cult, capable of anything, including murder.

              Like

      • melissa

        Boy you are stuuuuupid god the people that support these crazy fantasy scenarios wow I will try to say this so you can understand oooookaaay: how about the truth. Do you really believe the cops the medical examiner the government all witnesses and all 12 jury members and 99% of America have it wrong? Right?

        Like

        • Before I answer this, are you saying that 99% of the population of America believe Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander with premeditation? You do realize what the percentage of infants is in America, right?

          Like

        • Justice

          Shew Melissa, I am sure glad to hear from someone else out there that has some logical common sense. I want to say by no means was Travis perfect but he did not deserve death and certainly not the way she did it. Jody is no pitiful me type person. She is hollow and methodical. Thanks for your post I sure was feeling lonely.

          Like

          • Heather

            You haters have a most remerkable way of putting a twist on things; no one has ever said that Travis deserved death, nor the way he met his death.. but tell me, would You think about this when you had seconds to save YOUR life?

            Well?

            Like

            • Justice

              Heather, get your head out of the sand. Why areyou so gunho on Jodi was defending herself. She wasnt, no evodence of battery or abuse. Why do you think so. The only evidence was Jodi did it.

              Like

              • Heather

                This isn’t really worth dignifying with a response. You haven’t put forth a h’appeth of evidence to support ”Jodi did it.”

                Guess you think no evidence = guilty of 1st degree murder.

                (and please leave those gas cans, receipts, etc the gunshot came last, stolen gun, out of it, these were red herrings designed to fool people, and they worked)

                Like

              • Justice

                Heather, I apologized to you in a previous post. She admtted doing it, Jodi left her palm print in blood on the wall. She left pictures behind. No one else were, no one in the pictures. I would think Nurmi would have grabbed that idea and ran with it if there was any kind of proof. No Jodi hater here just glad justice was served. I basically hope they give her life, because I am not totally for the DP. But we will have to see how things turn out.

                Like

              • Justice, I don’t think you understand that once the decision was made to proceed with the strategy of self-defense, any evidence of a third-party committing the crime could no longer be used. If you did not read JMRJ’s blog at the top of the page, and in particular, his update #1, I would really suggest you do so. There are reasons contained therein why her defense team may have chosen that strategy (as opposed to “someone else did it”). Please understand that just because the defense presented only self-defense does not exclude the possibility that there was really someone else that “did it” and we’ve been discussing on these blogs, various leads that were given to police, but never investigated.

                Like

      • Cici

        Clearly you dont watch the trial – forensic computer expert testified that Travis’s laptop hard drive was pristine, never been wiped. And yes, they CAN tell when a HD has been wiped. There was no “track covering” on his part. Nice try though.

        Like

        • Heather

          I’m, afraid that’s the trouble, Cici, you all take everything said as gospel.. who said it was pristine, never been wiped, let me guess, the witness for the prosecution? So far, Flores, Chris Hughes and Horn have all lied on Oath, changing their testimony and giving the most feeble of excuses. Tot Doc lied by omission and was evasive, also insolent. Martinez first said the gun shot was first and then he changed it to last when Horn made a slip up. Boy Cici, you have a lot to learn, it seems.

          Like

          • kim

            Cici, of course, everyone is out to get Jodi. The prosecutor, the State’s witnesses, the 12 jurors, and yes, even her attorneys, it’s all been a horrific experience for poor Jodi. No one did anything for this poor woman. Her attorneys were the best and beating Martinez’s butt during that entire trial, I’m sure you saw it, yes, until the verdict came down. Now they are awful and out to get Jodi too. It’s ridiculous.

            Like

  2. kim

    Is this the new post? If so, I’m here :-) Hope everyone is enjoying their day. I cannot find the entire post conviction interview in one clip but if I do I will post it here. There is a blogger on twitter who has everything so I’m going through her info.

    Like

    • Maybe here for the video:

      I don’t know what to make of that. She certainly doesn’t look like or sound like a killer, not that that means anything. I mean she could be.

      Seriously, I just think if you want to be objective what she says, what she does, how she appears should be disregarded. There are only two possibilities here: either she’s guilty because she was involved in the killing, although I maintain it’s really unlikely she could have acted alone; or she witnessed something so horrifying, not to mention the trauma of being charged in it all, that she probably no longer has any idea what she actually did or observed versus what she has imagined in response to questioning or the pressures of defending herself.

      I don’t mean this to denigrate her, I’m just saying that by herself she has no evidentiary value at all. You have to get reliable evidence from elsewhere.

      She now believes she killed the guy in self defense. I don’t think that carries any weight at all. Her demeanor under the circumstances may seem to be bizarre, but like I said no matter what version you want to pursue here, bizarre is not surprising given facts that cannot be disputed.

      I feel like there’s been a whole trial after all kinds of investigation and no one has any idea what really happened, including her.

      Like

      • Heather

        Thanks for that, kim, can’t stop, off to an apt. catch you all later!

        Like

      • Heather

        My apt isn’t until later.

        It totally escapes me how some people cannot believe her, have no compassion, how they don’t, not identify with her (with what she did), but feel empathy, see her sincerity, really Feel her, because I do. She’s a very sensitive woman, she feels her emotions very deeply, guess that’s why I can understand her–I do, too.
        When I was in the US, in Indiana, I found the people I met to be very caring and thoughtful (I was there every 3 months, staying with someone I knew, for about 18 months), and I came back thinking how nice and friendly people were, how understanding, caring, etc. Therefore it has come as a surpise to see how some people, many in fact, are so spiteful, malicious, cruel and venomous, for a woman that could have easily been them; none of us knows what’s around the corner in life, do we, and how we could easily be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so, I’m shocked at how those people have vilified her with extreme hatred. How they can’t see what I do, I shall never understand.

        Like

        • Justice

          Heather if you or anyone iden tifies with what she did, then you all need professional help really bad. You dont see things clears. That was Jodis problem. Get help quick because you are a time bomb sweetie.

          Like

          • Heather

            All I see is that half the USA have no u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t a l l
            Its black, versus white. good versus evil.
            You all point the finger and vilify her as bad, and evil. This is nothing other than a witch hunt – you don’t know her, how can you all hate her? Its nonsense. People say she looks hollow, dead eyes…guilty.. well, please, tell me what You think You would look like if you had spent the last 5 years in jail, then had to sit and listen to people who didn’t know you, tear you apart?
            THIS is what I mean when I say half of America has nounderstandingatall.

            Of course, please don’t put yourself in a situation you and others have never been through, no, please, don’t do that, you may see and have some understanding, compassion and have some empathy, and we couldn’t have that now, could we?

            And, whatever you do, please don’t think of yourself being at the wrong place at the wrong time, knowing you didn’t have any choice but to kill. What, do you think it couldn’t happen to you? Are you that sure? You’re not, are you? But you’re all sure enough to judge someone else; that ‘someone else’ could well be you.

            You might like to think of this when you, and others who show hate, next go to church.

            The nicer a person is (especially when its a woman), the more vilified she is.

            Like

          • Heather

            If you’ll pardon me, you would do far better getting help..

            with your English.. see things .. ”clears”?

            instead of loving to hate.

            All I can say is be careful of what you attract..

            because you’re inviting it…

            and it’ll be all of your own doing.

            One day you and others might wake up

            to the Law of Attraction.

            Like

      • You use the word “bizarre” in regard to Jodi. This whole trial can be labeled “BIZARRO TRIAL OF THE CENTURY” I have closely watched about 7 trials ever since the O.J. Simpson trial (CORRECT VERDICT….with all the unreliable “evidence” and cover ups by police), and I have never seen one as BIZARRE as this one.

        Kim…..what “facts that cannot be disputed”?? Just about every piece of “evidence” JM came up with could be effectively disputed, and REASONABLE DOUBT was written all over his evidence…every bit of it.

        You are right about one thing…..Jodi herself does not know what really happened, and according to her interview “things come back to her in last couple of years or so”….but not enough to throw any new light on what REALLY happened that day.

        What amazes me most about her interview is how she really BELIEVES what others think of her. She can “understand” WHY they think that way. This has been Jodi’s problem all her life…..she has a unique ability to see it from everyone else’s perspective and BELIEVES they are probably right. It is almost like she really believes the jury came to the CORRECT VERDICT. For example: she thinks “felony murder” was correct because of the “way the law is written”. It is like she cannot think for herself anymore…..or was EVER able to think for herself and TRUST her own instincts.

        I have other random thoughts about her interview, but will save them for when I have more time to explain my observations.

        Like

        • kim

          Trialwatcher, I think you are mixing up my comments with someone else’s.

          Like

        • kim

          trialwatcher, then again, maybe not, I did use the word “bizarre” in a post. Very difficult to follow the posts, there are tons!

          Like

          • However, wouldn’t you agree that this whole trial is the MOST BIZARRE trial you have ever seen?

            Like

            • kim

              Trialwatcher, heck yea! On so many levels.

              Like

            • kim

              Trialwatcher, do you think the public is ready for another one of these? Andrea Sneiderman?

              Like

              • I believe Andrea Schneiderman was an accomplice, or actually planned it…..but just because I find her obnoxious does not mean they have proof to convict her. I can’t wait for that trial to start….I live in Atlanta. I think there is more interest in that case within Atlanta….don’t know if NG will get a hold of it and make it NATIONAL, depends on which trials are at the forefront at the time. .

                I hate to say it, but sometimes I agree with NG’s position on some cases, but she is still the most DECEITFUL person on tv and needs to be stopped and put in her place. I am of the predisposition that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter……but I still want to see if the prosecution proves its case.

                Like

              • kim

                Trialwatcher, the case already has national attention. Many national “trial watchers” have committed to being there. I live in the Cleveland suburb where Rusty grew up. I did not know him or his family but I hear wonderful things about them all. I watched Andrea’s direct examination this afternoon on Newman’s (?) case and could not believe how confrontational she seemed with him. Did she know she was a suspect at that point? I’m committed to watching that one too.

                Like

              • kim

                Trialwatcher, speaking of giving the finger, it’s funny you mention it. Today while watching Andrea S testifying at one point she put her hand under her chin and it looked like she gave someone the finger lol. I don’t think I would have ever noticed it had it not been for all of the commentary on alleged Jodi’s birdflipping.

                Like

        • Heather

          You’re right, Marion, and its very sad Jodi believes such things. I was shocked when she said that.

          Like

    • I finally saw the post conviction interview through a link someone posted on the first page of your first post…..but it only showed 31 minutes and I thought it was supposed to be as long as 45 minutes. Anyone know how long the full interview actually is?

      Like

  3. Buck Eschaton

    I haven’t followed it that closely but I was interested, initially, in the multi-level marketing angle. Was there anything of interest with that?

    Like

    • Sorry, I trashed your comment earlier because I thought it was some kind of joke. Are you referring to the Pre-paid legal thing? I didn’t know about that until just a couple hours ago.

      Like

    • No, but I found it interesting that the vast majority of Travis’s friends were involved in it and also Mormon.

      Like

      • AA, I’d like to go back to that 11 PM fake phone call. I’m now thinking that it may be more reasonable to use that as the mark for when she was alone for the first time after the murder. The scenario here is that she had the perpetrator(s) with her and dropped him/them off sometime prior to 11. Of course there would have been a promise not to tell in exchange for her life, but at some point thereafter she becomes concerned that he/they might implicate her. She does seem kind of weirdly unflappable that way.

        Anyway, my question to you is, did any of the potential other suspects live somewhere along or near the route she took, which you said was not the expected or direct one given her destination? In particular, did that guy whose wife wound up dead of a supposed suicide live anywhere near or along that route?

        Thanks.

        Like

        • kim

          AA, also, what was the last name of Dustin/Ashley? Thanks.

          Like

        • Looking at the police report, Ashley lived in Mesa, and Dustin lived in Apache Junction. Ashley worked in Gilbert, but there is no information about where Dustin worked. As far as I can tell from Google Maps, those towns would not be on the route to the Hoover Dam.

          I don’t see an address for John Hepworth, who was the former roommate that one of Travis’s girlfriends, Lisa, suggested during her interview with the police in the days after Travis’s body was found, might be a person of interest as he and Travis didn’t see eye to eye “on a lot of things”, and he had moved out suddenly “in the middle of the night without telling Travis”. There’s no indication that the police ever spoke with him. Lisa had also suggested talking to others who were former roommates, which the police apparently did not do. (Lisa and Travis had dated for several months until February or March of 2008, according to her testimony. She had also written Travis an angry email because he had pressured her about sex.)

          Also, although this was not in the police report, Lisa had an ex-boyfriend with a violent criminal history, Steve Bell. Some people online think he may have been the one who sent Lisa the email discussed in court about her being a “shameful whore.” Travis had suggested Jodi sent it, according to Lisa’s testimony. Lisa said she had never been able to prove it was from Jodi. She sent it to Detective Flores. I have always found it interesting that, with all their computer experts, they weren’t able to trace the IP address. Of course, it could have been sent using a Proxy Server but that was never discussed. Someone on May 7 of this year, posted on the JAII site, under the name “Danites Revenge” claiming that he was the person who sent it and he had other information which he would come forward with if Jodi was convicted at an “appeals hearing.” If what this person said was true, he would not be Steve Bell as he talked about Travis being in his house.

          Like

          • Well, AA, where we are at this point is that there is ample reason to believe there was someone else there, maybe 2 others as Jodi had at one point indicated. But you couldn’t go with that at trial – you’d have to identify a specific person. You might get Jodi to tell you who, but by itself that would pretty much mean nothing because no one would believe her. If, however, you could get her to tell you and then you could come up with some good corroborating proof, that would definitely be a viable alternative scenario to argue.

            It’s possible, of course, that Jodi doesn’t even know who they were.

            And of course I would have to emphasize that just because there is ample reason to believe there was someone else there, that doesn’t mean there really was. But what is abundantly clear is that this should have been investigated by the police, and unless or until they ruled it out they should never have charged Jodi. That would be a responsible use of their power, and as it stands they were very irresponsible, but nevertheless have succeeded in convicting a person who’s guilt is at this point subject to serious doubt.

            Like

          • kim

            AA that Danites Revenge person sure isn’t/wasn’t thinking clearly. Any information should have been immediately given to at the very least, Jodi’s attorneys. I’m wondering if it is a credible post.

            Like

            • It may not be a credible post. But Gus Searcy has also mentioned there are several other people who have not come forward because they are Mormons and afraid of retribution. There have also been several other posts which have sprung up from people who knew Travis and appeared to have information. There’s one on OccupyHLN actually which I just read. I don’t know why these people haven’t come forward, but perhaps they didn’t expect Jodi to be convicted of first degree murder.

              Like

              • kim

                AA, excuse my language but that just plain sucks! I hope it is all BS, as I would hate to think there was good solid information out there that someone selfishly held back.

                Like

              • I tend to believe Gus Searcy. He’s not a Mormon and he came forward even though he has received death threats for doing so. He witnessed a call Jodi received from Travis and overheard him yelling at her and Jodi ducking in fear.

                I also can’t help but wonder if there was more evidence in Travis’s emails that was deleted and Chris Hughes’s role in all of this. Chris approached Gus about testifying beforehand in a “not so nice” manner. I find it very suspicious that Chris Hughes, while in Cancun, called Travis’s webmaster and got access to his emails. He described one of the other messages that were not included in the trial regarding the “argument” between Jodi and Travis on May 26, 2008. Jodi apparently told Travis that she was going to get an attorney, but Chris declined to comment as to why. Chris said all of this himself in a blogtalk radio broadcast so I’m not spreading a rumour.

                Again, I truly believe there is so much more to this story than we’ll ever know.

                Like

            • Heather

              kim, couldn’t find anywhere to reply under your response about the tiger/bear question.. the juror didn’t say anything about the personality or character of either animal. This was purely a question to Tot Doc about PTSD.. and she says the answers would be.. different? lol

              Both could kill you!

              One would suffer PTSD from BOTH.

              But Tot Doc didn’t want to say that, did she! Because she would have had to answer truthfully and she was a witness for the prosecution – no truth allowed – truth would help the defence. And the State wants Jodi to die.

              Like

              • Heather

                kim, there was also no reference to whether the tiger or the bear was male or female and no inferrence, either. If my memory serves me correctly, the question was if Jodi had said it was a tiger and it turned out to have been a bear would this be regarded as a lie.. (speaking in reference to PTSD)

                And this was when Doc Tot said yes, it would be different.. then gave descriptions of each animal’s characteristics……at this point I just howled with laughter.. after I had got over the shock of hearing such a dumb answer!
                Not to mention the stupid faces she pulled whilst giving it! lol

                If you want to have a look at all her ”professional” faces, see OccupyHLN! :) I’m still laughing, loved it so much I had to see it again!

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, the male or female is irrelevant, I was speaking of the methodology of the attack of the animal and how that relates to how someone reacts to that particular traumatic event. As far as looking at the faces of “tot doc”, I’m not interested, as I said the name calling is ridiculous.

                Like

              • Heather

                ha kim, you wouldn’t if you saw the vieo of TD on OccupyHLN.. go on, take a look, I won’t tell anyone! :) have a laugh and enjoy, really you shouldn’t miss it!

                It didn’t matter what method was used re tiger/bear question, its if she had lied and said it was a tiger not a bear, would it affect the PTSD?

                FEAR is fear, is fear, is fear, how can you make one lot of fear different from another? Fear is fear, PTSD is PTSD.

                Saying it was a tiger, not a bear would have made no darn difference either way, kim!

                To say it would be a lie if she meant tiger, but said bear, would go to prove that PTSD had affected her anyway!
                :D

                Like

      • They were involved in it through Travis…..and all his friends were Mormon. He had a ready made “market” of gullible friends….and he probably did quite well with it. But I don’t believe for a minute that he made a “six figure” income from it.

        Like

      • You recruit your friends, to start with…..all of his friends were mormon. Obviously they were the most gullible because “hey, Travis said it’s a good deal”.

        Like

  4. kim

    Thanks JM. I’m afraid she may have sealed her fate with this interview. Although I agree with verdict I do not want to see her receive a death sentence. My reasoning relates to my feelings about the DP, not her or the case. The case will go through the appellate process and who knows, maybe something will change the outcome.

    Like

    • AK

      Kim: What did she say that in the interview, that you feel would “seal her fate”?

      Like

      • I think it is what she DIDN’T SAY in it that will seal her fate. She did not offer a direct apology for having killed him and that is what the judge and jury will be hung up on. They will settle for nothing less…..because as we all know, once a jury says “guilty”, that is taken as the incontrovertible truth of the matter. (as if the public just can’t get it through their heads that MANY PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON FOR CRIMES THEY DID NOT COMMIT. )

        I have seen, throughout this trial, very DEEP REMORSE from Jodi for what happened…..whether or not she claimed self defense. Assuming she DO THIS BY HERSELF in self defense……it was obvious to me that she felt deep remorse every time the pictures of Travis’s butchered body appeared on the screen in court. She still cannot believe she did this to him…..and who knows, maybe she didn’t.

        As far as an appeal goes……I would love to see Barry Scheck get involved with this case, but I think he only takes cases where DNA has proven innocence years after a guilty verdict. I believe that is the only kind of case The Innocence Project will take on.

        Like

        • kim

          Trialwatcher, I have to agree with half of your comment. Guilty verdict, apologies are expected. Maybe it’s wrong, but that’s for another discussion. It was in her best interest to not schedule an interview, especially at this time. I disagree on seeing any signs of remorse from Jodi during the trial. I think the first true emotion I saw was when the verdict was read, although she tried and was pretty successful at maintaining control then as well.

          Like

          • obviously you saw no “true emotions”, but I saw her “true emotions” all throughout her testimony and much of the witness testimony. A lot of her testimony was dead-panned because she probably told this story MANY TIMES before trial. How could it sound spontaneous when you have told this story over and over? However, If you want to “read into” this or that expression, there is no accounting for what someone else sees. Saying (it was you who said this, wasn’t it?), that she gave the finger to the jury or to the camera. I did not see that at all on replay…..I saw her fingers over her throat and her hand/fingers slide slowly to her cheek. I firmly believe it was not intentional.

            And I think she was being facetious on her Twitter page by telling Nancy Grace “that was for you”. Donovan surely told her what Nancy Grace was making of that on HLN.

            Like

            • kim

              Trial watcher, no I made zero comments about Nancy Grace, Jodi giving anyone the finger, or any other “sensational type” commentary. I made my own decision based upon my viewing the trial almost every single day once both sides rested. I hope you can respect my opinion as I do yours and anyone else’s on here.

              Like

          • Wow, sometimes I really think I watched a different trial. I watched her sob, both on the stand, and sitting with the defense attorneys, many times. I saw her body heave with sobs.

            Like

            • Also, AA, that report makes reference to an email sent to Lisa, a Travis g/f, from a “John Doe” and beginning “You are a shameful whore” Were the details of that ever nailed down?

              Like

              • No, they weren’t. I mentioned that earlier today but it probably got lost in the shuffle. Couldn’t the police, with all their forensic computer experts, have traced the IP address? I guess it’s possible that it was sent using a proxy, but why wasn’t that mentioned?

                The words don’t sound like anything Jodi wrote before. They sound like the words of a devout long practicing Mormon, while Jodi was a recent convert, baptized by Travis. Mormonism has a very steep learning curve before a member even gets a temple recommendation.

                A poster on the JAII site on 5/7 claimed to have authored that email to Lisa. He went by the name of “Danites Revenge”. The Danites were a fraternal vigilante group of the LDS church in the years after its formation, while Joseph Smith was still alive. This poster claimed to have more information about Travis which he feared repercussion, as did many others, if they came forward with. However, he said that if Jodi was convicted, he would come forth for her “appeals hearing.” Like many, he probably assumes an appeal is much like another trial.

                Another possible author of that email is Lisa’s ex-boyfriend, a man by the name of Steve Bell, who has a violent criminal history. It was rumoured that he was jealous of her relationship with Travis and that she broke up with Steve to be with Travis.

                Finally, Travis often used various strategies to get good Mormon girls to spend the night with him. He went so far as to tell girls he was suicidal. It’s possible that Travis wrote that email to Lisa to frighten her. She did allow him to spend the night with her after receiving it.

                Like

    • I suppose I could say that I agree with the verdict, too. If I had not had experience with a client, a very frightened young lady whose behavior and account of events was inexplicable absent some inference of culpability and turned out to be completely innocent – indeed even beyond innocent, having been the truest victim – I probably wouldn’t have given this case a second thought.

      But as it is I am suspicious of “verdicts” where the lizard brained “femme fatale” archetype seems to come into play. So while I can understand the verdict in the sense that the weight of the evidence presented supports it, I have qualms about the evidence that wasn’t presented, the integrity of the investigation and the prosecution, and the strategy of the defense.

      I don’t know Jodi Arias and I can’t evaluate her conduct, such as in that interview, beyond saying that it’s weird under the circumstances. But I am often frustrated that when a situation calls for a deeper and more thoughtful inquiry, our system is satisfied to put on a spectacle and play to everyone’s worst instincts. And if people actually knew about the capacity for self correction once a guilty verdict has been rendered, very very few people would ever be convicted of anything.

      But as it stands conviction rates are 90%+ all over the country, and success rates on appeal for criminal defendants are infinitesimal, although they are much better for prosecutors when they appeal, and for insurance companies appealing large verdicts.

      She might very well be guilty, but at this point I have to suspect otherwise. And it makes me very uncomfortable. I wish I hadn’t looked into it, really, because it’s not my job and I find it upsetting.

      I want to thank you for coming over here and commenting and keeping people focused. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, to the extent we disagree.

      Like

      • I honestly believe the case was overcharged to begin with. If she did kill him, then it was obviously a heat of the moment crime of passion: manslaughter. In these kinds of case, typically a plea deal is reached, and Jodi did offer to plead to second degree murder in 2011. Most prosecutors would have viewed that as a bargain.

        I do not believe the weight of the evidence presented supports premeditation. Why would she have staged a burglary at her grandparents’ house, where she lived, and stolen a 25 caliber weak antiquated gun, cash and a DVD player, when other more powerful guns were available in the same cabinet? Why would she not have simply taken the gun? Or why didn’t she buy her own gun? Why stage a robbery and generate a record where a police report is made? Why rent a car in her own name, using her own credit card? Why purchase gas using her own credit card instead of cash? Why borrow gas cans from an ex-boyfriend who could then testify that she did so instead of buying her own gas cans with cash? The most suspicious evidence was that her phone was off while she traveled through Arizona. She said it died and she could not find her charger. I have often turned off my phone when my battery is weak in case I need to use is later. Martinez claimed she dyed her hair brown during the trip. But the police report from the burglary describes her as having brown hair and that was made more than a week beforehand.

        Then, she arrives at Travis’s house in the middle of the night. Why didn’t she kill him there and then if that was her intention? They went to sleep and she woke up before him in the afternoon. Wouldn’t that have been the perfect opportunity to kill him? Why have sex twice, take photos, and then kill him in the shower more than 12 hours after she arrived at his house?

        None of this makes sense to me at all.

        Like

        • Yes.

          And, you supposedly have a much weaker woman killing a much stronger man by stabbing him to death. While this is admittedly possible, it is so unlikely that it invites inquiry into other, less unlikely scenarios.

          One of which is that a man is involved. Or maybe more than one. And indeed that is just what Jodi Arias said when she was first questioned, although nobody believes her because she is a liar, but then when she confesses that’s just as good as words coming out of a burning bush. And, there’s a slew of potential suspects that fit the bill since the victim had numerous enemies with far more tangible motives to kill him than Jodi Arias did.

          But was any of this investigated? No. They had their culprit, and now it’s time to build a case against her. And the more this goes on, the more everyone gets invested in it and the more everyone’s career depends on it and it develops this irresistible momentum that even the target, Jodi Arias, surrenders to.

          Maybe they would have investigated and found that she acted in concert with someone else. According to their own appraisal of her, she was certainly capable of such beguiling, deceitful, evil conduct.

          But of course another possibility is that she herself was a victim in the same incident, the only difference between her and Travis Alexander being that the other(s) spared her life (although maybe she was raped), which is of course a big difference, but in any event wouldn’t you want to know?

          And the answer is no, the system doesn’t want to know. They have the crime and the culprit and a case “closed by arrest”. That they have reasoned and bullied their way to a facile conclusion worthy of a kindergartner’s reasoning ability doesn’t seem to trouble them or anyone else. Everyone gets a feather in their cap and lucrative job offers and promotions.

          And the spectacle of it all was rich.

          We really have to do better.

          Like

          • I always thought prosecutors had special responsibilities and duties to ensure that there had been a thorough investigation. In this case, Martinez refused to turn over evidence, such as the computer, until ordered by the court to do so, after a lengthy battle.

            While the trial was in process, he posed for photos and autographs with members of the public right outside the court house. His demeanour towards witnesses was simply atrocious. I’ve never seen anything like it. Someone leaked Jodi’s journals and the interrogation tapes of her parents to the media.

            Plus the jury was not sequestered and were allowed to use smart devices in the jury room.

            How can anyone say Jodi got a fair trial?

            Like

            • Prosecutors do have special responsibilities. They are all highly theoretical. In practice they can behave like low level moron bullies and the system bows to them.

              Just the way it is.

              I should add, not all prosecutors do that, not even a large number. But for the ones who do there are no brakes.

              Like

              • Have you ever tried a case with a prosecutor like that, JMRJ?

                Like

              • Kim

                AA I know this wasnt addressed to me, but my first job out of law school was as a domestic violence prosecutor. JM style was not my style, but I worked with one or two that were very aggressive with some witnesses. There were a couple defense attys who were brutal with the “victims”, putting them on trial. I didn’t agree with JM 100% of the time in his manner of examining witnesses, but I felt he was also obnoxious to his own witnesses (somewhat, not equally).

                Like

              • I haven’t tried a case with a prosecutor like that, but I’ve had cases against prosecutors like that that did not go to trial.

                Prosecutors can get away with being bullies and still win, defense lawyers can’t.

                Like

              • Justice

                If I ever need a prosecuter I would want someone like Mr. Martinez, he was Travis’ voice, and he fought for justice for This young man as if he was his own. Very smart man.

                Like

              • Kim

                Justice, I agree, if my family member was a victim, he has the passion to get it right. There were times I was cringing and thought he was losing his way, but he is very good at his job. Would not want to be his defendant!

                Like

              • Thanks for answering Kim and JMRJ.

                I believe Martinez knows his juries. He has apparently used the same style throughout his career and been very successful. I had a very difficult time watching him at times. It was disturbing for me. If I lost a family member, I would prefer a prosecutor who sought true justice, not an ego boost.

                Like

            • Justice

              I must say Jodi got a fair trial and just verdict. Alice Laviolette sat there and lied about everything to save her onery hyde, Dr. Samuels did the same. Martin ez ttreated them just as he should have for lying. Alice was a joke and Sameuls wasnt prepared for Mr. Martinez. Kirk Nurmi put everybody to sleep and Wilmott just didnt have anything special. But I think people satup and took notice when Martinez got up to cross. He blew Alice and Samuels out of the park. Ms. DeMarte was very professional and honest. She was a very believable witness because she spoke the truth.

              Like

              • I honestly don’t understand how you could say that Alyce LaViolette lied. That woman is an amazing advocate in the domestic violence arena. What was done to her with people leaving thousands of false nasty reviews of her book online, telephoning her office with death threats, and telephoning the facilitators of speaking engagements to demand that they cancel her engagement was absolutely outrageous and disgusting. Alyce testified to her opinion based on her many years of working in the field of domestic violence, both with abused women and abusers. She should never have had to endure what she did. It put her in the hospital!

                And now, because of all of that, any defendant in a high profile case will have a difficult time finding expert witnesses willing to get involved.

                I cannot believe you consider Dr. DeMarte “honest”. She considered her training to be actual experience. There are only two reasons Martinez chose her: 1. She physically resembles Jodi and is about the same age. 2. She was willing to testify to whatever he wanted. She came across very poorly on the stand and was cold. Nonetheless, no one would dream of treating her the way Alyce was treated.

                I will, however, agree with you in regards to Jodi’s defense lawyers, in part. I enjoyed Nurmi’s closing and thought he did a good job, but his manner of speaking during the trial was often boring. Willmott seemed to lose her strategy on many occasions. Not only that, but she often stopped right before making her point which I found frustrating.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA the one thing I absolutely agree with is the treatment of ALV by mere strangers. I liked her on direct but she lost me during the cross examination, as I felt she came across totally biased. However, I don’t believe trial watchers have the right to harass a witness, especially with phone calls, faxes and threats. My feeling is people will in the future either want her services or not, but it’s their choice. Unlike you I liked DeMarte. As an aside, it’s interesting how, whichever “side” we are on our choices seem to fall in line with that side, isn’t it?

                Like

              • Kim, I am really struggling with that comment by Justice who condones what was done to Alyce and thinks she brought it upon herself. That disturbs me.

                I’m curious, why did you feel Alyce was biased?

                What did you like about DeMarte? I would never want to consult someone like that for therapy.

                Yes, it is strange that we like the witnesses of our “side”. I liked Dr. Samuels at first, but I think he fell apart on cross. I felt very sorry for him when Martinez accused him of having feelings for Jodi. That was incredibly inappropriate. For the most part, I liked Alyce, but I found her very outdated. I really felt the “burning” question was why an abused woman would commit such “overkill.” I was extremely disappointed with the defense when that was not brought out. It was barely touched upon in one of the juror questions, but the defense didn’t take that opportunity to follow up. Out of the three defense experts, I thought Dr. Geffner was the most credible. I wonder why they didn’t use him from the very beginning.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA ALV would not concede even the simest point. She battled with Martinez the entire time. She would have been much more effective IMO if she would have cooperated when she could have. I also felt she made interpretations into the texts/writings that would benefit Jodi but would not make those same leaps for Travis’s texts/writings. Example, the last text from Travis where he said “you’re the worst thing…” ALV wouldn’t budge that it was possibility Jodi did something to provoke those words. He was just abusuve. Yet, when “nothing noteworthy” was written in Jodi’s journal ALV could explain that away.
                I thought demarte handled herself well despite her years of experience. I agree, geffner was very good as was Jill Hayes.

                Like

              • Kim, I think we watched different cross examination. Do you not recall Alyce agreeing with Martinez that Travis said he felt very scared of Jodi? I was actually quite upset about that one. That last texting/instant messaging session went on for 5 hours, and consisted of numerous abusive rants. What I recall Alyce saying was that it characterize the extent of his anger. Jodi never wrote anything negative in her journal about Travis because he had access to it. That seemed very reasonable to me. Most abused women don’t document abuse either because of the same fears.

                I never really understood the point of Dr. Hayes’ testimony. She seemed professional on direct, but she became rather snippy and almost hostile on cross.

                DeMarte was just cold and completely lacking in compassion to me. I think she completely misdiagnosed Jodi with borderline personality disorder which is a common mistake in rookies who don’t understand PTSD.

                Like

              • Heather

                Justice, I have to laugh, you …found Tot Doc, very professional and honest? Wow!
                LOL I suggest you see the video on Occupy HLN

                The funniest was the Tiger and Bear question from the juror! My eyes nearly popped out of head when I watched her answer it.

                How professional or honest would you say she was with that question.. that Tigers and Bears are ”different”, and the result, whether it was PTSD or her test, the result would be different?
                She managed to say it with a straight face, too! I’m still laughing; as John Mackenroe, the tennis player said, ”You Cannot be SERIOUS! :)

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, you’re going to laugh at me too, as I also found DeMarte professional and a good witness, albeit young with limited experience. Like AA and I discussed earlier, it’s interesting how we all “side” with the experts on our “side”. If you look earlier you can see, though I did like Geffner, thought he was a good witness.

                I wanted to throw this out to you regarding the Tiger/Bear question and the PTSD (which, by the way, I think Juan spent way too much time even addressing, as that didn’t go to commission of crime, defense was putting it out there to give Jodi credibility as to why she went into the fog). Although the end result of a tiger/bear attach is likely the same, the methodology, for lack of a better term, bears (no pun intended) being addressed. A tiger is stealthy, catlike, sneaky. Pounces on an unsuspecting victim. A bear, on the other hand, is not those things, it kills by brutal strength, and the attack is usually seen as an approaching attach by the victim. If you were attached by a tiger you might always be looking over your shoulder for the sneaky tiger (i.e. the stranger in this case) where as the brutal bear (Travis) was always right in front of her when he allegedly attacked her.

                That being said, I do think that entire testimony was a waste of time, especially the amount of time Juan put into his cross. Had Samuels said the PTSD was WHY she killed, not why she FORGOT, that might have justified more time. Again, all IMO, I hate criticizing any of the professionals who were a part of the trial, attorneys and experts.

                Like

              • Kim, I guess for me, that answer seemed ridiculous because whether my ex-husband abused me or I originally lied and said our neighbour was the person who abused me, I’d still suffer from PTSD. Overall, I found DeMarte to be cold, completely lacking in compassion, and, like many recent graduates in any profession, unable to separate what she learned in books from how to apply that learning.

                Like

              • kim

                My understanding of PTSD, AA, in a very brief nutshell as I am not a psychologist, is that you avoid what caused the PTSD or any reminder of the PTSD. It sounds like your situation is different from how Samuels was using it. You suffered it because of ongoing abuse. You are now, thank God, away from it and I can understand situations where you may have a reaction, i.e. being in the same room with your ex, I’m sure. Samuels said she suffered from it due to the brutal killing, that’s how I understood it, am I incorrect? I did not gather that he was saying the ongoing abuse is what gave her PTSD. Yet, if the brutality of the situation/killing caused her PTSD she did not avoid the situation or reminders of the killing, i.e. the memorial service, reaching out to his family.

                Like

              • As I understood Dr. Samuels, he was giving an and/or type of answer in that a person such as Jodi would suffer PTSD from ongoing abuse and/or from the killing.

                In regards to avoidance, that’s a common symptom, but not always the case. In fact, a psychiatrist I spoke to last week said that he doesn’t always see that as we were discussing my avoidance of anything related to my marriage. I recently had to search my old hard drive for information about one of my cats and it was extraordinarily difficult for me to go through anything from that period. I still have unpacked boxes I simply can not bring myself to open. When I was writing briefs for my appeal, I was especially traumatized going through various emails and the court record to the point that I almost fell apart several times. But this isn’t a symptom some of the other women I’ve spoken to have, and that was something the psychiatrist talked to me about. I don’t find myself remembering the abuse often, which he said is the most common symptom. There are some occasions where something happens which triggers a reminder, and I still occasionally wake up from a nightmare thinking I’m back with him, but that’s not as frequent as it once was.

                I don’t think this was discussed well during the trial at all but my point is, not every PTSD patient has identical symptoms.

                Like

              • Kim

                I agree, AA, it didn’t flow well and was confusing. Juan wasted a ton of time on Samuels IMO. And I agree people do not have same reactions.

                Like

              • I also think the defense wasted too much time with Dr. Samuels, to be honest. I found it interesting, but somewhat repetitive. Also, if I remember correctly, he went on and on about dissociative amnesia, but then said that probably wasn’t the reason for Jodi’s fugue state. As I understood it, the purpose of his testimony was to explain why Jodi didn’t remember, not why she may have committed the crime. I really thought that should have been over and done with in a day or so.

                Like

              • Heather

                I can hardly believe what I’m reading.. ALV and Dr Samuels.. lied???

                What utter nonsense! You really think Tot Doc was.. what? Professional?? OMG!! She lied by omission! See the video of her ridiculous faces, she looks crazy, its on OCCUPYHLN

                This HAS to be a joke, right?

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, do you really have to keep up with the name calling on this blog? Regardless of what I think about ALV or Dr. Samuels testimony I will not resort to calling them names on this blog. I’m here because I’m interested in the theories that have been posed. Every time I read one of these comments by you it pisses me off and makes me wonder why I’m here.

                Like

              • Heather

                For goodness sakes. kim, calm down, anyone would think from your response that I was swearing and calling You names! Lighten up! :) I can think of much worse things to say than saying, ”Tot Doc” ! ( btw she’s called That everywhere! :)

                (I mean, do you call saying that it, ”pisses you off”, exactly ladylike?;)

                Like

            • I just want to make a comment about her parents interview by Flores.

              1: did no one notice that the father said “she has been acting really strangely for the LAST YEAR AND ONE HALF”?? Like ever since she started dating Travis, dad?

              “She never trusted us again” after they searched her room and found marijuana. Gee…..how odd. She never trusted them again? I wonder why? (sic)

              2: The mother was completely blindsided by Flores who of course CONVINCED THE MOTHER that they KNEW Jodi did this. The mother kept saying “I can’t believe it, I can’t believe it”. “how could she act so normal after this happened”?? Playing right into Flores’ hands.

              I am SURE at this point the mother now knows “what was really going on with Jodi in the last year and one half”, and also now knows WHY.

              Why did Jodi act so erratically in that last “year and one half”, and was unwilling to tell her mother ANYTHING? We now know why.

              Like

        • Justice

          Jodi isnt just a run of the mill person who thinks like you or me, she is definitely difference. Jodi planned and carried out just as she planned it. She staged the stealing of the gun to lead blame away from her. She knew the gun would not have the recoil that a bigger more powerful weapon would have. Rented a plain little white car, it did not matter that she rented it in her name because She had already planned her coverup with the gas cans and turning off her cell phone before she crossed into Arizona as her story would be “she was never in Arizona” so she couldnt have killed Travis. She did have to stop in Arizona for gas, no cell phone pings, so her story was she couldnt have done it. By the way she also had the license plates on the car turned upside down.

          She knew Travis weakness which was sex and she told him just one more go around for old times sake, and I believe she was prepared to seduce him the way she had done so many times, however he liked it, how he liked as many times as he wanted to. She swooned him and mooned him for hours. He fell aleep, and she went to work placing her gun and knife where she could get to it quick and made ready for the murder if she needed to. When he woke up and went to the shower, of course she was snapping her camera acting calm. She stopped and asked Travis one more time if he would now take her to Cancun with him, and he again said no Jodi you are not going to Cancun.She thought all the sex they had just had he may have changed his mind and she wouldnt have to kill him but it didnt work. She did not want to kill him while he slept or while he had his back turned to her, she wanted him to look directly into her eyes as she began the slaughter. This is something that When I looked at Travis’ face while he was sitting in the shower, he seemed to have a look of surprise and concern, I think she may have pointed the gun at him and snapped the picture and at that time while down in a very vulnerable position she stood over him for a couple of seconds and came down with the knife placing the first stab wound in his chest cutting into his superior vena cava. Being young and strong, Travis made a move to get free of her and pushed her out of his way as he struggled to breathe as the blood filled his mouth and nose. While he was over the sink struggling she was stabbing him in the back with every thing in her, he was then just seconds from losing consciousness and still struggling to free himself from her attack, and collapsed there were the most blood was on the carpet as she continued to stab him, thats when she stabbed him in the legs and feet area because when he fell that was the only plae she could reach. From there she pounced on him and sliced his throat from ear to ear. He was most likely in the last second of life when she tried to drag him back down the hallway thats when she used the gun to finish the kill. She chose the stabbing first to inflict as much pain as possible. Shooting would have been too quick. She wanted him to know who was killing him. Therefore premeditation all the way. She planned if he had changed his mind about Cancun then she would spare his life.

          I think it is plain and simple. Yes she deserves death.

          Like

          • Justice, you do realize that the trip to Cancun was 6 days after Travis was killed and therefore, had already been ticketed, right? You do realize that airlines do not allow changes to tickets, right?

            Obviously, you didn’t watch the evidentiary hearing where the expert magnified that photo of Travis’s face in the shower and showed that Jodi was not holding a gun or a knife, just the camera, and you do not realize that Martinez stipulated to that fact.

            You do also realize that the state alleged right up until the eve of trial that the gun shot came first, right? Then, they changed their story. Obviously, you didn’t watch Dr. Horn discuss his “typo” on the stand in regards to the dura mater not being penetrated from the gunshot. His testimony changed every time he took the stand. You didn’t find that suspicious?

            Like

            • Justice

              AA. Yes, I am no lawyer and do not have a degree in anything, but Alyce was jway too much anti-Travis, and there was never any proof that Travis ever laid a hand on her. Jodi said that herself.when she was arrested. She stalked him, she sliced his tires (twice), She even crawled through the doggy door several times. Travis woke up and found her asleep under the christmas tree. She even watched him through the windows. She would appear unannounced when he had a girl there. Her own Father said she was a chronic liar and had been since age 14, her own mother came out and asked her did she have anything to do with the death of Travis.

              Alyce just went way too far in her criticizing of Travis and poor little Jodi was a saint. I am sure Alyce has done great things for domestic violence but she did it to herself for not be more impartial. She pushed trashing Travis when she had never met him or had any evidence of abuse, and if I remember right there was a few pages missing from her journal. But no proof of abuse.

              Oh and the broken finger story, not true. She cut the ligament when she was butchering Travis.

              AA. We can agree to disagree, stay cool.

              A thought: Why would she say no jury would convict her because she was innocent, and then on examination she states she was going to commit suicide. I hope you dont believe that, really. She had no intentions of doing such a thing to herself. This girl is simply lackiing something. She is the type who would commit the same crime again given a chance.

              Like

              • Alyce read vast amounts of texts, emails, instant messages and journals that you and I were not privy to. I don’t think you and I watched the same trial at all, or perhaps you only watched HLN. Alyce didn’t “trash” Travis at all. She simply characterized what she had read. Did you not listen to the phone sex tape that was played in court? If anyone trashed Travis, he did it to himself with the disgusting way he spoke on that tape about making her his ultimate whore who he would have animalistic anal sex with while she was tied to a tree, talking about raping her, comparing her orgasm to that of a 12 year old girl having her first orgasm, talking about his desire to “cork the pot” of a little girl. He also sent some of the most disgusting messages to Jodi that I’ve ever heard in my entire life. I’ve never heard anyone call someone a “three-hole wonder”. I do not know what you expected Alyce to testify to other than what she read, vile as it is. Furthermore, Travis’s own friends, the Hughes, had written him emails about him abusing Travis. Did you not hear Alyce’s testimony about that?

                According to Jodi’s post-conviction interview, there are photographs of her with bruises, and there’s a man who saw her with bruises and knew Travis was abusing her. Also, her sisters knew. Unfortunately, that didn’t come out during trial. He was also extremely pushy with Lisa while he dated her and she wrote him an email about it.

                Most women deny that they’re being abused for a long long time. I did the same thing myself.

                If she stalked him, why did he continue to have contact with her, including having phone sex and in-person sex with her? There’s absolutely NO evidence that she slashed his tires once, let alone twice. Travis told other people that happened, but there’s no police reports, no receipts for new tires, nothing. He called the police in February 2008 about a tire slashing, but then didn’t wait for the police to arrive. Yet, he continued to see Jodi after that. Do you honestly believe that if he thought Jodi did that, he would have continued to have sex with her? When she moved away in April, he had the perfect opportunity to end things. Instead, he begged her to stop in Mesa for her trip.

                Why would Jodi have crawled through the doggy door when Travis always left the front door open? Dr. DeMarte claimed someone told her Jodi did that. Who told her? And who told that person? There was only one difference between the evidence Dr. DeMarte reviewed and that which Alyce reviewed. Dr. DeMarte had a 30 minute interview with Travis’s brother. Logically then, he must be the person who told her this information about the doggy door and that he found Jodi asleep under the Christmas tree. Obviously, Travis didn’t tell him that because Travis’s family had not had contact with him for 4 years prior to his death.

                Jodi watched Travis through the window of a door briefly as she was about to go into the house. She saw him with another girl. I don’t know any girl who wouldn’t stand there shocked if she saw her boyfriend with another woman.

                I’d really like to see your evidence that Jodi cut a ligament in her finger on the date of the killing, but unfortunately, you won’t be able to produce it because there is no such thing.

                I do think Jodi has been suicidal for quite some time. I think she still is.

                Like

              • Heather

                ”Anti Travis” ? Alyce is anti ALL abusers!

                Your last sentence is a typical haters’ response, I’ve seen it may times. Perhaps you could come up with something more original?

                Like

              • Cate

                FTR Also Abused, in response to this statement by you:

                There was only one difference between the evidence Dr. DeMarte reviewed and that which Alyce reviewed. Dr. DeMarte had a 30 minute interview with Travis’s brother. Logically then, he must be the person who told her this information about the doggy door and that he found Jodi asleep under the Christmas tree. Obviously, Travis didn’t tell him that because Travis’s family had not had contact with him for 4 years prior to his death.

                Are you kidding? (Aside from the total misrepresentation Travis had not seen his family in four years…where do you all get this crap?) -LaViolette admitted on the stand that there was several pieces of information she knew nothing about when it came to Jodi Arias’ bad behavior. For her to say with a straight face that the ‘only one with a habit of lying’ was Travis, had to be one of the most comical points in the trial. And right there LaV lost almost ALL credibility with the jury. It is my firm belief, based on Alyce’s admission she knew nothing abt certain Arias behaviors, (forget just the doggy door by the way- there were plenty other incidents she claimed ignorance about -if you watched the entirety of the trial and A LaV’s testimony) that Arias’ defense team purposely kept much of the evidence AWAY from Alyce so as to present her with a skewed picture of the relationship to base her opinion ON.

                What I don’t get … is Alyce so stupid that she did not pick up on this fact during trial between jury questions and JM cross examination that kept from her certain evidence? How could she not? AND, how could she NOT be absolutely furious with them becs it was becs of THAT her testimony made her look like an absolute idiot. You might not think so, but somehow I believe that she is far more worried abt the 99% of the world that DOES as opposed to the 1% that does not.

                Like

              • honestabe

                Cate, I think you give the analysis by the psychologists to much weight. The entire trial was smoke and mirrors with a lot of misdirection. Personally, I was disappointed in the defense position of portraying Jodi as Travis’ dirty little secret. I would have rather seen them focus on the evidence and pick it apart. Gas cans, a cell phone without a battery, etc. does not make her the murderer. Let’s throw out the testimony of the psychologists entirely and put you in Jodi’s position. You are accused of killing Travis. Could you have gas cans in your car? Yes. Could you have a phone with a battery that doesn’t last long? Yes. If you wanted to get in and out of a place without being seen, would you turn your license plate upside down? Definitely not. It would cause any policeman to pull you over and establish your presence. Would you discharge a gun in the afternoon when people are returning home? No. Would you plan a murder and yet do it when a roommate could return? No. Would you be a photographer, plan a crime where you took photos, and not take the card? Doubtful. Could you viciously attack someone with a knife and not get scratched up, bruised, or even have the knife taken away? Unlikely and it’s even more unlikely that Travis’ demise started with a knife wound. If you were the one stabbed, would you go to the sink and let your attacker stab you repeatedly in the back and not swing? Of course not. Look, Juan Martinez played to everyone’s emotions and Jodi walked right into his trap, and so did the defense. Rather than arguing the evidence, they focused on rumors, speculation, circumstantial evidence. Did you know that the bullets in the stolen gun were hollow points and the bullet that was used on Travis was a round nose? Juan Martinez made a very bold risk when he said that Travis was shot last. Why? Because it generates more sympathy for Travis and stirs up emotions. If you will recall, the coroner said that Travis died with the neck wound. With that in mind, would it surprise you to know that recent analysis showed blood coming from Travis’ ear? If not it should because dead people do not have sufficient blood pressure to push blood through an ear canal. This would indicate that he was shot first, just as Jodi said he was and therein, destroys Juan Martinez’s story and credibility.

                Like

            • Justice

              AA. I also know that Jodi Arias would have found away there, no doubt.
              You seem to be a little bit mesmerized with Jodi. Did you not see the death scene photos. How cruel and gruesome. Travis didnt seserve to die that way. If Jodi was abused she did not have to go back to see Travis, and her answer to the question asked during the after verdict interview. To do over, what would you do differently? I would turn around and go straight to the Mesa Police Dept., My answer I would never have been in Mesa in the first place, I would never been with Travis. She killed him, she did it all herself. Dont be sucked in with her soft spoken lies and spin. She did this to herself. If it was your son and or daughter murdered in this manner, you would be ready for the hanging, Just saying.

              Like

              • Justice, the question on the table is whether there was someone else involved, who was there when Travis was killed, and who may or may not have been acting in concert with Jodi. If he was acting in concert she would be guilty anyway but we would still want to know about him, right?

                But if he was not acting in concert with him then the most likely scenario is that she is a victim, too. First of him and then of the system.

                No one is disputing the horrific nature of this killing. No one sensible, anyway. The wounds speak for themselves.

                Like

              • Justice, I don’t believe in the death penalty so I would never be “in for the hanging.” I’m not mesmerized with Jodi but I have found the case fascinating. I think that’s because I relate to Jodi’s testimony so much, as a survivor of domestic violence myself.

                It’s so easy to say she didn’t have to go back to Travis if he was abusing her. I understand why you say that because before I was abused, I would have said the exact same thing. I just didn’t understand it. I cannot properly explain why people who are abused go back to their abusers. I can’t even properly explain why I remained with my ex-husband for as long as I did after he began to abuse me. He convinced me it was my fault, or that it was an accident, or he apologized and said he was trying to change. By the time I realized it was abuse, I was really stuck and couldn’t find a good way to get out without telling him. But that wasn’t always the case and I have emotionally beaten myself up many times for not getting out when I was first really honest with myself that something was wrong in the marriage in 2004, 3 years after we married, instead of finding myself in a situation 7 years later where it was so much more difficult and he’s established so much control over me.

                The wounds Travis suffered are indeed heinous. When I first became interested in the case, I couldn’t understand why someone would have done that. But then, I read about other women who had killed their abusers and in every case, there was “overkill”. I had to then think back to my own situation and realize that if I had to kill him the night he tried to kill me, I wouldn’t have stopped until I was 1000% sure he was dead.

                On the other hand, I’m surprised you don’t see anything wrong with the way Travis conducted himself with Jodi. While that certainly doesn’t justify his death, it does not make him a saintly fellow.

                Like

              • Heather

                Martinez wants to murder her in cold blood, that is premeditated murder; he wants to murder her – LEGALLY – because she killed to save her life.

                Does this make any sense?.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, on the DP, I have always been on the fence with it in general, I wish I had a better grasp on it myself. I honestly don’t believe Jodi wants the DP, and whether she does or does not, it’s not her “choice” at this point. If I were on that jury I would find the aggravating circumstances but I would not recommend the DP. The more I read about it the more my beliefs are going against it as a choice in all cases. There are some very evil people who committed capital crimes in states that do not have DP, the inconsistency is frustrating.

                Like

      • Interestingly enough, JMRJ, Arizona has the fourth highest rate in the country of capital sentences overturned on appeal. 79% of capital sentences are overturned, with almost 50% overturned at the state level.

        Like

        • Yeah, they probably overturn the sentences but not the convictions. Death is different. It does get more scrutiny on appeal.

          Like

        • Kim

          Are you saying 29% of federal cases are overturned in AZ?

          Like

          • No, half are overturned in the state courts and another 29% are overturned on federal habeas petitions.

            Like

            • Kim

              Thx JM was t sure what was being referred to with the %

              Like

            • Heather

              John, if you had to hazzard a guess (re federal cases overturned and this case in particular), now you have heard a lot more, what do you think Jodi’s chances of this happening, and could they give anything they wanted, such as an acquittal?

              Could this possibly be a happy ending in the light of all the, for want of a better word, errors? Could there be a mistrial?

              Like

              • Heather, the reality in the US – and I don’t think it’s quite this bad in the UK or Canada – is that once you are even charged, those charges will stick until the bitter end. If you fight you’ll be convicted. If you’re convicted the chances of any change on direct appeal, or on any collateral proceeding state or federal are infinitesimally small. You might be able to glean that if you go on twitter and check out “all” posts under the Jodi arias hash tag (#jodiarias). That, after all, is the jury pool or at least a good portion of it.

                Like

              • Right now, I have to believe in the appellate process for myself. If I stop believing, then you are talking to a walking dead woman. I firmly believe that if the appellate court does not conclude that at least the judge’s order that I disclose my home address and employer’s name and address to my abusive ex-husband was abuse of discretion, and the judgment that resulted from the default hearing, my ex will have yet another method to track me down to collect upon the judgment. I believe that possessed of that information, he will kill me.

                With Maryland filing an amicus brief in my case, I believe my issue has greater support. So, for now, perhaps remaining in my own state of delusion, I continue to believe. The grim reality is that less than 10% of cases are successful on appeal.

                In AZ, almost 80% of death penalty sentences are overturned ultimately, but that certainly doesn’t mean the convicted felon then walks free, and therefore, it’s may not be the happy ending you seek. However, her sentence may ultimately be reduced and that may well result in a somewhat happier ending where she will see the light of day and freedom again some day. The appellate process is a lengthy one, however. It could easily be 10-15 years or more before Jodi succeeds, if she actually does.

                Like

              • Odds are about 10% overall, but vary considerably with the kind of litigant. While it is true that “death is different”, odds on appeal for a criminal defendant otherwise are closer to 1% than 10%, after what is usually a 90-95% chance of conviction at trial. Personal injury plaintiffs have a better chance at trial – about 25-33% – but their odds on appeal are about the same as criminal defendants. By contrast, District Attorneys or the State otherwise has a 50% chance on appeal, although DA’s don’t appeal often in criminal cases because they can appeal only certain things.

                Odds in Family Court/Domestic cases are about 10% because the status/prestige disparity in the litigants is not the same, at least not usually, so it follows the 10% rule.

                This was all my own statistical study. The official studies don’t account for the enormous difference between classes of litigants. It’s too embarrassing.

                Like

    • Heather

      kim, after all the things we spoke about on the previous page, you have floored me saying this. How would the interview have sealed her fate? She’s been nothing but honest, she spoke straight from her heart. Believe me, kim, I would be the first to spot it if I thought for one second she was fake. I mean, what would be the purpose of not speaking from your heart, what would she have to lose; when you’re at the bottom you can’t go any further.
      If I were in her situation, I’d be honest too. I would also prefer the death penalty that being shut away in a box for the rest of my life, knowing in my heart that I did what I did because I wanted to save my own life, like we all would, and wake up thinking about what happened, every single day, can you imagine it, I can, it would be enough to make you literally go mad.

      Everything about the trial was unfair, and everyone deserves a fair trial. Why should Jodi have to pay for this with her life? You lose your life more in jail than if you had an injection in your arm and go to sleep. Does the court care, of course not, but they would if it was any one one of THEM. This is how barbaric this trial has been.

      Like

      • Justice

        Heather, Really? Maybe you n eed the help that Jodi needed and never got. To say her trial was unfair is and unjust, that judge let the trial lawyers do whatever they pretty much wanted. Nurmi and Willmott had every opportunity and time to present their side, and any evidence that would clear Jodi, they had no proof, she doesnt even have any mitigating info to use. All she has is family and friends to plead to save her life, thats all. Another thing Kirk Nurmi did not want to take on this case beause he knew he had nothing to substantiate abuse or pedophilia, nothing but Jodis lying mouth. She could remember everything Nurmi asked her, but for some reason she couldnt remember the answers to questions JM asked her, oh here comes that fog again. Really, I am trying to make a point that there is true evil out there and there is people who are blinded and deceived by this evil. She was not honest in the interview at all, She is still serving Jodi #1, manipulation for sympathy and using reverse psychology. She doesnt want to be on death row, she wants life and thinks she can manipulate the courts somwday to free her. She had 18 days to says something on her behalf that would shed some light on the facts to explain why she did this. Zero, none were given. Enuf said.

        Like

        • Justice, if there was a viable argument that someone else was involved who was present at the scene of the killing, with evidence to support it, and that was never brought out in the trial either by the defense or by the prosecution, would you still maintain that the trial reached a satisfactory result?

          Like

          • Justice

            JMRJ. There was no proof anyone else was helping her. It was never brought in beause there was no proof. It would have been another scenario as ridiulous as Travis being a pedophil which shot jodi in the foot because there were no proof. Jodi may have been riding around with an imaginary friend or the devil himself. May I question the motives of this webpage? The people who gave the verdict would have loved to have had something substantial to be able to give her a lesser charge, there isnt any. There was premediation and coverup here and she did it by herself. JMJR what was the evdence, I am open to that.

            Like

            • Justice, I put a comment down at the bottom identifying 4 independent items of proof. That’s not “no proof”. I would agree that it is insufficient proof to go with the 3rd party scenario at a trial, but all that means is that more investigating had to be done here.

              Again, there was plenty of proof that she was guilty, or from which guilt could be inferred. You won’t catch me saying there was “no proof” of her guilt. That’s not the issue.

              And I should add that we’re discussing evidence that someone else was there, not whether someone else was “helping her”, because if someone else was there, although she might still be guilty she could also be completely innocent and a victim herself.

              Like

        • Justice, where do you get the impression that Kirk Nurmi did not want to take on this case? Yes, he filed a motion to withdraw when he left the public defender’s office and went into private practice, but he agreed to remain on the case as counsel. Were you aware of that? Have you read Jodi’s letter to the judge from that time asking for him to be allowed to remain on the case, where she details that he has agreed to do so?

          I think you don’t understand that when he left the public defender’s office, he was no longer able to supervise the team of support staff that had been assigned to the case in the public defender’s office. That would have been a conflict. In addition, he was no longer receiving his salary, therefore, any work on the case would be uncompensated. With a case like this which was set for trial, devoting the required amount of hours to it, would not have allowed him to take on other cases. I’ve worked on several trials that were nowhere near the magnitude of this case and lasted only a week or two, and I can tell you that I was working around the clock, barely sleeping a couple of hours per night. Therefore, he had no choice other than to withdraw if he wanted to survive and take care of his obligations in life. Because the case was set for trial, the judge did not grant his motion to withdraw, and instead, ordered that the public defender’s office compensate him at the rate of $225 per hour (which is a low rate for criminal defense attorney) and assign him support staff, including a mitigation specialist.

          I don’t really agree that she has no mitigating factors, and I suspect the defense will put on a presentation to that effect, but I could be wrong.

          I agree that there is true evil out there, but I also believe there is evidence to support abuse, and possibly even pedophilia that we did not see during the trial. I think there are people out there who could substantiate one or the other, but they are not coming forward for fear of retribution.

          Like

        • Heather

          Justice, I’m not surprised she had a problem remembering, considering how JM shrieked and yelled at her; do you really think that a prosecutor yelling, throwing things at witnesses is the right way to go about his job? Asking 4 questions in one, deliberately put, so that whatever answer he got would be what HE wanted? How about what he was there for? To get to the truth, not the truth according to JM so he could hang her.

          Your addressing me like that, childishly, telling me maybe I need help, sorry, but you have just showed everyone your mentality – its what the haters say on the Travis site. Ever thought you’d be happier there, because I don’t happen to take kindly to you insulting me, however, you won’t see it as an insult, its normal language to you, and the haters on those sites wouldn’t mind at all, giving insults are commonplace to them, you’d feel at home.

          What is the point of your coming here? We have intelligent discussion putting forth opinions in our efforts to want to look at different scenarios and possibly learn something that we hadn’t thought of, and you don’t seem interested in that. I wonder why you’re here?

          Like

          • Justice

            Heather, I humbly apologize to you. I tend to go over the top on things sometimes. Please overlook my simple remarks. But dont call me a hater. I do not hate anyone so dont put me in that category.I have said nothing about hate. I do believe justice was done, and I am entitled to my opinion and respect my opinion and I will respect yours. That is a two way street.

            As in any trial there are many things that can be questioned, many possibilities. For my feelings toward Jodi, I felt more sorry for the jurors who were forced to give the verdict they did. They had to use the evidence presented to them. I kept waiting for someone to give insight on what really happened that day, but nothing really stuck. Jodi was so rehearsed in everything she said and flat, it just wasnt being taken seriously. It just seems she would have acted different, more real.

            JMJR, who is Dustin and Ashley? Where did these names come from?

            Like

            • Heather

              Justice, all is forgiven. You say that the jurors had to go by the evidence they were given.. thing was, there wasn’t any evidence of premeditation, so I don’t see how you’re sorry for them, they weren’t forced – just either brainwashed by JM about gas cans etc. red herrings, well, he had to say something about something, he had premeditation to prove–but he was just acting, listen to his voice, nothing like his normal one. He even got lost in his rants, he wasn’t at all convincing, he was desperately tryin to SELL. And thought if he went quickly and darted all over the place, every so often telling people she’s a LIARRR it would work and they would buy it. It DID! I used to sell, so I know!

              Justice, you HAVE to try to picture how You would be feeling, how You would be looking when YOU had just had your whole body torn open for others to say the most appalling things about you, tell you you had anger problems, that you were BPD, etc etc,

              How the HELL would you be feeling and looking after having to STAY QUIET and listen to it, knowing they were TRYING TO KILL YOU? TRY to imagine it?

              Oh AA would be better telling you about Dustin and Ashley, although it Must be on one of the boards somewhere on one of these threads.

              Like

            • Heather

              I mean, Justice, Martinez couldn’t very well have got up and said he had nothing to say, now could he, and so he had to make something out of nothing and he had to rush it so they weren’t given time to think before the next lot of vitriol came out of his malevolent mouth. Go it now?

              Like

            • Heather

              Justice: The best pieces of unbiased info is on the Jodi site.. I’m not taking about what people are saying, I’m talking about the list of reports, Dustin and Ashley, the ME report, Flores Report, etc. its all there to see if you want to.
              Hopefully you’ll start to see thart there is FAR more to this case than saying ”she did it”
              An informed opinion is always the best :)

              Like

              • Kim, I’d say that’s a pretty good summary of the Ashley/Dustin issue. Another item of note is that Ashley had a restraining order/order of protection against Dustin, and that Dustin had a history of violent criminal charges (not sure if he was convicted though).

                As to what we know of the police conversing with Dustin, time constraints precluded them from doing on one of the dates they spoke with Dustin. There were no further supplemental reports of the police speaking with him again so we can reasonably assume they did not.

                At the time of Travis’s death, Ashley had just moved out, yes. My speculation is that it’s possible Dustin discovered messages between Ashley and Travis where they discussed her moving in with him (her cell phone was registered to Dustin, so it would be possible). Or, perhaps there were messages of a sexual nature (as Travis was known to do with women) that Dustin observed. In fact, they may even have been having an affair. (I didn’t quite catch the name of the married woman Jodi testified that Travis was flirting with, do you? Also, I am fairly sure Alyce LaViolette mentioned the name Ashley as one of the women Travis was texting/messaging in a sexual manner. Do you remember that?)

                Ashley stated to the police that Dustin was acting “strange” before and around the time of Travis’s killing (not after).

                Again, my understanding is that Jodi changed her plea in May or early June, but the hearing was held in August. Therefore, her change of plea occurred in the months following Ashley’s suicide. That may or may not simply be coincidental.

                Like

              • kim

                Thanks, AA.

                Like

            • kim

              Justice, Ashley and Dustin Thompson were a couple going through a divorce at the time Travis was murdered. AA informed me about them and it has made me question some things, although like you, I feel justice was served based upon what was presented to the jury. Apparently Ashley and Travis were friends and she contemplated moving into his house, but they decided against it. Dustin found out about it and it sounds like there may have been negative history between Dustin and Travis. Ashley made an anonymous call to the PD asking that the PD investigate Dustin (it was determined call came from her, and she made the call because of Dustin’s demeanor after the killing). AA, my understanding is that Ashley had moved out and they were facing foreclosure on their home, is that accurate during this time period as well?

              I’m not sure what if any conversations were had between PD and Dustin. In March, 2010 Ashley committed suicide, but the suicide was by a gun and trajectory of bullet is being questioned by some, not sure if that is in an official capacity or not.

              The theory being posed is based upon foul play being involved in Ashley’s death rather than it being a suicide. In August, 2010 Jodi changed her defense from the intruder theory to self defense. The thinking is someone killed Ashley and Jodi feared for either her life or her families’ lives. AA if I misstated anything please clear it up for Justice.

              Thanks!

              Like

            • Justice, if you heard me talk about my abusive marriage in person, you might well say the same about me. I also describe my abusive childhood with a flat affect. My ex is so charming that if you heard others talk about him, you would never believe he did the things to me that I claim. This happens in abuse so frequently, and there is typically, no corroboration of the abuse. If there were, perhaps there would be less abuse occurring in this country today. You probably know someone who is being abused within your own circle of friends/contacts, perhaps a neighbour, a friend, someone you go to church with (if you do) or that you see frequently at a social event. Yet, you have no idea that it’s occurring and you may even assume that theirs is one of the happiest relationships you have witnessed. 4 out of 5 women are or have been in abusive relationships. Look around at how many women you see within the next 24 hours. Then think about that.

              Like you, I am also long for the truth about what really happened that day. I doubt we will ever hear it, however. We may be able to understand a little more if the attorneys write books. However, each side will be biased and not entirely reliable. Perhaps Jodi will someday tell us the entire truth — if she even has sufficient recollection to do so.

              Even if she did, those of you who have decided justice was served wouldn’t believe her — unless she said that she premeditated the killing and carried it out exactly according to the prosecution’s theory. Not even that is 100% possible because the police report regarding the burglary at her grandparents’ house on May 26th, describes her as having brown hair. Whereas, the prosecution tried to convince the jury that she dyed her hair in transit and the car rental agent testified that she was still blonde when she rented the car on June 2nd. Having been a blonde all my life (with lighter highlights) and having darkened my hair during my divorce after someone planted a tracking device on me as I entered a train station, I am fully aware that darkening, lightening and darkening again within a week is just not possible.

              But I suspect if she agreed with every other step of the prosecution’s theory, you and others would assume she was finally telling the truth.

              Like

        • Heather

          Really, Justice? I mean, Really?

          You remember things when You’re being YELLED AT????

          (Oh sorry, my mistake, JM was being so kind to her)

          Like

  5. AK, you asked about the comment someone made on the JAII site. I think you’re talking about the man who posted on May 7 as “Danites Revenge” saying he was the one who wrote the email to Lisa (one of Travis’s girlfriends). It’s on the post titled TA: Devirginated by Deanna Read. He seemed to know quite a bit about Travis, but said he couldn’t come forward without repercussions. He also said there were others too, but they were also afraid. He said if Jodi was convicted, he would have something to say at her “appeals hearing.” Obviously, he doesn’t know much about appeals because there is no hearing (other than oral argument, if granted).

    If Jodi is sentenced to execution, then there is an automatic appeal to the AZ Supreme Court. If she gets a lesser sentence, she can appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals, as the first step. There are lots of other steps she can take if the verdict and sentence are affirmed in the appellate court. The process takes many many years.

    Like

    • Heather

      AA, did I read that right? That there is no appeal to this farce of a trial?
      In England every case has the option of an appeal, because courts can get it wrong, and often do, especially in the US.

      So many people know the trial was a farce, wouldn’t public outcry do anything at all? (I guess I’m really smoking Opium now)

      What then is the Appelate court? I don’t understand, I thought ”Appelate” = appeal. (Not too sure on the spelling of Appelate!)

      Like

      • kim

        Heather, there will be many many appeals on this, especially if DP is sentence. If DP it will be scrutinized more heavily. However, if she truly wants DP and wants to waive her appellate rights, she might be able to do that at some point but I would think the automatic appeal might not be waivable. I have never worked on DP appellate cases so I’m not sure what happens, I just know there are many. JM may be able to answer better.

        Like

        • Yes, well, first there is the direct appeal to the intermediate appellate court and then the state’s highest court and then there are probably state post conviction motions/proceedings to attack the judgment and then if all that fails there is federal habeas corpus, which is actually granted with some frequency in death penalty cases, though not otherwise. She might try to waive all that stuff but that probably won’t be permitted. All kinds of do-gooders will flock to her and persuade her to try.

          Like

          • Heather

            Thank you JMRJ, I think its similar to the way the courts go about it here in London, you go to the Appeal Court, and the Court of Appeal is different, then it would be the Old Bailey, if it were a murder case..

            People can be held, we call it ”on remand”, in custody, but not for years like you do in the US, and in some cases we have Bail.

            What is federal habeas corpus?

            And why do the Alexander family have any say at all? They’d obviously be bised; (not to say that wouldn’t be unique of late)

            Seems the Maricopa County court finds ways to make you guilty, from what I’ve seen.

            Like

            • Heather

              Oooops yet another typo! :)

              Like

              • Heather

                Another question: Why wasn’t Jodi given bail, don’t you have that? I think its wrong to jail someone for years when they’re waiting for their trial. Its ”guilty” before being proven guilty. How can this be right?

                Like

              • She was, Heather. It was $2 million and I assume she could not afford that given that she’d indigent. As to why it was so high, I think they considered her a flight risk because she was about to go away somewhere at the time she was arrested.

                Like

              • Kim

                Heather no worries about typos! :)

                Like

        • Heather

          Thanks kim.

          Like

  6. Trialwatcher, I did get your email address and I’m sorry that I haven’t sent you an email yet. I will do so.

    In response to your questions about Dr. Karp, I’m not sure if she recovered or not. Testimony is not presented in an appeal though. An appellate court does not try the issues of the case again. It merely reviews the record of the trial court and determines whether the trial court applied the law correctly and there was sufficient evidence to support the findings.

    Like

  7. kim

    AA the fact that she continues to “blame the victim”. She refers to his hypocrisy, she continues to speak of the abuse and she shows no remorse for the killing. She may truly feel that way, but the jury obviously did not believe her testimony and for her to continue with “her testimony” may be a problem for her. She didn’t have to roll over and say “you’re right!” but she really should not have spoken at all, especially at that time. My guess is she had a canned speech ready for this verdict as she scheduled it on Sunday evening for immediately after the verdict, if it was M1. Does that make any sense? Thanks AA.

    Like

    • I’m in total agreement with you here Kim (although I believe someone else asked you the question, perhaps AK?). She absolutely should NOT have given that interview. As I said before, she is her own worst enemy when it comes to the media.

      Like

      • Heather

        So really AA, poor Jodi is damned if she does, and damned, period, interview or not. But yes, the media is/will be firmly against her whatever she does/says because that type of person will not budge. Therefore, I really don’t see it would make any difference, do you really see what difference it would make, how it could change anything?

        Like

    • Heather

      kim, whether she should have been allowed to give that interview or not, I don’t see the harm done. What really puzzles me, is when one has been asked a question, because its answered truthfully, its wrong and she shouldn’t have said it and the interview could harm her? She was right, Travis WAS a hypocrite and an abuser–but she also said some sweet things about him too, i.e, she was just being honest. She had genuine tears for him and both hers and Travis’ family.
      She may as well have lied, why? Because people don’t recognise honesty and sincerity. As far as I see it, whatever Jodi said, it would have been wrong.

      Like

      • kim

        Heather, on the interview, she just should not have done it. There was a calculated reason by her to schedule it the way she did. Why else would she not have waited until after sentencing to do it, regardless of the verdict? I’m assuming you have heard her voicemail to Troy Hayden. If she thinks jurors are watching HLN, whose to say they are not also visiting the Jodi Innocent Site as well? The jurors individually went through a voir dire when juror #5 was booted to inquire about watching the media, conversing with #5, etc. it was determined there was no issue with the ongoing admonition of the court.

        It is a good question, though, about her “telling the truth” in that interview. I will assume for argument’s sake, that she is. Good or bad, what my experience has been with judges (not DP cases, but cases with LWOP) part of the mitigating factors is the defendant accepting responsibility, showing remorse, and accepting the verdict. Issue becomes, how does Jodi do that when she is 1) either telling the truth or 2) she has convinced herself she is telling the truth? You keep your mouth shut. You don’t reiterate the testimony the jury did not believe or if they did believe some of it, determined it did not exonerate the killing. She asks for the DP in the interview, which she forgets, is not up to her. I know you and I see her differently, but I see this as another sign of her trying to control things she cannot control. And this recent “suicide watch”, I do believe it is real (many think it is another game of hers, but based upon the medical info being relayed I disagree). Because the family was not permitted to see her when she first went in, I’m thinking she went off, into a severe rage after that interview.

        Overall it is a horribly sad situation, I agree with AA, wish the 2 of them had never met. You’re not going to hear me chanting “kill the B” like others who support the verdict do.

        Like

        • Kim,I wish you’d get used to the idea that her demeanor and what she says don’t mean very much. This is a situation where either way you go – that is, a) she’s guilty of a horrific and thoroughly pre-meditated murder acting alone or in concert with another person; or b) she essentially witnessed a horribly gruesome and traumatizing murder of a person she knew and possibly was a victim of sexual assault herself – you’re not going to be seeing ordinary conduct.

          You can argue endlessly about what this or that gesture or statement means. She’s just under a microscope at this point, even though you probably can’t glean anything much from watching or listening to her, unless there’s some way to confirm it independently.

          Like

        • Heather

          kim, you see it as ”control”, whereas I see it as Jodi having a voice.
          My thoughts are that, even when someone has been has been convicted of 1st degree murder they should still have a voice, why on earth shouldn’t they be able to speak, they are not mute commodities that should just be gagged and dispensed with.
          To deny freedom of speech; well, isn’t that supposed to be what part of the US stands for? Isn’t it bad enough to be convicted of murder in the 1st degree when you, (gen. you) know you didn’t premeditate the murder, then on top of that, for people to think you shouldn’t speak ?

          Look, at this point Jodi sees her life is over so, if you were in her situation, wouldn’t you speak honestly and say what you feel, what you really think? I know I would. How easy would you say it would be to keep your mouth shut? Jodi is saying what she felt in that interview, and IMO, quite rightly so. She knows as well as I do, that however much she is honest, people will put their own slant on it, but why would you or anyone else, blame her for trying?
          Its rather like when someone asks the person on death row, about to die, if they have any last words, someone else will say they don’t have that right.
          After all, why say anything, no one will believe you no matter what you say, but wouldn’t you Want to say it anyway?

          Jodi has been in jail for 5 years, her liberty taken from her even before she had a trial. She has had to sit in silence in the courtroom listening to lies being said about her, people saying she has a personality disorder, her sex life opened up for the world to see, etc, for the last 4 months and counting, isn’t it understandable to want to be able to speak after that, hoping against hope that maybe people will see the real her and how she’s feeling about the media, her attorneys, Martinez, her family? IMO she needs a medal for keeping quiet for so long; just how many people would find That easy to do?
          I know that if I was convicted and in Jodi’s shoes and I felt that my attorneys could have done better, and my prosecutor was a bully and especially how he had prevented and hidden evidence that should have been shown, I would want to tell everyone; after all, what would I have to lose?

          Like

          • kim

            Heather, one question then, why didn’t she schedule the interview after sentencing regardless of the verdict? She is now a convicted felon and many of her rights are now stripped from her, similar to any other convicted felon (not her freedom of speech, of course). Willmott and Nurmi have to be beside themselves with this. She needs to rely on their advice.

            Like

            • Heather

              kim, Firstly I think she would not have been allowed to, wouldn’t have had the opportunity – she’d be taken back to jail; as you said, she would lose all her rights as a convicted felon. So I can understand very well the frustration that has built up inside her over the last 4 months of the trial; testifying is one thing, saying your piece freely is quite another.

              Sounds to me from listening to her in the interview that she has relied too much on her defence team already.. :(

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, she would have still been a convicted felon if they came back with M2 or manslaughter so why not schedule interview for all scenarios right after verdict? There was a method to her scheduling it the way she did.

                On her defense team, not sure if I can address that in an unbiased manner. I feel so badly for them, everyone who was a part of this trial, who has been ridiculed by a lot of people on both sides. They were all just going to work everyday to do their jobs. Very serious jobs indeed. Being a criminal defense attorney is tough, from what I heard during the trial Jodi’s supporters thought they were doing a great job. As Martinez annoyed you, they both annoyed me at times, but then again Willmott had some great questions of some of the State’s witnesses. If a criminal defendant doesn’t get the good result, it’s human nature for him/her to turn on the attorney, at least I think it is. Of course she is not happy with them right now. What are your thoughts on them? Do you think they did a good job?

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, what I meant was, that she would have had built up in her, immense frustration, frustration it would floor anyone to define; we can only but imagine as we have never been in Jodi’s situation. I am sure this is a part of the problem; things are much easier when you can relate. Things is, some people judge, saying what they would have done, when how can they know?

                Whilst some people blame their attorney when the outcome isn’t what they wanted, Jodi enlarged on that, telling us about various things that in her opinion (that makes sense, re evidence) that they should not have overlooked, such as the bruising if I remember correctly. She didn’t just condemn them out of hand, she said Nurmi was the boss. Yes, anyone would be grateful–the answer she gave to her interviewer; when you’re in a desperate situation and cannot afford a top lawyer like O J Simpson, you are grateful for anyone to represent you, but are also relying on them to cover everything, which can be extremely stressful. Sounds like they could have done a better job, doesn’t it. I had though they were doin a good job, too, but like all things, ones thinking can be altered and should be given more thought – especially when new things come to light and I suspect this was the main reason why Jodi wanted to do the interview now – before the next phase, so that she can be sure a lot of it gets known to her supporter, the jurors, not the ones who think she’s guilty – nothing can ever change them.

                I was very annoyed with the judge all the time, she did a dreadful job, IMO.
                Her first error of judgement was not sequestering the jury – as it turns out, they all had electronic items with them! And the judge wanted a show of hands that they hadn’t had any outside interference or used any media, like the internet – is she really on this planet? Did she expect to see any hands?

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, I agree with you on the judge’s performance, She lost control of this case, probably long before we started watching the trial. It could have been much shorter in duration had she nipped certain things in the bud. Everytime Willmott objected she allowed her to approach the bench. Should have said “no, move on”. The objection was of record, which is what is important for appeal. I also think the jury should have been sequestered from day 1. I don’t care if it had not been done in years, AZ hasn’t seen a case like this in years, if ever. Hearing juror interviews from other very high profile cases, I think the majority of those ultimately placed on juries realize and appreciate the significance of their role. That being said, we all know people lie, but unless there is evidence of it we have to rely on their responses and what they said to the judge/attorneys during their individual voir dire when juror 5 was dismissed.

                I wasn’t slamming Jodi on my comment about defendants being happy/unhappy with result, of course she wanted a different outcome. What I don’t understand is 1) why was her hard drive destroyed, did it contain incriminating information and did she destroy it? and 2) if there were pictures of bruises and they could be connected to abuse by Travis and they chose to not use them, that is ineffective assistance of counsel. I do not believe there are any such pictures in existence. If so, we will see that on appeal for sure.

                Like

              • Heather

                The Appeal, or whatever they call it, if it happened here in London and they heard the trial tapes (re the judge), I would expect a miss-trial to be called for. In the same token, as Martinez blocked evidence, I would expect the same outcome. However, as the Appeal isn’t happening in London, I don’t hold out any hope for anything; corruption is alive and well in Maricopa County court and Jodi will be put through it all for nothing.

                You say there has to evidence of the jurors seeing the internet, etc.. no, for one thing it would be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, wouldn’t it? As Nurmi told the judge, its pure fantasy to think they wouldn’t, so to be sure, I agree, they should have sequestered the jury. I would hazzard a guess why it didn’t happen, it really isn’t hard – it helps the State’s case against her.

                Who said her hard drive was destroyed, kim, where did you find this information, because it smells.
                As for the bruises, why assume its a lie? Why do people always do this, a Perry Mason moment, perhaps?

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, I will try to find that information on the hard drive. As far as the bruises being a lie, she says there are pictures of the bruises. A picture is worth a thousand words, is the statement there are pictures of bruises the truth or a lie?
                On evidence being “blocked” there are rules of evidence and I know there were many evidentiary rulings, again, rulings the judge made in favor of BOTH sides to omit (or allow) certain evidence. I cannot address every piece of evidence presented that was inadmissible from both sides because I do not know all of it, just a few.

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, if she had the photo on her hard drive it will be gone. Evidence had been blocked by Martinez, I know it had.

                IF this had been a fair trial other than a farce, no evidence would have been blocked.

                Given this, how can anyone believe him?

                Like

              • kim

                Heather/AA here is a link to one of the minute entries, you may have to copy/paste. One hearing was October 18, 2012, there may be others. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102012/m5477610.pdf

                Like

              • Heather

                Thanks kim/John !!

                Like

              • Heather, I really don’t think anyone is criticizing Jodi’s right to give an interview. It’s just the timing of it that we’re saying wasn’t a particularly good idea because Martinez may well have the ability to use that interview against her during sentencing. She was already a convicted felon when she gave that interview, and I’ve read that Sheriff Joe allows convicted inmates to give interviews. I’m actually not sure whether she could be prevented from giving an interview later. Since she said she would not talk until after sentencing if she was convicted of a lesser charge, I assume she knows more about that. If her interview as going to be full of remorse for what she claims to have done (which I’m not even sure I believe she did) and nothing more, I would have probably felt differently. But it wasn’t remorseful, and therein lays the problem. I don’t even know for sure Martinez can use it, but if he can, he probably will and it could hurt her further.

                Like

              • Kim, out of curiosity, what do you think her calculated method of scheduling the interview after the verdict (as opposed to later) actually was?

                Like

              • Okay, I must have missed something. Where was there evidence that Jodi’s hard drive was stolen/destroyed? I thought it was Dr. DeMarte’s laptop that was stolen in February of this year.

                I don’t think Jodi lied about those pictures. Her sister mentioned something about them when Jodi changed her plea. Also, Matt, on another site mentioned seeing her with bruises. Then again, I also don’t understand why her defense attorneys wouldn’t have used them and/or put Matt on the stand. I realize he didn’t want to testify and that he told someone he would lie for Jodi (probably hoping he wouldn’t have to testify) but surely he could have been subpoenaed anyway. I also don’t understand Jodi saying Nurmi was “the boss.” She’s the client and he had to do what she wanted him to do. Sure, he could have persuaded her otherwise which she now regrets. Again, these are all other “fishy” parts of this story that I don’t understand.

                Like

              • kim

                DeMarte’s laptop was stolen but from my recollection when Flores went to her granparents house to obtain/collect evidence Jodi’s hard drive was destroyed. I will try to find that information. It may not have been admitted due to a defense objection based upon prejudicial reasons, not sure.

                As far as Matt, what I have READ, not sure if it is accurate because of where I am reading it, is that he forged letters Jodi purported to be written by Travis regarding the pedophilia. My understanding is that is why Matt did not testify.

                Like

              • I would appreciate if you would find that information about Jodi’s computer, because it’s not something I’ve ever heard before. I have also not seen a minute order that it was not admitted, but I may have missed that one.

                As for Matt and the letters, that’s another rumour that originated on WebSleuths and I’m inclined not to believe it. For one thing, I’m somewhat of an expert in Photoshop (or used to be) and I cannot even begin to tell you how incredibly difficult it would be to take words from Travis’s previous writings and forge 10 different letters consisting of multiple pages which not only discuss Travis’s leanings towards sexual desire for children, but also his abuse of Jodi — which is apparently, also documented therein (according to prosecution and defense motions filed at that time). It would take me at least a month, working on nothing else, to create even one such one-page letter and make it look even remotely authentic, and that would only be possible if I found the right words in Travis’s other writings to do so. 10 multiple page letters would take me years to do and would require such a high degree of skill.

                For another thing, Nurmi stated to Chris Hughes that a handwriting expert found the letters to most likely have come from Travis, so there was no indication that they were indeed forged. The judge simply order production of the originals or she would not admit them into evidence — which is perfectly reasonable. Also, per the evidentiary hearing during the trial, when the letters were sent to Sky Hughes, she thanked Nurmi for them and asked about Travis’s preferred age of attraction (paraphrasing here). To me, that indicates a possibility that they were not a huge surprise to Mrs. Hughes.

                One of the awful problems with this case is that there have been so many rumours floating around, and some people, depending upon where they read, have believed them as factual. It has, therefore, become difficult to separate the fact from the fiction. I’ve relied on information that I’ve seen with my own eyes only and dismissed all the rumours. However, I admit that I see some possible correlations from information I’ve seen with my eyes, such as Ashley committing suicide and then, Jodi changing her plea.

                Like

              • kim

                AA, Matt not testifying is completely baffling to me then.

                Like

              • AA, you know, I’m glad you brought this up about these letters. The only thing I ever heard about them is that they were forgeries by Jodi, but I was always suspicious of that claim because you’d think more would have been made of that. So it turns out they probably weren’t forgeries. Another ugh.

                Also, I should mention that I read that initial Flores police report and I think it shows that he focused on JA too much, too soon, and of course we know how many other possibilities didn’t seem to receive any attention. Such as the footprints. I wonder if there’s something in Flores’ background that might cause him to focus on JA so quickly, and as it turns out exclusively.

                Like

              • AA, I put up a post about the shoe print thing. The only thing I’ve been able to find on it that has any detail is from the JAII site, where the blogger apparently watched testimony about it from the prosecution’s experts who basically said they never looked into it. Which is kind of mind boggling when for a couple of years you had statements from JA alleging 3rd parties were present.

                Anyway we’ll see if anyone comes up with anything else on it, but that is all I can find about it now.

                Like

              • Waiting until October of 2012, with a trial date set and upcoming, Kim/Heather, seems incredibly late to me to turn over a hard drive. Why was it not turned over immediately?

                Like

              • kim

                AA, not sure, I will look to see what I can find, I can think of a few reasons but no sense in throwing those around.

                Like

              • Kim, I am also baffled about Matt not testifying. On the JAII site, when he briefly posted there, he said he asked Jodi not to involve him, because it could affect his livelihood and his family. I find that difficult to understand with his name all over the media, anyway. While it’s a common enough name, I’m sure some people have asked him “Are you THAT Matt?” Perhaps I’m mistaken or he has denied it. I believe he was the man who saw her with bruises that Jodi referred to in her post-conviction interview. She said something about wanting to go to the ends of the earth (paraphrasing) to find him, but the defense decided against it.

                Like

              • Yes, JMRJ, the letters are strange. I can understand the judge not allowing them into evidence because they were not the originals though. In the plea deal offer, Nurmi seemed fairly sure they would still be admitted so perhaps he thought the originals would turn up. I wonder if he thought they would and that, therefore, self-defense would be a more “winnable” strategy.

                In regards to Flores, he’s a Mormon — just as most of the other players in this case are. Jodi is also Mormon, but was a very recent convert then. I wonder if Flores was inclined to be influenced by other Mormons who pointed the finger at Jodi because he sees members of his own faith as more honest people. Stranger things have influenced police officers, after all.

                Like

              • Heather, I briefly scanned through a few appellate opinions in AZ where non-sequestration of the jury has been raised as an issue in high profile cases. The AZ Supreme Court has made it quite clear that the burden is on the appellate to prove that the jury read/watched something in the media, and without absolute proof of the same, the trial court has absolute discretion on this issue.

                There was a very interesting article about this issue posted today which, if you haven’t read yet, you might want to. It details such issues arising in CA and MA, but in those cases, there was absolute proof.

                http://dritoday.org/post/Courts-and-Social-Media.aspx

                Like

              • Kim, if you find anything different let me know. It came across to me as a deliberate attempt not to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence during the discovery phase of this case. I will admit to having a slightly biased view in this regard, however, as my ex-husband and his attorney pulled many similar tricks in my divorce case, while at the same time, demanding that I disclose my address, my work address, and the name of therapists and facilities where I received domestic violence counseling. When I refused (which was my only non-compliance and with good reason) they filed motion after motion and scheduled hearing after hearing for me to be found in contempt of court (4 of which occurred within 10 days), while at the same time, my husband had not complied with ANY discovery, and later a pathetic attempt to comply with select portions. Similar tactics have been used in many divorce cases of friends who were victims of domestic violence. It seems we always get the rough end of the stick!

                Like

        • Heather

          No kim, you would like to IMAGINE she went of in a severe rage..

          Like

      • Justice

        Heather may I ask why you think she is being truthful in that interview. For the first time she is being held acountable for her actions. She was mad that she couldnt talk her way out of this. She is neither poor or pitiful, she is a cold bloodied killer.

        Like

        • Heather

          Justice, See my response to kim (above)

          Like

        • Heather

          Justice, can you put yourself in her shoes? Imagine you were innocent and had a chance to speak after 4 months of having to listen to people talking absolute bullshit about you, wouldn’t you speak from your heart?
          And how would You, knowing that you were telling the truth, like others to tell you you’re lying?

          Listen, Justice, so many people are against her and she knows she’s lost this battle, and yet she conyinues to say what happened knowing people like you will say she’s lying. The truth is easy to tell and keep telling; lies, well you might be able to get away with it for something on another case, but to be a good liar for 18 days straight you would need to be knighted. Why wouldn’t she tell the truth, she’s nothing to lose, she’s lost it all.

          So you think everyone in court for murder would have to be lying? Tell me, would you lie if you knew you were innocent?

          If it were me up for murder I would to too shit scared other than tell the truth, its stressful in court – highly stressful – the very LAST thing you would risk is to be found out!

          Open your eyes.

          Like

  8. Heather, I wanted to answer your questions regarding the next phases and thought I would do so here. On the 15th, there will be a mini-hearing before the jury to determine whether or not the aggravation factor of cruelty is applicable to the case or not. Dr. Horn is going to testify, but I’m not sure if there will be other witnesses or not. He’s really the only relevant witness I would think as he can describe again that the wounds caused Travis to suffer. After that, as I understand it, the jury will deliberate again. If they decide cruelty is applicable, then capital punishment is on the table. As I understand it there will be another hearing regarding sentencing.where Jodi could present mitigating factors (although Kirk Nurmi told her that she does not have any) and there will be victim impact statements from the Alexander family. In addition, Jodi’s family and possibly friends will be able to make statements about her character.

    Like

    • Heather

      Ugh, what a Charade: As far as I see it they might as well save her from going through another charade and just give her the needle now. It would be the humane thing to do, because its just one of the courts games; of course the outcome will be the same, this is just Cruelty of the highest order.
      I knew there was some sort of hearing on the 15th. The mere fact that Horn is going to be there, well its an open and shut case, the court is just going through the motions–more pain inflicted on Jodi.

      And the jury? Sure they’ll change their minds–I don’t think. I don’t see any reason for any of this, simply because its a foregone conclusion :(

      They should put JM on trial.

      Like

      • kim

        Heather, the aggravation phase is Wednesday. I think that is a slam dunk, ME will testify he was alive when throat slit. What happens after that is jury, same jury, decides DP or LWOP. Travis’s family will give victim impact statements. Jodi is permitted to put on mitigating factors. Not sure of the timing of all of this.

        Someone asked earlier about new trial if new substantive evidence found implicating another person was there. If there was hard evidence someone else was there, independent of Jodi’s word, a new trial could be ordered, which could lead to a plea agreement to a lesser charge, depending upon the facts that turned up. That being said, it is VERY difficult to do and would be many years down the road, but never say never.

        Like

        • Heather

          Its all a farce, kim, and a complete waste of money having all these games of theatrics to sensationalise.. no one gives a damn, after all, its not their life in question–why should THEY care.

          The whole thing is worse than appalling, its obscene. Of course the ME and JM will try to make it worse, I mean, what is the point, the jurors were unanimous. Sadists the lot of them.

          Like

    • Heather

      Hi AA, just read the link you gave me (Thanks)

      I got to the part where the jurors were criticised for finding out what was happening from using their electrical devices, and that the judge, when finding out about it, had to declare a mistrial, and blamed the jurors for the cost and trying to ..WHAT?!?! ……….make them feel bad for the defendant having to lose more of his liberty whilst waiting for another trial? Wow, just Wow! And we think the court ..gives a damn?!

      Unreal!

      This case with Jodi is turning into more of a farce than ever, its got really stupid now. Its all a big game to the court! They’re all players!

      Straight out of Alice in wonderland, with the Judge being the March Hare and JM the Mad Hatter.
      .

      Like

      • I loved the fact that particular judge let the jurors know clearly what they had caused. I personally believe each and every one of them should have been held in contempt of court, fined and perhaps even imprisoned overnight for their misconduct. What a message that would send out to other potential jurors.

        Like

        • Heather

          Well, yes, AA, me too, but I’m looking at that judge a bit tongue in cheek with reference to what I have seen in this case and others, I suspect, mainly because of the whole rotten judicial system in the US in general, especially in States such as Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma.

          Like

        • Heather

          Ha, I wish it would apply to prosecutors. JM needs a long jail term and I wish I could be the one to give it to him, ok AA, you can too!

          Like

  9. AK

    AA or Kim, question for you: if other individuals come forward to testify in support of Jodi: will the case be reopened?

    Like

    • LOL I’ll field this one.

      The chances of that happening at this juncture are vanishingly small, although if it were me I would try, prally after spending a week without sleep driving investigators to come up with evidence of likely 3rd party perpetrators, and knowing that no matter what I came up with the case would just proceed to sentencing.

      But there are collateral proceedings after conviction and sentencing that can consider new evidence. In theory. In practice nobody does anything after a jury convicts.

      Like

    • Kim

      It’s possible, but a long way down the road. Although I agree with verdict if there was evidence independent of Jodi that showed she was a participant with another or forced to participate I would take on the case myself if I could! I would also support lesser charge as well, if applicable under circumstances.

      Like

    • Heather

      That, AK, is a very good question, one I was going to ask.

      Like

  10. Dennis

    For those of you who think Jodi Arias is innocent, or guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree only, did you watch all of her testimony? If you haven’t you should as it was one of the greatest pieces of evidence against her.

    Does anyone believe that Jodi Arias had a fog after shooting Travis or is it that it’s impossible to assert self-defense, even a passion defense, if you have to explain why you essentially decapitated your victim, stabbed him more than 20 times, once directly in the heart, and shot him for good measure?

    As to evidence that Jodi Arias did not premeditate the murder, there may be some, but there’s more that shows it’s evident.

    Why stage a burglary? Because if you don’t the police trace the caliber back to a gun that was in your home.

    Why not take other guns? Maybe they were too big too fit in her purse, maybe she felt more comfortable with it than others, but why in the world would a burglar only take one gun?

    Why would she use a credit card and not cash? Well, to do the things she did she would have had to take out cash anyway which would have been documented itself.

    Jodi claims to have returned a gas can to Walmart when there’s no record of that which Walmart would have. At a gas station where she claims she only had two 5 gallon cans there are three separate purchases: two for gas and a third one for cash that isn’t listed but adds up to 5 gallons of gas. Why is she lying about the gas can?

    Why does her cell phone go dead when it does? I suppose it’s just a bad coincidence for her?

    Why is her license plate upside down? Because she took it off at some point so her car couldn’t be directly identified? You should watch the cross on this matter of the plate as it’s damning.

    There’s more but you get the point and I probably won’t move anyone anyway. lol

    Finally, some people seem to have a hard time thinking that this woman could commit premeditated murder. I don’t understand this at all given her cold history of deception and the brutality of her crime. But I suppose that when she said “No jury will convict me and you can mark my words on that. … I am innocent.” she was counting on the fact that she can indeed con some people. In fact, when the verdict was read you had to figure she was incredulous that not one person on the jury bought her act.

    As to others involved in the crime, I think the evidence shows that such notions are of the Big Foot sightings kind.

    Like

    • Justice

      Exactly Dennis. Being a sociopath or psychopath, she wanted him to see her face as she began the killing.

      Like

      • Kim

        Justice/Dennis, that’s my thought on why she didn’t stab him in the back or shoot him when she walked in. She was trying to gain something and when it didn’t turn out right she went with her plan.

        Like

        • The “plan”. To stab a much larger and stronger man to death? By a woman with no criminal record and no history of violence?

          It’s possible. Barely. But not plausible. You should be looking at other more likely scenarios. Did you follow my exchanges with AA about someone else being in the car when that fake phone call was made?

          Like

          • Kim

            JM yes I did. It’s an interesting theory and if it was remotely possible shame on her attorneys.
            But I do think it was her plan, and that she came up with a way to get him in a vulnerable position. You may think this inconsistent but that’s why I wasn’t convinced if gun shot last. IMO it didn’t matter which came first because the end result is the same.

            Like

            • Well, I don’t know about shame on her attorneys, because it’s the kind of thing you would think she would TELL you. But maybe she didn’t tell them, because by the time she lawyered up maybe she didn’t remember, she had blocked it all out. That’s a tough situation for the attorney, because they have to find out about it independently, and they don’t even know it’s an issue to begin with.

              That’s why I’m stressing to you that if indeed there were others there and they did the killing and she was just a witness, you have an extreme level of psychological trauma that is known to cause dissociation and memory loss. Makes for a very difficult client, not because it’s their fault but because you don’t get information from them that you would expect to get, so scenarios that may be true, and exculpatory, don’t even occur to you.

              Ugh.

              Like

            • I just can not buy that scenario, Kim. It would have been much easier to shoot him while he was asleep, or when she first walked in and he was sitting at his computer with his back to her. Likewise, it would have been easier to shoot/stab him while he was in the shower with his back turned to her (as the photos show). Or how about after sex? Most men are very vulnerable for moments after they orgasm.

              A strong man with 16 inch biceps who has recently been working out does not become an easy target simply because he’s sitting in a shower.

              Like

            • Heather

              kim, if you wanted to murder someone, would you think of a gun that would kill him or would you stab him and risk a man much heavier than you grab the knife out of your hand and turn it on you? The result could have have been much different and probably would have been, why aren’t you convinced the shot came first? Why do you think Horn lied? Only one reason why anyone would lie, isn’t there. He was caught out.

              So, she stole the gun (premeditation, what we have been told to think) and decided to stab him and risk death herself? I can’t imagine how on earth you would think this?

              If she didn’t use the supposedly stolen gun in favour of using the knife, why did she steal it?

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, again look at my prior posts. IMO I don’t think the State needed to commit to either coming first, end result was the same. I have some limited medical background as a medical social worker but not enough to say either way, but I would have presented a case for both, and I don’t think that would have been a problem for the State in getting the same conviction. Some prosecutors feel the need to “choose” a direction of their case so as not to appear weak. Again, not criticizing Mr Martinea, but I don’t think it would have weakened his case, I think it would have dispelled some of the criticisms such as what we are discussing.

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, then why did Martinez change his story from gunshot first – to gunshot last?
                IMO he did that because it would be premeditated, it was what he wanted to say in his closing non sense, nothing to do with what actually happened and he knew it. Horn and Flores both changed their story, Martinez chose the one he wanted – he had a choice. Keep in mind that he had one pupose – to murder her. Truth didn’t come into it – he wasn’t for the truth, in fact every time a whiff of it came out, he objected.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, I honestly can’t answer that question as to why Martinez chose gun shot last theory. Possibly after his discussions with Horn/Flores, I don’t know why. When I say I would have argued gun shot first I wasn’t accepting Jodi’s version of events, I meant gun shot first in the shower. And I think GSF helped with his premeditation, although I believe the chain of events leading up to murder were interrupted with their “activities” removing the premeditation from that fact pattern. In that event, the chain of events, gas cans, CD, hair color, etc. supported her state of mind for what went on in the bathroom that day. Does that make sense? IMO that was State’s biggest hurdle for premed conviction. It came down to the timing of when she inflicted the first wound, and how much time she had to think about it, which from the jury instructions we know does not need to be a long period of time. And I think the “state of mind” evidence helped them get to that point for the conviction.

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, you surely must be able to see that JM/Flores/Horn were all on cahoots with one another?
                I can imagine their private conversations over dinner, ”So, what will it be, shot first or last? As you have both changed your story, which one do you think feasible that I should go with? Do you think they bought it that you made a typo error, Horn, and you miss-heard, Flores?”

                And CD’s, Gas cans, hair colour.. no, all it shows is that she acted normally – all these were red herrings, well, the prosecution/State had to have SOmething, didn’t they? And sure enough it worked. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing, and if you shout, rant and rave even louder, its tremendous!

                Well, most people bought it, didn’t they?

                Like

            • Heather

              kim, How much more ”vulnerable” could one get when they are asleep? After Jodi arrived that night they went to bed, why not shoot him then? An easy target, don’t you think?

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, I’ve stated my thoughts on that in a prior post. IMO there was a reason she murdered him at the time she did.

                Like

          • John

            Using as an argument that someone has not criminal record is pretty shallow. A LOT of people commit crimes over and over again yet have not previous record as they have not been caught. It really means nothing. The guy in Cleveland that kidnapped and held the 3 women for 10 years must be innocent because there is no criminal record that he did that before. Supposedly even his own family did not know that he was capable of that. There you have it. HE MUST BE INNOCENT. The police need to look elsewhere.

            Like

            • It’s a good point that the lack of a criminal record would not mean, all by itself, that a person didn’t commit a particular crime. Fortunately, that’s not the argument I made. It doesn’t follow that the lack of a criminal record means nothing. It’s certainly one thing to take into account.

              Like

            • Justice

              John, My sentiments exactly.

              Like

        • Kim, no offense, but I’m really surprised that you think that’s plausible. She had no history of violence (other than one incident of kicking her mother under the table). She had no criminal record of any kind. She maintained good friendships with a couple of her ex-boyfriends (Darryl and Matt). She had previously been in an abusive relationship with Bobby Juarez (who has abused at least one other girlfriend). And she came across as a pacifist — in her journals and to people who knew her. Of course, the Hughes now claim that she looked scary to them when they were discussing her with Travis, but I don’t honestly believe that. They cared enough about her to discuss their opinions that Travis was abusing her emotionally prior to that, even though they were his closest friends. And when Nurmi sent the letters from Travis to Sky Hughes, her initial response was to thank him, and ask about his age of preference for fondling children. I think there’s far more going on there, especially with Jodi’s comment about Travis chasing a naked 4 year old with a bible and mocking the Catholic church. I strongly suspect that was the Hughes’ child.

          Like

          • Kim

            AA none taken :) I honestly think she could not let him go. That she had an anger toward him that festered. People snap. The whole pedophelia makes no sense to me. Women put up with a lot of garbage like cheating and we justify it. But pedophelia, it’s about a child. If she’s such a caring woman how could she risk him hurting children?

            Like

            • Do you not think that it was him who couldn’t let her go? She was moving on dating other people. She joined a Mormon dating site. The main purpose of her trip was to see Ryan Burns. Didn’t you hear Travis’s jealousy about the other guy she went on a date with, Abe, on the phone sex tape? Did you not hear/see the letter she wrote to Travis trying to end the relationship? Also, why would she have moved away to CA in the April if she was hoping to reignite the relationship?

              I’ve known several abused women who stuck with their men even when their own children were being sexually or physically abused. It’s often the breaking point that motivates women to get away, but not always. The abused women I speak with who have allowed this to continue have usually said it’s their biggest shame. Very sad.

              Like

            • Heather

              Simply because she hadn’t realised until much later, she thought it a bit strange but maybe that Travis was just playing the fool, as we have witnessed him doing on video. Jodi had no hard evidence at that point, kim.

              Like

    • Dennis, I did watch all of her testimony. And yes, I do believe that a “fog” is possible. I do not recall much of the night that my ex-husband tried to kill me. I had a conversation with a friend by phone immediately after the police left my house that I did not remember. A year later, some parts of the conversation came back to me out of nowhere, but I still do not remember the entire conversation and I doubt I ever will.

      In regards to the staged burglary, the police report also traces the caliber back to the gun that was in the home, so that’s ridiculous.

      The burglar did not just take one gun. He/she also took a DVD player and cash. Perhaps the burglar only took one of the guns because it fit into a bag or purse.

      If she was planning this murder from May 28, the date of the burglary, why didn’t she take out small amounts of cash every day from then on? Wouldn’t that make far more sense?

      As for the gas can return, there’s no record of it at one Wal-mart. There are two Wal-mart stores in Salinas, CA. No one checked for a record of it at the other store. Wal-mart employees are notoriously sloppy about returns. Many former employees have spoken out about providing cash returns and not documenting them. A purchase that adds up to the same price as gas is not evidence that gas was purchased. Many other items could add up to the same price.

      Do you not find it interesting that she used her cell phone that night while STILL in Arizona, if her intention was to turn it off so that there was NO trace of her being in Arizona at all?

      I have watched the cross regarding the license plate. I didn’t find it damning at all. Why would she have taken off the plate on a rental car? It makes absolutely no sense. And if she did, then why didn’t she put it back on correctly? An upside down license plate is sure to draw the attention of law enforcement, and it did.

      Honestly, when you think about all of this as evidence of premeditation, it paints the picture of a complete idiot who left a trail behind for a “covert mission”. Yet, Jodi appears to be a very intelligent woman.

      Again, it makes no sense. I truly believe the jury was afraid of the repercussions if they had NOT convicted her of first degree murder, and I also believe they watched the media.

      Like

      • How did the upside down license plate draw the attention of law enforcement? Where? When?

        Like

        • That occurred in Utah on the way to the PPL meeting a little before noon the day after the killing. A police officer pulled Jodi over and gave her a warning.

          Like

          • So Ryan was with her at that point? Well, it doesn’t matter as far as the timeline goes. Way too late to fill in any gaps.

            What’s a little weird is that putting a flag upside down is internationally recognized as a distress signal.

            Like

            • Yes, Ryan was in his car. Jodi followed behind in her rental car.

              Wow, I didn’t realize that could have been considered a distress signal. Weird indeed.

              Like

              • Is there anything in Jodi’s background to indicate she might have known that turning something upside down is a distress signal?

                Sorry to keep picking your brain but you seem to have a lot of details.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA wasn’t it turned upside down prior to arriving at his house?

                Like

              • Kim, I don’t think there’s any way to know when it was turned upside down. All we know is that it was upside down when Jodi and Ryan were driving to the PPL meeting in Utah.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA forgive me I’m getting sleepy lol but didnt the skaters at Starbux turn it upside down according to Jodi? I thought they were messing with her car.

                Like

              • I believe that was Jodi’s assumption as to what happened. She saw them messing with her car when she came out of Starbucks, but she didn’t know until she was pulled over that the plate was upside down.

                Like

            • I don’t know, JMRJ.

              Like

              • Well, you see the significance of this? Between the cigarette smell in the car and a distress signal you could infer both that there was someone else in the car and that it was not a friend, although he was apparently gone by the time she was actually pulled over.

                Like

              • If there was someone else, he was apparently gone by the time she got to Ryan Burns’ house in Utah. Having someone else in the car, and I suppose, another person following behind in a different car, also might explain why she took such a bizarre route from Mesa, AZ to Utah, which took far longer than it would have if she had gone a direct route.

                Like

              • Why do you suppose there was another person following behind in a different car?

                Like

              • Well, if we assume there was someone in the car for part of Jodi’s trip, then how did that person get back to Arizona?

                Like

              • LOL there are lots of ways, buses and so on, but you’re right it’s a lot more convenient if there’s someone else waiting in the wings. Makes sense too, because you wouldn’t want to leave your own car parked at the house where the dead body was. Rather incriminating. So you take your car, and you put a second guy in her car while you decide what you’re going to do with her.

                This is a viable scenario. Scary.

                Like

              • Right JMRJ, I don’t think there’s a lot of public transportation in that area either. Also, remember Jodi’s first story was that there were two intruders.

                I’ve never been able to figure out why she took such a strange route to Utah. Either it was because she was in a state of fugue and alone, or perhaps because there was another person in the car.

                Like

      • Justice

        AA. Jodi was smart and they may have had trouble proving she was at Travis’ at all, but she left the camera and her own bloody handprint on the wall. She accidentally left the handprint, and didnt mean to throw the camera in the washer or maybe thought the washer would destroy a ll evidence. Have you ever watched fatal attraction, this was a real fatal attraction. You have to use common sense, yes things can be twisted and turned to cause doubt in anything, but there was nothing they could twist to this to create a reasonable doubt. The jury did their job.
        even Jose Biaz agreed it was a correct and just verdict.

        Like

        • What has Jose Baez got to do with this?

          Like

          • Justice

            JMRJ. He was on HLN after the verdict very bri3efly and was asked what he thought of the trial and verdict, and he said he had to agree. That was all. Just interesting. Surprised me.

            Like

            • Heather

              Justice, and That, after proving that he could get up on the shelf and grab the gun – and he was even heavier than Jodi, plus saying that the only thing one should go by, is the evidence, and he showed there was plenty of evidence to substantiate Jodi’s consistent testimony for 18 days on the stand.
              Seems Jose Baez is fickle, though he didn’t come across like that.

              Like

          • Kim

            JM this is your blog right? You want me to email you picture I have? It’s thought provoking at the very least. It’s the pic of Travis’s eye and the reflection of Jodi/possibly others.

            Like

            • No, I’ll take your word for it. You put up a post about what would seem to be a very damning fake phone call by Jodi to Travis and apparently with some information from AA a case can be made that she was not alone in the car at the time, and that the person who was with her was not a friend, so I was wondering if that changed your view of that phone call at all.

              Like

              • Kim

                JM her tone was so businesslike and matter of fact, similar to Sunday nights call to Troy Hayden. Plus, she sent him a lengthy email a few days later when back in California, similar context, discussing plans with him.

                Like

              • Wow, Kim, I thought she sounded stressed in that call to Travis that night. Actually, the person who put up that video (obviously someone who agrees with you based on their comments) also said Jodi sounded stressed and frazzled. If you recall, that call lasted a considerable amount of time, much longer than the message. Jodi testified that she recorded, erased and re-recorded several times, which makes sense.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA ill listen again. I recall her talking fast, similar to Troy voicemail, and it was just a bizarre call after what happened. But the email, flowers to grandma, letter to famy were also bizarre

                Like

              • I agree Kim. A 20 page letter to the family? Wow. But all of that could have been survivor guilt.

                Like

            • Heather

              Hi kim, could you send me that photo?

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, sure, where can I send it? When I do email it to you I can walk you through the different scenarios, it took me days to finally see something. That makes the picture suspect, as Juan said we can all see different things, and the defense expert, with the great equipment, did not see any of the other scenarios.

                Like

        • Don’t you think it’s ridiculous that a photographer would assume evidence would be destroyed from a camera simply by putting it into a washing machine? I’m not a photographer and even I would know better.

          I don’t understand how you can compare the movie “fatal attraction” to this relationship at all. Jodi moved back to CA to get away from the relationship. Travis continued to contact her. Did you not hear the phone sex tape?

          At the same time he was texting one girlfriend that Jodi was “stalking” him and he was afraid of her, he was also texting Jodi at the same time. He told Jodi and other women that his ex-girlfriend Deanna was a stalker. That’s the type of behaviour abusers engage in. We call it a “smear campaign”.

          Travis threatened suicide to manipulate one woman to come over to his house. Jodi didn’t do that, like the female lead in the movie.

          There’s absolutely no evidence that Jodi was stalking Travis, but there’s plenty of evidence that Travis was abusing her. There is apparently other evidence of that which was not presented at trial.

          My common sense tells me that the prosecution theory is very much NOT what happened. I don’t know what did happen and I probably never will. But the prosecution theory — which is also your theory — does not make sense.

          Like

          • Justice

            May I ask when and where the abuse took place. I heard nothing of that anywhere except Jodi.

            Like

            • There are apparently photos of Jodi with bruises, and a witness who saw them, and also her sisters saw them. Abuse isn’t always physical — in fact, it’s often emotional. The messages I heard about from Travis constitute plenty of abuse. I can not believe anyone would see them in any other light.

              Like

              • Kim

                AA why didn’t pics of bruises or these people/sister testify about them? That’s what I found odd

                Like

              • In her post-conviction interview, Jodi mentioned that as being the one point she disagreed with her attorneys on. She didn’t understand their decision not to put that evidence on.

                I really don’t understand why she didn’t realize that she’s the client and Nurmi wasn’t her boss.

                Like

            • Heather

              Justice, forgive me but I’m somewhat puzzled.. on the one hand you’re comparing this case to ”fatal attraction”, when you have already made up your mind she is guilty as charged.. but now you’re saying that you haven’t seen any evidence of Travis abusing her?

              Like

              • Justice

                Heather. Why couldnt this be a fatal attraction scenario? I havent seen any evidene of abuse by Travis, just asking for the times she was supposely abused. I did not know anything about this case before the trial, I heard her interviews sure, but I had not have an opinion either way. My opinion developed as the trial went on. Why do you think she is sad and did not get a fair trial? I am puzzled b y your thinking on this manner.

                Like

          • Kim

            My thought on the camera is it accidentally was thrown in washer along with bedding. My theory is she was deleting pics, possibly on bed, left if there and grabbed it with bedding in her hurry to leave.

            Like

            • Justice

              Kim. Thats very possible. She probably was going to throw it away with the knife and gun.

              Like

            • That would work except she testified that Travis washed the bedding earlier in the afternoon after they had sex. Apparently, he always did that. And remember, the bedding was found in the dryer, not the washing machine.

              Like

        • Heather

          ”You have to use common sense, yes things can be twisted and turned to cause doubt in anything, but there was nothing they could twist to this to create a reasonable doubt.”

          And they DID, the prosecutor twisted everything and the gullible jurors hung onto every lie he came out with.

          Common sense wasn’t on the table, it wasn’t anywhere to be found.

          Like

      • Kim

        AA did you hear testimony about DVD that Jodi gave Daryl? And how remote was found in rental car? I did not, but someone told me Daryl testified to that, and that it was given to him when she took gas cans. If that’s accurate, not sure why JM didn’t make more if that.

        On gas can return, Jodi absolutely stated it was same Walmart, same plaza where she got Starbux. JM also asked her again so there was no confusion. I just listened to it again last week.

        Like

        • Justice

          Kim, Thats true, and Walmart all stores have the same rule on returns. You always get a receipt on returns. I always get a retun receipt. JM did bring up there was no return of a gas an to that walmart.

          What remote was found I must have missed something. Was that the DVD player remote stolen from her grandparents?

          Like

          • Kim

            Justice, that’s what I was told. There was testimony Jodi brought Daryl DVD player but apparently forgot to give him remote. Remote was found in rental car. Inference, same DVD player stolen from grandparents. I did not hear this testimony so I can’t say for sure.

            Like

          • Heather

            Justice.. that is tantamount to saying that no one in a store makes an error..
            They have rules, such as always doing things right, but how do you account for this thing called human error?

            In both stores and supermarkets, I have been over charged and undercharged. That is in England, of course, but you can’t tell me that mistakes aren’t made everywhere?

            Only last week I went into a store and they totally undercharged me– for a whole item!

            I have been in Walmart, I have also been in Harrods, Selfridges Waitrose.. and I have been in a supermarket called, Tesco’s..

            I have to say that there’s a marked difference in both Tesco’s and Walmart that you won’t see in the others, not to say that it doesn’t happen, of course–human error happens everywhere, but the work ethic and calibre of staff, I believe, does.
            ..

            Like

        • No, I didn’t hear that because there was NO such testimony. That’s a rumour which originated on WebSleuths. Both Darryl and Jodi testified that after she left Darryl’s house, she discovered a remote in her car. She then returned to Darryl’s house to give it back. Neither of them were sure which one of them had inadvertently picked it up from his house. A “smart” person on WebSleuths deduced that since a DVD player had been stolen in the grandparents’ burglary, what must have happened is that Jodi gave Darryl the DVD player in exchange for the gas cans. But she forgot to give him the remote control that accompanied it.

          Do you not believe that Wal-Mart employees often give cash without marking the return? Many former Wal-Mart employees and managers have stated that’s common.

          Like

          • Kim

            AA thx like I said I heard/read that somewhere and I couldn’t understand why Martinez didn’t run with that in his closing, that makes sense now.
            I have never been given cash on a return where I’ve charged the item. I hate Walmart, can’t say I’ve ever bought/returned something there.

            Like

            • I’ve always been offered cash on returns at many stores even though I’ve charged the item. I’ve taken that option a few times, actually. I’ve never been given a return receipt that I recall. Sometimes, the cashier has simply marked on my receipt that the item was returned in pen.

              My ex-husband used to shop at Wal-Mart in Florida. I was with him on one occasion (one of the rare occasions I was taken out of the house) when he returned something small and he received cash. He wasn’t given a return receipt, nor was his receipt altered in any way. It was very busy and the cashier seemed to just want to get it done as quickly as possible.

              Like

    • Dennis, let’s just say all your other points are arguable. But the main thing is the last: a woman stabbing a much stronger man to death after a struggle is implausible. Not impossible, but implausible. And her initial account was that there were others present, although eventually she was persuaded, or maybe badgered to say otherwise. There are likely suspects. And no one investigated it.

      To liken that to “Bigfoot” sightings is not rational.

      Like

    • Heather

      So, Dennis, you seem to have it in the bag, an answer for everything, so please would you mind answer this:

      Why, if Jodi had planned this, did she not just shoot him when she arrived, when he had his back to her when he was at the computer?

      After all, You say she had stolen a gun. What would be the point of stealing a gun and missing, not just that moment, but many other opportunities to have shot him.?

      Like

      • Heather

        That should have read ”answering” !

        Like

      • kim

        Heather, both Dennis and I answered the question about why we think she didn’t immediately shoot him. I do think all of the circumstantial evidence was a clear indication of her state of mind, that she was going to kill him if “something” didn’t go her way. People talk about the Cancun trip, could have been something else, we just don’t know. And she is also smart enough to be dangerous to herself: meaning she COULD have thought about the premeditation, not realizing premeditation doesn’t have to take hours (I know, that one is a stretch, but thought I would put it out there for thought). I am not thoroughly convinced of gun shot last. IMO it does not matter, either way he was still alive during the throat being slip, and it does not have any relevance to the verdict. Unless, of course, one believes Jodi, which the jurors obviously did not.

        One thing I would like to put out there that we are all forgetting, we are watching on television/computers. This cannot take the place of what is physically going on in that courtroom. There are so many dynamics we cannot see, hear, or feel. This goes to Juan’s style, Jodi’s demeanor, Nurmi’s style, witnesses’ demeanor, etc. That’s not a slam to anyone who participated in this trial only something I think we need to consider.

        Like

        • Sure but Kim you could never say that the question of whether someone else was involved “doesn’t matter”, even if Jodi would still be guilty because she participated with him. And again, forget witnesses – particularly Jodi – a) the laws of physics and biology both suggest that for her to have done this by herself is quite unlikely, and b) independent of that, she had no history of criminal conduct or violent conduct prior to this killing, which taken together makes it very unlikely and at that point you have to become open to other possible scenarios.

          Like

          • kim

            JM, IMO what “doesn’t matter” in my post above was gun shot first/last with her being the only person there as was testified to and how it relates to the aggravating/cruelty that will be addressed by the jury in the next phase. I absolutely agree it matters if someone else was there. If that were true her role either as a participant or victim herself is extremely relevant and if there is credible evidence found I think that could get her either a new trial or a plea, depending upon the circumstances. And I don’t mean to beat a dead horse on Jodi’s credibility/demeanor, I’m referring to it based upon the trial and her subsequent interview and some of the questions posed. Again, assuming someone was there and brutalized her in some way, yes, I agree, that would have an impact on anyone.

            Like

            • Hi again, Kim. Glad you’re still engaged here, I’m going to have to disengage soon, I think.

              Anyway, I put a comment at the bottom identifying four independent things that point to another person or persons being involved. One of those is that this is what Jodi originally said, but there are other indications. If I pick AA’s brain enough I might come up with more, but the 4 I have would be enough for me to go with the idea if I was representing her, not that I necessarily would: you might have noticed I updated the post above, having rethought the defense’s position. With the DP on the table, self defense might have been the safer play than trying the 3rd party did it scenario. But then again it would have been better still to just go for a manslaughter of lesser murder conviction and leave self defense out of it, considering the wounds.

              I sort of have gotten dragged in here, against my better judgment.

              Like

              • kim

                Thanks JM, I’ll be around if the blog remains, it is keeping me away from some billable hours though! One clarification, the intruder was 2nd version of what happened. She denied being anywhere in AZ during original interrogation. In her mother’s interrogation her mother stated Jodi told her she had gas receipts (those receipts came into evidence and gas station witness discounted Jodi’s testimony about receipts) that proved she was no where near AZ that day. Once police approached Jodi with the physical evidence that she was there, naked pics, palm print, hair in blood, she told them she was there but there were 2 intruders.

                We could all go on and on forever on this case, which is another reason it has captured the public’s attention.

                Like

              • If I’m understanding your update correctly, JMRJ, you’re speculating that her lawyers went with self-defense because it gave the best chance of lesser included offenses in the jury instruction, and therefore, was the best option to keep Jodi alive. I heard from friends who were public defenders years ago that they often struggled with keeping their client alive vs. which strategy to use.

                Like

              • Yes, AA that’s exactly right. When they’re trying to kill your client, you tend to focus on stopping them from doing that. It would be legitimate, but I still think bad judgment, to go for self defense because that provides a basis for a “not guilty”. But the price of that is that you have to argue something to the jury that plainly does not fit with the wounds, and you can’t dispute the wounds. So at a time when it’s critical to have them believe you, you undermine your credibility by arguing something that just couldn’t be true.

                I know you relate to this in large part because of the abuse, but if you look at how a jury is instructed on self defense, there is no way to square that with the throat being slit. Abuse or no abuse, she could not have been justified in doing that such that she would be “not guilty” across the board. She could argue lesser murder or manslaughter, but even that is a tough sell.

                Like

              • JMRJ, I agree. I’ve always though the biggest problem with self-defense is the throat slash. I was hopeful that the jurors would see enough reasonable doubt to convict her of manslaughter, which I think more aptly fits the crime if she did it. But I knew there was really no chance of acquittal. Without the throat slash, the odds might have there, but that really sealed the deal, in my opinion, anyway.

                I wonder if the verdict would have been different if the defense team had argued for manslaughter. Then again, with that area being very conservative, as you said, it’s a tough sell.

                Like

              • Kim, you said that “those receipts came into evidence and gas station witness discounted Jodi’s testimony about receipts.” I don’t remember that. Could you please clarify?

                Like

              • kim

                AA the gas receipts at the Tesoro (sp?) gas station. Jodi’s mom said when she asked Jodi about being in AZ at time of Travis’s death, mom said Jodi told her Jodi had proof, gas receipts, showing she was NOT in AZ (that information from her mom was not in testimony, just raising it). I’m assuming those are the UT receipts that the gas station witness, Chelsey Young, testified about. It was the whole 2 vs 3 gas cans, and why the 3rd receipt was from inside. Chelsey testified it was for gas and fraud prevention in their system does not allow 3 credit card swipes at the pump. Jodi insisted she returned 3rd gas can, WalMart and Chelsey testified to the contrary. Again, pardon the paraphrasing but I can’t recall testimony verbatim.

                Like

              • Ah I see where you’re coming from now, Kim. I don’t think Chelsey contradicted the gas can return though. That was the Wal-Mart witness.

                I found the interrogation of the parents a bit strange to be honest. Is that typical in a police investigation to interrogate the parents of a suspect?

                Like

              • Kim

                AA correct, but chelsey contradicted Jodi’s testimony about 2 gas Hans being filled in it. She testified supporting the 3 gas cans filled. On parents’ interrogation not sure how that came about either. Possibly trying to get some insight into Jodi’s background trying to figure out what could have caused her to do something like that?

                Like

              • Kim, do you mean in regards to the amount of the purchases — the amount of gas? I didn’t pay good attention to that testimony, to be honest.

                I really thought it was strange that the parents were interrogated like that. Jodi didn’t live with them and was 28 years old, at the time. However, the father saying that she had been moody (sometimes nice, sometimes angry, other times overly emotional) for a year and a half — exactly the length of time she’d known Travis — also supported abuse in my opinion. My friends have said the same about me and how different I am now.

                Like

              • Kim

                Yes, AA the amount of purchases, what they were for, and why one was not thru pump. On parents, I gathered relationship strained since she moved out. I don’t know why else police spoke with them.

                Like

    • Heather

      Dennis, you are, from what I have read in your post, the sort of person who, if it was proved beyond reasonable doubt (we say a shadow of doubt), that Jodi was in fact innocent of the charge levelled against her, you, and others like you, would still say she is guilty, for no other reason than you would have to concede you were wrong, and you and other like you won’t do that, you can’t.

      So, lets recap: You obviously think that someone could kill a person and be perfectly normal afterwards, I mean, why would it be traumatic at all?

      So, stab him once or twice, there’d be no fear at all that your attacker who is bigger and heavier than you, might just be able to get up and kill You, nope, no fear of that, none whatsoever.

      And of course the police wouldn’t pull you up if they saw your number plate upside down, or removed it wouldn’t perturb them at all, they wouldn’t flag you down, they’d just think the driver had forgotten to put it back or put it straight, would be their normal reaction to that.

      And it COULDN’T be due to the fact that she knew she was innocent when she said that no one will convict her, that to you isn’t a possibility. Yes, a young and immature statement to make, but she didn’t even think about that, and why? Because it was the truth, however, she forgot one very important point: The people in AZ/ other parts of the US don’t want to believe her it, that the more truthful you are, the more guilty you are, nope, she knew she was innocent; it wouldn’t have crossed her mind how others wouldn’t see it.

      That is one unfortunate fact about life, tell the truth and no one will believe you. No one ever sees that there are some honest and truthful, because to THEM and you, Dennis, they just DON’T EXIST.

      The one thing I have learned? What is the point in being honest? None at all, it just comes back and bites you in the butt.

      FACT: when deliberating on whether someone is guilty of murder, what do you think of first? Whether that person could be innocent? No. You are wanting to look for reasons, even the slightest reason will do to find the person guilty. You start to make the guilty verdict in your mind, fit, and why? Because you have decided it. Finding someone innocent, well, that’s it, I mean its not really what you want, is it, I mean, hey, just look at all the possibilities and things you can tie up, make fit; innocence had been thrown out and is now long gone, never to return.
      Oh and I must just add lol, well, its mandatory.

      Like

      • Heather

        So, the people who say Jodi is lying, are really just judging her by their own standards,

        But there’s one thing I have to asky about those who say Jodi is lying:

        Would YOU tell the TRUTH if YOUR LIFE depended upon it?

        There would be only one reason why you couldn’t tell all: You or your family had been threatened.

        FACT: Others are too scared to come and testify. Those who are adamant that Jodi is lying have forgotten (memory loss), that at the bottom of this is the Mormon religion.

        Like

        • kim

          Heather,
          I can’t speak for everyone, only myself and how I came to my conclusions, I’m sure similar to how you came to your conclusions. I also think in a case this serious the allegation that professionals, on either side of this case, “lied” is ridiculous. I don’t think ALV “lied”. I don’t think DeMarte “lied”. Either people believed them or they didn’t (or ‘liked/disliked’ them seems more appropriate from what I’m reading with all of the name calling from both sides), and for the most part it seems to cut down the middle, if you believe in Jodi’s innocence or not guilty of M1 you believe her witnesses, if you believe State proved it’s case you believe State’s witnesses. Quite frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if the jury disregarded all of the psych testimony, on both sides the direct/cross of all of them went on way too long and much was lost in the presentation.

          As far as Horn’s “typo”, it was a checked box that is at issue regarding the dura mater (sp?). That does not in and of itself discredit his report or his autopsy findings. He had no issue admitting his error. I think Willmott was a little annoyed with the juror asking that final question, she was saving it for closing, to discredit him. Had it been a huge error she had every opportunity to drill him on it during her cross and she left it alone. Once juror asked the question she had to get into it. I’m so thankful for that juror because it allowed the issue to be discussed. On the gun shot first/last issue, the State lost me on that, I would have handled it differently, but I hesitate to criticize anyone’s judgment. Again, I think “lying” is a strong allegation, but there was definitely miscommunication between the witnesses at the very least.

          No, I would not risk lying if my life was at stake. But Jodi did and started that ball rolling down hill by saying she was “nowhere near Mesa, AZ” when Travis was murdered, and that is where her problems started. I don’t want to beat a dead horse because we have all hashed and re-hashed the evidence presented at trial. What I’m interested in is the pre-charge investigation, in particular, the Thompsons.

          AA, so it was a year and a half after Travis’s murder that Ashley committed suicide, correct? But her tip regarding her husband was immediately after the murder?

          Like

          • Heather

            kim, this reminds me of a game where you have to guess from memory what was on the tray..

            Re: Jodi’s lies, we all know she lied then and we know why, others though convinced she’s just a liar and a cold blooded killer. So now you believe what Jodi said was the truth? As much as she can remember.

            I cannot understand how you can say it was ”miscommunication” from the witnesses for the prosecution? These witnesses testimonies are Crucial, its a murder DP case, they are the experts brought into court, they took an Oath – and lied.

            A genuine error, possibly for one person? I might be able to understand that one – at a stretch, but Horn, Flores, Doc Tot and Hughes? Nah, its just not credible, kim, IMO. Far far too much of a coincidence. Did any of them want to admit it, of course not, their body language, facial expressions, going red in the face or looking sheepish, confirmed that, well, to me, anyway.

            Like

            • kim

              Heather, no, I don’t believe much of what Jodi has said. She says she wants the DP, nope, don’t believe that either.

              Like

              • Heather

                kim, you really think she would choose her life to be spent in jail until she died? I definitely wouldn’t. As she stated, death would mean freedom and I understood what she meant. What life would she have in jail, knowing that she had to kill to save her life? That would be hell on earth for anyone.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, I don’t know, everyone is speculating as to her “reverse psychology”, but I’m not sure I agree with that. Supposedly they put her on suicide watch after that comment, which I think is a bunch of malarkey. I agree, that was a very reasonable statement to make. My hunch, and I’ve read a couple “unconfirmed” reports, is that she had a major meltdown the day of sentencing. The report said the stun gun was used on her. Again, it could just be social media bs, but it would not surprise me if she broke down, who wouldn’t under the circumstances?

                Like

              • Heather

                omg kim, a .. stun gun..? lol That has to be THE most absurd thing they will ever come up with! What complete and utter bullshit that they’re having so much fun making up. Reverse psychology? That is BS too!! They’re trying to stir the pot to incite even more hatred – they’ll have her in chains next!

                That is precisely what they’re doing – having people tie up having a meltdown with using a stungun! These people are stupid!

                Thing is this type of person will buy it, hang onto it, go to another hate page and perpetuate the rumour.

                Its like what happened in the war with messages, it stated out as, ”Get reinforcements, we’re going to advance, and became, ”Get three and fourpence we’re going to a dance!” :)

                Some things are WAY too absurd to even discuss!!!!

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, I did not say I agreed with the stun gun story, I said it is being reported in social media. I read the bullshit from both sides. What I do agree with is I think there was more than her statement “I want DP” to put her on a suicide watch, especially an elevated watch. Under the circumstances that is a reasonable statement. Also, her family was unable to see her during the first couple of days, so something more had to be going on with her. It would surely be reasonable for her to fall apart at this point.

                And there is such bullshit being tossed around from the other side too. Now Jodi has evidence on her computer of Travis chasing a little naked boy around a room with a bible? I want to see that!

                Like

              • Heather

                Ah, kim.. you will never see that photograph. know why? SOmeone destroyed her hard drive.

                That’s the thing, no one looks at the unsaid, only what has been said and only when its against Jodi; there’s been so much corruption. Obviously her computer was seized by the police, Flores..
                How can anyone believe a witness for the prosecution who gives an excuse of ”misunderstanding” ? Perhaps he didn’t understand that computers and the like for a murder case shouldn’t be tampered with.

                I knew you were just reiterating what you heard from the media, kim!

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, NO it is NOT what I heard from the media, I heard this by Mr Martinez in court during one of the hearings. Please stop saying everything I hear is from the media. I read the minute entries in the docket, I watched the trial, and I am smart enough to come to my own conclusions. When I DO hear something from the media/social media I preface my comment or acknowledge it. Thank you.

                Like

              • Heather

                Sorry kim, I could have sworn you mentioned the word media, my mistake. Martinez said this, well, he may as well be Nancy Disgrace, what difference?
                Both want her dead.
                What hearing did you hear him say this, kim?

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, it was one of the televised hearings outside of the jurors’ presence. I don’t think that was the specific issue for that hearing but Nurmi raised an issue about some evidence and Martinez commented on the hard drive. I checked the minute entries on the 2 dates I mentioned and neither specifically mentioned hard drive, only discussing specific evidence State wanted to admit, and some was admitted some not. When I have more time I will look for something credible.

                At some point we do have to get our information from some media source if we are not personally observing it. I don’t understand the “death prayer” mentality of a prosecutor because I have never handled a DP case in my career, not sure I would feel about that if I ever had to seek it. Guess that answers it, I wouldn’t be on the case. It depends upon what media source we are relying on, no problem looking at any inflammatory site and doing independent research from what you read. If you are relying on the innocent website you can bet it is also not 100% accurate with the information being posted by everyone. Not saying that you are, just point out there is no totally “unbiased” side when you go to an unneutral (is that a word?) site, whether it is NG or the Jodi site.

                Like

              • Heather

                I do disagree about the jodi site, and it really isn’t any bias involved, really. The people there, well, some legal people, others who want to find out, look for evidence from reputable places and there’s a lot one can find out. I also, (getting off course here), found the link to the film ”12 angry men”, if you haven’t watched it, its well worth it. The jodi site is where a lot of AA’s info came from, I have found every bit of what they say, to be true, things I didn’t know about; people there aren’t, well, biased.. its the wrong word.. they look for information and put the pieces of the jigsaw together that makes sense. People on there check things out, read reports, for example..

                This sort of thing is what I find sneaky and distasteful, why was it said in a private hearing, the jury should have been privy to that information. I can only guess why they weren’t privy to the hard drive.. not that it would have made a darn bit of difference to the outcome–just being open, telling the jury everything would be a start, it all helps to make an informed decision..but JM wasn’t interested in fairness – that was The very LAST thing on his mind. IMO

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, the jury was not even selected at that point when the original hearing was held in October/2012. Not sure if you are referring to that hearing or the one I mentioned where there were some evidentiary issues brought up by the attorneys. There were several discovery hearings and many other pretrials/hearings going on years before the jury was chosen in December of last year. Nothing is being “hidden” from the jury there are matters that could be prejudicial to both sides that must be dealt with at side bar/in chambers. A hearing would be inappropriate if it were ex parte, but I have heard nothing about any such ex parte meetings in this case.

                Like

              • Heather

                Kim, I only stumbled on this case in early February of this year.

                And I have to disagree about evidence not being admitted. For a start, some of the evidence was submitted late, I read that and in her interview Jodi confirmed that there was some evidence that was ”hidden”

                I read that JM and Nurmi were arguing bitterly over JM not allowing some evidence that would have been excellent for Jodi and would have confirmed what she said. Did JM want that? No. Also JM told Nurmi that nothing was found on TA’s computer but when the defence looked they found some. This was why they argued, JM wouldn’t allow it.

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, of course Jodi says evidence was hidden.

                AA, I have a question about the Ashley Reed suicide. I read her autopsy report then I read an article where a police sgt’s suicide was questioned. I didn’t see anything specific about Ashley’s suicide being questioned. Did I miss it or is the inference because same ME who ruled sgt’s suicide ruled hers a suicide the issue? Not sure if this is noteworthy, but Ashley died in March and Jodi changed to self defense in August according to my timeline.

                Like

              • Kim, regarding the Ashley “suicide”, the path of the bullet was downward. Inconsistent with suicide, but it doesn’t rule it out. Again women who actually commit suicide almost never use a gun. Might have been other indicators of suicide, such as a note, position of the gun vis a vis the body, and so on. But none of that is in the report.

                Absent some other indication of suicide, though, the ME report doesn’t support a conclusion of suicide. Should have been undetermined. Suicide is contraindicated by the downward path of the bullet. Beyond that, legally speaking, there is a rebuttable presumption against suicide.

                Like

              • kim

                Thx JM, wasn’t sure if there was anything else, as there was another suicide from the same ME (not same ME as in Jodi’s case) that was questioned, it was a police sgt’s suicide.

                Like

              • Heather

                Well kim, Jodi only corroborated what I had read from a reliable source. On its own, I would tend to agree with you.

                Lets face it, some things weren’t investigated.. can only really be one reason – because JM wouldn’t have it. Its the State’s case :(

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, not being funny, but check your previous email, before the last one, and you do mention the media.. just saying.

                Like

              • kim

                Again, it goes to the source of the media and what you do with the information.

                Like

              • Kim, I’ve read comments that Ashley’s family questioned her suicide but I’m not sure if they’re reliable or not. Whether or not an official inquiry was made, I am honestly not aware. I know some people following this trial have made attempts to get a copy the police report that have been denied, so perhaps there is an official investigation ongoing. To some more knowledgeable than me, the ME’s report seems sparse (as in the caliber of bullet wasn’t mentioned) and the bullet trajectory seems “off” along with the entrance wound. I’m no expert in this area, though. Ashley died in March, and Jodi first attempted to change her plea in June, but the hearing wasn’t until August (as I understand it). Is that suspicious? Perhaps.

                Like

              • In Kim’s defense, Heather, I’ve not found her to be a person who cites what she hears on the media or other forums, without first qualifying and/or asking if what she heard was true. I think Kim is an incredibly fair person. Thus far, she’s been incredible to chat with about this even though we don’t agree on some things. This has been a fabulous and very polite debate. Kim has set out her points and how she came to her conclusions, and she has allowed us to do the same. That’s not anything I’ve seen occur elsewhere.

                Also, there are always evidentiary hearings before and during any trial which are outside of the jury’s hearing and based largely on rules of evidence. Without them, a trial would be a free-for-all. I worked for a barrister in Ireland when I was in university there. Their system is almost identical to the British system, and the same types of hearings occurred there although I can’t remember the term we used for them as it was so long ago. My sister worked for solicitors in both Engand and Ireland and I remember her talking about trials their offices had that were being handled by barristers in which there were similar hearings. In fact, she was the first person who ever told me about various evidence being precluded from trials and I was quite fascinated by it.

                As for the photos Jodi mentioned during her post-conviction interview, my understanding was that those photos were available to the defense, but they chose not to use them. If what Jodi says is true and they demonstrated bruises that she may have received from Travis, I will be quite disgusted with her attorneys for not using them. My best guess is the time stamps on the pictures didn’t match up closely enough with times Jodi was around Travis, and therefore, they assumed the prosecution would completely discredit them. However, if Matt saw her soon after a visit with Travis and saw bruises especially bruises around her neck which might indicate choking, I’m really at a loss as to why he was not called to testify. Perhaps this will come out in a PCR for ineffective assistance of counsel. We shall have to wait and see.

                Like

              • While I absolutely love the JAII site, there is most definitely misinformation thrown around there. There are people who do independent research and verify what they say. But I’ve been quite vocal over there, as you know Heather, to the point of some people becoming angry with me at times, when misinformation is disseminated. Generally, I’m speaking from the perspective of how things can be handled legally, based on my somewhat limited knowledge, but I’ve seen some doosies over there. On the whole, I love the vast majority of the members and find them to be people who have looked at this honestly. Many of them, like me, doubted Jodi’s story prior to watching her testimony. And I wholeheartedly admit to being somewhat biased. I believe Jodi’s testimony in regards to abuse. I also understand that most abused women can’t corroborate abuse, wouldn’t dare preserve photos, and don’t tell anyone about it. The only corroboration I have for my abuse is a police report and an injunction for protection that he agreed to continue indefinitely without a hearing, really. Continuing the injunction makes him look a little guilty, but there are no eyewitnesses that saw him abuse me, and the only people I told were during the last few months. Does that make me biased? I suppose it does, a little.

                Like

              • There’s a fine line between drawing on your experience and being biased, isn’t there? I sometimes wonder whether I have a bias because of my experiences, but at least in my case I think not. The main thing experience does, if used properly I think, is to teach you to ask questions, not arrive at answers. I agree with pretty much all you have said about abuse victims, with the caveat that cases are different and you can’t universalize from your own experience. People react differently to different situations, there’s an infinite variety of both, but when you’ve been down the road a few times at least you know what to look for and where the turnoffs are.

                From a lawyer’s perspective, a couple of things. Lawyers do not acquit themselves well in these abuse and rape situations, neither defense nor prosecution. For just one example, unrelated here, there’s a rigid and frankly stupid dogma that a rape victim’s claim is more credible if it is promptly reported. In fact this dogma is simply the product of an incredibly lawyer-centric view: of course if the report is prompt you have a better chance of getting corroborating proof elsewhere. But it hardly makes a report more credible, and I’m sure many rape victims never report their rape at all.

                In any case, I’m not entirely sure what to make of Jodi, but to me she seems after some consideration of matters around here like a really good dissociation/PTSD candidate. Like I said, I’m not sure that’s true, she might be a monster, but if she isn’t it’s hard to fathom the cruelty that’s being inflicted on her now. I wish people would just back off a bit on these things and stop behaving like a bunch of barbarians from the most decadent chapter of Rome, and this is a large part of the reason I get interested in these things.

                One very nice Canadian lady who commented with some frequency back when I was posting a lot about Casey Anthony said that that case was important, not because of its facts but because of what it was saying about us as a collective people. I think a lot of that applies here, too.

                Like

              • You hit the nail right on the head there, JMRJ. I don’t think I can ever be completely impartial in any abuse case because of my own experiences.

                People do indeed react differently. You might not have seen my response to Kim earlier about avoidance in PTSD. While that’s one symptom I suffer from a great deal, other abused women do not always suffer from it. A psychiatrist I saw last week told me that it’s far from the most common symptoms he has seen in PTSD, in general. The most common symptom he sees is dwelling on and recalling abusive experiences. He’s been a psychiatrist for a long time with a sub-specialty in PTSD, so I believe his observances have some merit.

                One of my objections to the Lenore Walker theorized “Battered Woman Syndrome” which Alyce LaViolette, in part, appeared to subscribed to is that it’s out of date with current thinking. We have come to realize that not all abused women are even physically abused at all; that there are even varying levels of physical abuse (ranging from seemingly pushes and shoves to outright battering); that threatening behaviour (such as punching walls or doors) is a form of abuse because the woman wonders if it will be her who is punched next; and most of all, that because women come from all different walks of life and a variety of life experiences prior to abuse occurring, they may react very differently from one another.

                I think I have a somewhat unique perspective on lawyers dealing with a recently abused woman since I was one, and I went to law school and worked in the legal field for many years (although not as a practicing attorney) — and, for many of those years, I worked in a plaintiff’s personal injury/workers’ comp firm. After my husband was arrested, for the first time in a decade, I had to make choices and handle things on my own. I did not know basic things like how to pay the electric bill or who to ask. I had been kept inside the house for so many years while he handled all such matters. I was afraid of the neighbours because he was the vice-president of the HOA and when I asked a few of them for assistance in getting to the store, offering to pay, they refused to help saying they didn’t want to get involved. One even gave me ridiculous excuses such as she went to the store on a whim, so she couldn’t possibly let me know in advance.

                I had retained an attorney for the injunction for protection hearing and sought his help. Having worked in the more cooperative practice of personal injury, it was not at all uncommon for one lawyer to ask a question of opposing counsel. Opposition between divorce attorneys is much less cooperative. As my situation became worse, where my husband stole the business and pillaged my accounts, leaving me with no source of income, changed my mailing address to his new one so that I could not even receive my own mail including an appointment with immigration to renew my green card, and then repeatedly called animal control to the house to seize the cats I loved, and ultimately shut off water, I became more and more desperate. I could not make a decision about anything, and I pretty much annoyed my attorney because they couldn’t help me. I sounded hysterical when I called and I was in such urgent need of assistance, but they were busy with other clients and saw nothing pressing in my personal needs that should distract them sufficiently away from their other cases to set an emergency hearing to prevent my husband from turning off water in my house. They wanted to wait until after the water was actually turned off, and to send a cease and desist letter to my husband’s attorney first. Unfortunately, the letter itself took 3 weeks, by which time the water was already turned off.

                I didn’t realize how difficult I was for them to deal with. My needs were just too urgent. They didn’t realize or understand my fears and quite possibly thought I was some sort of paranoid delusional. “Why do you think he’s going to do this to you?” they asked me repeatedly. When I sent them emails where he threatened to do so, and I asked them to call the water company who had informed me the order had been put in, they simply thought it was an idle threat, I suppose. I also constantly sent my online bank statements showing what he was doing to my account, but they continued to tell me that, in the end, that would all come out in a divorce settlement. My problem was how I was supposed to live until then if he drained me dry. It was quite the impossible situation.

                As to your comment about the Canadian lady’s thoughts, I so agree. Many tried and convicted Jodi and threw her to the gladiators long before the trial even started — and from what I understand, the same was done to Casey. As I said when we first began discussing this here, I think Jodi’s case has taken “trial by media” to an entirely new level. The intimidation and threats to expert witnesses is very frightening to me. How many expert witnesses in the future will be willing to take on a high profile case?

                Like

              • Kim, I believe what Jodi said was that a photograph exists of Travis chasing a naked 4 year old with a bible, mocking the Catholic religion. He had friends with children of that age (the Hughes, for example), and Jodi was around them. It could be a perfectly innocent picture.

                Like

              • kim

                AA, yes, it could very well be an innocent picture if it exists. This wasn’t mentioned in trial from what I recall, correct?

                Like

              • Kim, no, the first time we heard about the picture of Travis chasing a naked 4 year old was in Jodi’s post-conviction interview.

                Like

          • Kim, I have to disagree with you on Horn’s “typo” regarding the dura mater being a checked box. It states clearly in a sentence under “Nervous System” on Page 7 “the dura mater and falx celebri are intact.” On page 4 of his report under “Gunshot Wound of the Head,” he states “without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury.”

            Yes, it was a year and a half later that Ashley “allegedly” committed suicide, which seems odd. Why would she kill herself so long after getting away from her abusive husband? Of course, there could be many reasons, but it makes me curious. And yes, her tip was made the day after Travis’s body was found, which presumably was when information regarding his death was disseminated in the community.

            Like

  11. Justice

    AA. I dont condone anything. I simply stated LaViolette was very bias. Her evaluation was based on Jodi’s stories and Jodi who was lying on many levels actually disqualified her credibility on if the abuse ever really took place. I think it spoke loudly to the jurors. Yes LaViolette was obvious that she was biased and I think when Alyce realized that her opinion of abuse was not believeable, she knew at that moment she was in trouble and I think thats what put her in the hospital. She never answered any of JMs questions, she had more fog than Jodi. She knew at that moment her career was on the line. She should have been more impartial. It is not good to trash a person who is dead and the victim when you never knew him. I really think that was the defining moment of what put her in the hospital. Many women on HLN who had suffered from abuse stated that what Laviolette did was a shame for the the ones who suffered true domestic violence. I found that interesting myself.

    Like

    • Well I don’t watch HLN because it disgusts me. The only person I heard of on HLN who was a domestic violence victim and didn’t seem to like Alyce’s testimony was that Tanya Young Williams woman, who claimed she was a celebrity spokesperson for the Domestic Violence Hotline. I have contacts that are involved with the Hotline and I can tell you for a fact that they were absolutely livid about her doing that. I’m a REAL domestic violence victim and I completely admired Alyce for the work she did in this case. I know many many other domestic violence victims who feel as I do.

      As I said before, I think we watched different trials because I clearly remember Alyce answering Martinez’s questions. She often asked him to clarify because of the confusing manner in which he asked them, but I don’t recall her refusing to answer at any time, nor do I remember her having any “fog”.

      Again, she did NOT trash Travis. She characterized and quoted from his own words. She didn’t make those words up and many of them were entered into evidence.

      What put Alyce into the hospital twice was receiving death threats and people calling her speaking engagements. Her friend made a statement to that effect, as did her partner in ABIP, the program she runs for abusers. Tanisha Sorenson, Travis’s sister, orchestrated and encouraged much of that harassment, and as a result, the judge barred from participating in chambers conferences.

      Like

      • Justice

        There were two who talked on HlN, one was Williams and the other was a model.

        Like

        • Okay, Justice, as I said, I don’t watch HLN. There are hundreds of other domestic violence victims I interact with who don’t feel the same way as those celebrities. HLN never even allowed the calls of many domestic violence victims who wanted to say that on the air to be put through.

          Like

    • Heather

      And the reason you Have to think this, Dennis, is because if you didn’t slam the defence witnesses, you couldn’t make everything fit.

      Like

  12. Dennis

    JMRJ, she claimed a lot of things in this case, like she wasn’t there.

    Jodi was apparently quite strong. An old boyfriend, a big guy, testified that she was quite strong. In fact, he was quite surprised at her strength.

    However, she doesn’t need strength anyway. If she stabs him in the heart he’s no longer a strong person, but a mortally wounded and weakened one. How is she able to stab him like that? “Hey, baby. Close your eyes for a sec, I want to try something.”

    As to Also Abused:

    The point of staging a robbery is to have an excuse when it turns out a gun matches one that was in your home. As in, “Oh, I didn’t take the .25, remember we were robbed.”

    You said you didn’t remember much on your awful night, Jodi claims she remembers nothing, nothing at all, after a certain point, which is too convenient because self-defense can’t be explained in regard to Travis’ injuries. Jodi is also nothing if not a liar.

    Taking cash out in little increments would still be documented, anomalous and would need explanation.

    I’m sure the prosecutors were aware of what Walmarts were where, so what you’re saying is either wrong, mistaken, or can be explained. Second, what cashier gives back cash out of their drawer without documentation? None that I’ve encountered. You say it happens all the time, so why didn’t the defense put some employees, or former ones so they wouldn’t fear reprisals, on the stand.

    As to the phone, the phone goes dead going into Arizona and one call after she killed Travis is made 27 miles below the border of Arizona. In that call she states she states she got lost which would explain her being just in side Arizona. Moreover, as far as I know, maybe she thought she wasn’t inside Arizona at all.

    As to the license plate, the cross was indeed damning. Just one part: Juan: Who picks up a license plate and takes it with them if they don’t know if it’s their plate? Why is it upside down? Because she’s replacing it in the dark, she’s nervous, she’s frantic for tie? Take your pick.

    As to why Jodi did things that don’t seem to make sense if she premeditated the killing? Criminals makes mistakes, especially rookie ones. If they didn’t, our prisons would be empty. And, Jodi, like many, many criminals, think they’re smarter than everyone else. That’s why they do what they do; they don’t think they’ll get caught. Remember, this woman is so grandiose she thought she could be her own counsel.

    As to Jodi being abused, there’s no evidence whatsoever. In fact, all evidence points to no abuse. Same for the ridiculous pedophilia charge. It’s clear why she claimed it, it doesn’t pass the smell test, and it’s no surprise to me that she would employ such an underhanded tactic.

    Now, was Travis an ass? Did he use her like a sex doll? Yes, he did. But that’s another matter.

    I just really, really do not understand people who believe that Jodi is a victim or being honest in anyway regarding this case.. She’s a manipulator, a cool, calm deceiver, and is most likely sociopathic: what other kind of person can make-out with someone hours after decapitating, stabbing, and shooting someone you knew well.

    Lastly, as far as I understand things, testimony is evidence, which can be discounted or used against the witness. I think that happened in this case.

    Now, as JMRJ said, all my points are arguable. That’s true with all circumstantial evidence, however, which is why you need to connect dots.

    O

    O O

    Is there a triangle there or just three separate unrelated dots?

    To Also Abused,

    I can’t imagine what you went through and I wish you well!!!

    Like

    • Heather

      Dennis, it seems to me that there are people that prefer to look at only one side of the story, and others that look at both sides equally; this is the way to reach and informed opinion in my book, without Judgement until one has looked at all, not just at the evidence supplied…. but what wasn’t supplied. We ask ourselves why? We ask ourselves WHY did the ME, Flores, Horn, Tot Doc and Chris Hughes, have reason to lie? No one, after all, lies for no reason. And we see WHY they lied.

      Some people can’t see past the injuries, some people won’t see past them :/

      Like

    • Dennis, let me suggest something to you. The issue here isn’t whether a case can be made against Jodi. Obviously, it can. The issue is whether a reasonably good case can be made against someone else, and then whether this alternative scenario might exonerate Jodi. We’re all familiar with the case against her and there’s no point quarreling about that or beating the dead horse.

      Without meaning any disrespect, it is you who have to start considering the alternate scenarios, even if you don’t agree with them. That’s how you achieve some level of certainty, or uncertainty as the case may be, about some event that occurred to other people when you weren’t there.

      So, briefly, the scenario under consideration is that there was someone else involved. This may exonerate Jodi, or it may not. It depends on whether she was a participant anyway, but we don’t even get to that point until we consider whether there was someone else in the first place.

      Jodi was apparently quite strong. An old boyfriend, a big guy, testified that she was quite strong. In fact, he was quite surprised at her strength.

      However, she doesn’t need strength anyway. If she stabs him in the heart he’s no longer a strong person, but a mortally wounded and weakened one. How is she able to stab him like that? “Hey, baby. Close your eyes for a sec, I want to try something.”

      This is beating a dead horse. No one has argued, nor could they argue, that it was impossible for Jodi to have stabbed Travis to death. The argument is that it is unlikely, that it is contrary to experienced and reasoned judgment to believe it so long as there are other more plausible options. I mean, you have to remember you’re talking about a person with no criminal history and no history of violence suddenly becoming a female Jack the Ripper.

      If you grant – for purposes of discussion at least – that there was someone else involved, there is clearly another more plausible option. Then the question becomes, what is the evidence, if any, that there was someone else there and involved? And that’s where we’re at now. Or at least that’s where I’m at.

      Like

  13. Heather

    I went to Occupy HLN yesterday.. talk about funny, they have a video of Tot Doc, its all her faces, all her expressions, it was Hilarious! :D

    Like

    • Lissa Robinson

      Hi Heather, I have been following both threads on this blog on the Arias trials via emails as the come on my phone. I haven[t responded much apart from a few of my initial posts — so many thoughts but I find it tricky to follow the comments. The two red flags (amongst many) for me are DeMarte and Horn’s testimony. And I love that video too! Also, I noticed that you had said somewhere that your posts on Occupy hadn’t show up in the Tot Doc article, but I just read two of them, so they are there!

      Like

      • Heather

        Ahh, Lissa, Hi, another sane woman, we’re thin on the ground, you know! :)
        Thank you for telling me they’re still there, the posts I wrote. When I went to look I couldn’t see one of them so I sort of thought none of them were there any more.

        Oh yes, that video was funny, though when she was on the stand I wanted to scream, yell at her, I think I did. Poor Jodi having to suffer her and stay silent, she deserved a medal for that alone (yet she’s supposed to suffer from anger and be a proper BPD!). Have you looked at Flores’ report? Definitely a bright red flag there, and did you see Chris Hughes on the stand? Yep, another red flag.

        The people who say Jodi is lying have yet to explain the lies from the prosecution witnesses. They conveniently shut their eyes to this!

        Like

  14. Dennis

    If anyone hasn’t seen this 48 Hours story on Arias before the trial you may want to watch this to get another view her.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnDarCHp3Cs

    Like

  15. For everyone’s consideration, as far as I know the evidence that there was someone else present at the killing is:

    1. There may or may not be an image of someone discernible from one of the photographs taken at the time.

    2. Jodi initially said there was someone else there.

    3. Jodi is known to have taken an odd route to get to her next destination, suggesting that she had someone else with her.

    4. When the rental car was returned it had a cigarette smell inside, and Jodi doesn’t smoke.

    Of course, if #1 could be firmly established that would nail it. But all 4 taken together is a fair amount of proof even if #1 is inconclusive.

    Like

    • John

      A fair amount of proof of what exactly? That someone else was there. Thats ridiculous. 1. May or may not. Travis may or may not have attacked her first. 2. Jodi lies even when she does not have to so whatever she says cannot be trusted in any way. 3. How do you know what route she took to get to her next destination. Is it because of what she told the police or someone else? (see comment #2. In case you have not noticed, she lies). 4. Again, who says she never smokes, maybe the car was smoked in before she got it.. None of this is evidence of anything. The jury ruled that she killed Travis. If she had some type of alternative that would deflect from that she certainly did not bring it up in her trial.

      Like

      • Hi John. You might refer to some other comments around here.

        Basically, the problem is that you have a person with no criminal record and no history of violence who supposedly and very suddenly turns into a female 21st century Jack the Ripper. It’s not impossible, but it’s implausible. A second independent point is that it’s unlikely that a woman could overpower a man with a knife all by herself, or that she would even try to do that.

        This by itself means that the idea she acted alone should be treated with skepticism and other possibilities should be investigated, and apparently they were not. For your other points:

        1. Others have claimed there’s an issue about whether another person is visible in one of the photos of the scene at the time of the murder. I can’t tell myself, I hope her attorneys looked into that but it doesn’t seem that they did; not did the police before they charged her. That’s irresponsible all around.

        2. Yes, Jodi lies, but so does almost everyone and while it would not, by itself be at all persuasive at this point it is certainly something that should have been investigated and apparently wasn’t.

        3. My understanding is that her route was traced out by the prosecution through cell phone ping data or other reliable means.

        4. There might be other explanations for the smoke smell in the car, but then there are other explanations for lots of prosecution claims about gas cans and text messages and knife wounds and so on, too.

        You should make an effort to look at this calmly and rationally. None of those items is “ridiculous” any more than similar claims by the prosecution were ridiculous.

        Like

      • The only lie we know for certain that Jodi ever told was at first saying to Detective Flores that she was never in Mesa that day. We actually don’t know that anything else she said, including the intruder story was a lie. That actually may have been the truth. If it was, then she’s “lying” about self-defense. Or, she lied about the intruders and self-defense, and went there with the intention of killing him. But the interesting part of this is that all the lies center around the killing. Her story for two years (after her arrest) was that intruders killed him but let her go. It seems like a bizarre story indeed. But JMRJ (who didn’t follow this case) has had a client that told a story like that because she was afraid, when she was, in fact, completely innocent. According to Dr. Samuels’ testimony, he and Kirk Nurmi persuaded Jodi to switch to self-defense and she did. As JMRJ has pointed out, criminal defense lawyers often have to go with the best strategy to save the client’s life.

        As JMRJ said, the route she took was identified because of pings on cell phone towers. It was actually a very bizarre route to take going from Mesa to Utah which took many hours longer than the direct route. Go ahead and plot it out on Google Maps, then look at the map of the route she did take through the Hoover Dam.

        The car rental guy said he had checked the car before she got in it and after she returned it and so, the smell of cigarette smoke was new. No one ever knew Jodi to smoke, other than marijuana when she was a 13 year old. Nonetheless, the smell of marijuana does not linger long, while the smell of cigarette smoke does.

        You are correct that no alternative was presented at trial. But a woman in fear for her family might not want to present such an alternative and might, instead, take the fall. Is it possible? Just think about it for a while.

        Why did the police not investigate Ashley Reed’s tip about her (then)husband Dustin Thompson who was later convicted of a violent crime and against whom she had a restraining order? Ashley had planned to move in with Travis when she left her husband. They decided against it, and she moved elsewhere. She had just moved when Travis was killed. Isn’t it possible Dustin became aware of some of that and suspected something else was going on? Ashley committed suicide a year and a half later under suspicious circumstances that doesn’t really look like a suicide at all. Shortly after that, Jodi changed her story to self-defense.

        Why did the police not investigate Lisa’s tip that Travis had problems with a former roommate, John Hepworth? He and Travis did not see eye-to-eye, per Lisa, and he moved out in the middle of the night without telling Travis.

        As JMRJ said, the police got their “man” (Jodi) and didn’t bother to pursue the other leads.

        Like

      • Heather

        John, the court did not rule she killed Travis. The court ruled it was premeditated. A huge difference.

        The fact that Jodi has already admitted to killing Travis, isn’t in question. Have you watched every trial hearing? Seen the lies from the defence witnesses? Could you explain why they lied, John ?

        Like

        • John

          The verdict was Murder 1. All 12 jurors agreed it was premeditated. Last time I checked planning to kill someone and actually doing are entirely different. Jodi did not admit to killing Travis that I am aware of. She admitted to shooting him in self defense but says that did not kill him as he was still lunging for her and then states she does not remember anything else.

          I am not sure what lies from the defense witnesses you are referring to although I do believe that LaViolete was extremely biased and sexist.

          Like

          • Heather

            Yes, John, that is true, she said she killed him, that’s never been in dispute, what is, is premeditation; as you say, 2 different things entirely. I thought I read something in one of your earlier posts – perhaps the one I responded to originally, a one liner, I think, which made me answer.

            John, you’d still say she was guilty of murder no matter what I or anyone else said.. .

            Like

            • Actually, Heather, Jodi saying she killed him hardly disposes of the matter. Jodi saying anything hardly disposes of any matter. Too much going on here for that.

              Like

              • Heather

                Well John, if there’s ”too much going on”, how come you think this case is cut and dried?

                Like

              • Heather, I’m not the John who thinks this is cut and dried. I’m another John. I’m the host here. LOL

                Like

              • kim

                Yea Heather, cool your jets :-) I must say I love Heather’s passion and energy.

                Like

              • Heather

                Ohhh how funny!!!! I didn’t know your name was John too, I thought we only had one John! :D

                Yes, I’m a very passionate woman when it comes to injustice! :)

                PS: Why does it say I’m responding to kim?? Funny!!!

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, I think I posted right after JM’s post. That’s why I always insert someone’s name/initials as I have no idea if it’s going to the right person. You guys are not going to let me get any work done today I see! lol

                Like

              • Heather

                Kim, nothing less than you deserve for keeping me at it LOL!!!!!!!

                Like

              • Heather

                John/kim, I am extremely tenacious when I see any injustice, I should have been a defence lawyer! :)

                Like

          • Gosh, I really don’t believe anyone could view Alyce LaViolette as sexist. She treats male batterers, for crying out loud, and apparently has some degree of success in her treatment of them. That was an eyeopener for me because I’d been led to believe that it was an extremely rare male abuser (less than 1%) who could ever be rehabilitated — and I based much of that belief on Lundy Bancroft’s book — a male who also treats (or treated) male batterers for more than 15 years.

            Like

  16. Justice

    Oh well. Good opinions but the bottom line is she killed Travis. That simple.

    Like

    • Justice, we here at Lawyers on Strike appreciate just about everyone’s opinion, but we also like comments that are well reasoned. In case you missed my meaning, this last comment of yours does not qualify.

      I would encourage you to think about the evidence rather than dig your heels in. Watch “12 Angry Men” when you get a chance.

      Like

      • Heather

        Oh JMRJ, That film said it ALL, didn’t it, it was brilliant! I watched it just a few days ago, someone had posted it on the jodiariasisinnocent site.

        Like

    • Heather

      Hey John, you could have cleared up this case in 2 seconds and saved the State 2 billion dollars!

      Like

      • Heather

        Ohh well, John, Justice.. all the same really LOL

        Like

        • Heather

          Were you sober when you gave that name to yourself, Justice? Just asking!

          Like

          • Heather

            FYI I didn’t mean the HOST!! :D

            Like

            • Well, it might be a little confusing when I say that anything Jodi says should be regarded as “unreliable”. Not necessarily false, just completely unreliable. I’m not implying dishonesty. I think she could be an unreliable witness for many reasons that are not her fault. It’s something you have to work with when you represent her. It’s also something the police should work with, but they tend to regard a false statement to them that is later exposed while implicating the person as pretty much conclusive evidence of guilt. It’s shoddy reasoning, but cops can exhibit some very shoddy reasoning sometimes.

              Like

  17. John

    I guess we could just come up with all types of suppositions and theories based on circumstantial evidence. Police investigators generally go with the thought that things generally don’t happend by coincidence, especially coincidence after coincidence after coincidence. The simpliest explanation is almost always what actually occurred. I personally think that she did, in fact, shoot him first while he was in the shower with the intent that blood would just flow down the drain and not cause a mess. Because she was such a lousy shot she missed his brain, he staggered out of the shower and over to the sink where he was bleeding profusely. The gun either jammed or she did not know what she was doing, which explains the unused bullet on the floor in the blood. She then got the knife and started stabbing him in the back while he was a the sink. He turned around and tried to defend himself (wounds to the hand) before she stabbed him in the heart. He dropped at that point and was staggering down the hallway. She got over him from behind while he was on the ground, possibly after he had already died and cut his throat. It was not at all as she had planned it to go. She panicked, She tried to clean up the scene and the camera got lost in the sheets as she put them in the washer (otherwise that was pretty stupid to leave the camera card) She realized she is not going to be able to clean this up and got out of town.

    Like

    • John

      She brough the gun from home. Travis did not seem to be the presonality to settle for a 25 cal gun. He seemed more of a 9mm to 45 cal guy. The 25 is for wimps.

      Like

      • kim

        John,
        I agree with you on the verdict. I am not a conspiracy theory type person by any means, but I do find some of the discussion on this blog interesting, especially the multiple person theory, as when that was initially making its rounds a few friends and I worked on the “eye reflection.” I’ve seen everything from 1) what defense expert testified to, 2) 2 people, 3) 3 people, and yes 4) 4 people. The 2 problems with the multiple person theory from these 2 perspectives are if everyone sees many different things in the reflection it’s too subjective to mean anything and for me, if someone else was there IMO Jodi does not strike me as the type of person who would protect anyone if it could save herself.

        Everyone has been respectful of my opinions, as I have been of there opinions. Stick around.

        Like

        • Didn’t Jodi follow through with that interview because, as she said, “a deal’s a deal?”

          I think it’s pretty well established that people who have been in a situation with people who were likely to kill them, and then for whatever reason spared them, tend to be strangely grateful to their would-be murderers.

          I don’t think it’s surprising that in that scenario she covered for them, and perhaps is still covering for them. You’ve got the PTSD thing, too.

          Like

    • Lissa Robinson

      Hi John,

      I think you have to ask yourself WHY did Juan, Horn and Flores all LIE about the gun wound order? Your order is correct (based on the actual evidence), but your scenario — just like the self-defence one — is mere speculation. Why did they lie? My opinion is they lied because they knew the gun order would raise reasonable doubt. That is wrong, and it proves that they never trusted their own evidence.

      Like

      • John

        I agree that Jodi does not strike me as the type to cover for someone else, especicially when death or life in prison is on the line.

        I don’t know that I believe anybody on the prosecution side was lying. If the facts could be interpreted in two different ways they would go with the one that is most advantageous to their theory. i would really hope that a thorough investigation was done and the belief was that she was in fact guilty. They then do what they can,legally,to get the conviction. It does not seem likely that they would pursue M1 and spend $2 million unless they really believed she was guilty

        Like

        • Lissa Robinson

          You are a more optimistic person than I John. I think someday, hopefully, that analysis of that testimony will show that they all lied.They started off with gun shot 1st and then switched before the trial once they knew Jodi was pleading to self-defence.

          Look very closely at Dr. Horn’s testimony — and what was stated by Flores as to the gun shot being first (he even said it in the 48 hours show) — and then consider that Horn wrote in his report that the dura mater was not damaged. Typo? He is basing his whole testimony on the idea that gun shot first is impossible because Travis would have died instantly.

          Since she originally wanted to plea to M2 we have to consider her story. And we have to consider laws in Arizona.

          Here is an interesting article by Criminal Lawyer, Vladimir Gagic, which might shed some light on the defence’s strategy. I think his article raises some interesting questions about Jodi being put between a rock and a hard place with the M1 charge (because everyone keeps questioning why she claimed self-defence).

          http://www.phoenixcriminallawyerblog.com/2013/05/should-jodi-arias-have-tried-d.html#.UZEtf_79UIA.twitter

          Jodi killed Travis. I have no doubt about that. I think the M1 with DP was overkill based on the evidence. It’s only my opinion, but it will take a lot more than a verdict to convince me otherwise in this case. I think she has mental issues, the relationship was highly toxic (abusive), and there are secrets that contributed to whatever happened that day. I think there is A LOT that we don’t know about Travis’ issues and the Mormon/PPL circle of people surrounding this case.

          We know based on wrongful convictions that detectives, witnesses, MEs and prosecutors do lie. We always want to believe initially that they do not — but then of course, 22 years later we discover that they most surely did.

          JMHO Sorry, I hope I don’t sound angry. Just frustrated and passionate!

          Like

          • kim

            Lissa, as someone who is not in complete agreement with your view of the verdict I will say that you do not come across angry. I do agree with you 100% the relationship between Travis and Jodi was extremely toxic. Reading thoughts similar to what you and AA have written are what have kept me intrigued and engaged in this discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversations and facts that AA has put forth in a matter of fact, passionate, yet reasonable manner. I respect your passion, too. Just please don’t start the name calling! Thank you.

            .

            Like

            • lissajrobinson

              If anything, Kim, I am just confounded by a lot of the stories and seemingly contradictory evidence. Flummoxed is a word I have been using a lot. I am interested in listening to the intruder theories, because I know a lot of things aren’t adding up. Maybe they never will.

              I am shocked at the way that Juan Martinez behaves in the courtroom. I have a lot of concerns about how the forensic and psychological evidence has been misused, plus what I see as a very emotional appeal to the jury on the part of the prosecution. I don’t think that is responsible, but possibly it has to do with living in Canada. We don’t watch trials this way or have everything splayed out so publicly for dissection.

              I am stupified and appalled at the media and their mad thirst for blood–for ratings and profits. And I don’t even watch HLN!, I am perturbed by how sharing my opinion on different sites or on twitter provokes people to call me awful names. There seems to be an awful lot of hate and violent talk out there. I am a persuasive writing by trade (freelance) so I either block it out or try to outwit them so they go away.

              I do try to stay open minded. I am genuinely curious about how others have come to their own conclusions. I do think there are a lot of unanswered questions here (which is what has likely kept me enthralled). After tomorrow, it will be interesting to see what kind of information potentially surfaces or what items are put forward for an appeal.

              Like

              • lissajrobinson

                PS Although with my numerous typos you might not actually believe I am a writer! I am getting too used to the edit feature on different sites. Sorry folks!

                Like

              • kim

                LOL no worries, I tried correcting myself earlier today and in each correction I continued the typo ugh! And I write for a living too :-)

                Like

              • kim

                Lissa, by the way, in Canada, how do you get your information about ongoing trials? Just through the news?

                Like

              • lissajrobinson

                Kim, I am concerned about the media circus, and how it might hurt the judicial process in the US, and to ensuring a fair trial. The “slaughtering” of Alyce Laviolette led by Travis’ sister is, well, obscene. Or the trashing of jurors in the Casey Anthony trial. It surprises me that people who engage in that behaviour don’t seem to realize the negative effects it may have on their own constitutional rights in the future.

                Generally speaking in Canada we have fairly comprehensive laws about trials and the media. There are court reports, of course, and news about a trial is filtered that way. However, journalists can’t always be trusted in their reporting and they can’t write anything that may interfere in a trial — and if they do, they can be charged with contempt. We also have publication bans — particularly in trials when there is a child victim. This protects them and their family. I am still learning about a lot of it myself — more recently as I have become interested in following wrongful convictions. The publication bans are still a matter of controversy for many journalists.

                Sometimes the publication bans are extended beyond once the trial has long been finished. One example is the videos that were found after Karla Homokla made a deal to help convict Paul Bernado. These tapes revealed she was a more active participant than she originally claimed. If you go to this wiki and scroll down then you can learn more about which bans they put on this particular case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

                I found this nifty document that gives a very detailed breakdown of the relationship between the justice system and the media in Canada as well as how it relates to our Charter of Rights — if you are interested.

                http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_cjsm_en.pdf

                Like I said, I am still learning! I think I get wrapped up in the high profile cases in the US because this much information is never released in Canada during a trial. It’s an interesting subject in its own right.

                Like

              • kim

                Lissa, thanks so much for the information! I will take a look at it. I’m not sure how the media situation can be curtailed at this point but I know some very strong judges who do take control of their courtroom and put up with no BS. They are rare, few and far between. One judge in particular I tried several cases in front of who is now a federal judge here used to put time constraints on closing arguments. Sometimes I had “11 minutes” to give a closing argument in a felony case (obviously not a case that lasted this long!) or he would cut me off. It was frustrating at times but he was extremely effective and had the tightest docket going. He had NO problem holding someone in contempt either, whether it was a witness, attorney or sadly, even a juror!

                I agree with you, although I was not a fan of ALV, the treatment of her outside of the courtroom was inexcusable. My opinion on all of the experts is people with make their own opinions and decide if they want to engage them in a professional capacity and NO ONE has the right to threaten or harass them in their personal or professional capacity.

                Sadly, it may take someone being seriously injured or worse before this is addressed.

                Like

              • kim

                The media circus is crazy. It’s to the point where you fear for the safety of someone who is acquitted but convicted in the public/media. That’s why I question cameras in the courtroom, it has reduced the trials to sporting events, who’s on what side. I’m guilty of poking fun with those who share my views, but I pick my forum and respect other peoples views. I have jumped onto a few twitter conversations of those who have different views than mine simply to educate myself on where there views come from and I have actually made a couple of good friends that way. The key is respect, I would never jump into a conversation and attack or name call someone.

                Like

              • Ever see “The Chase”? 1966, pretty good movie, great cast with Marlon Brando, Angie Dickinson, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda. Much smaller scale than this, obviously, but deals with the mob frenzy to lynch, or engage in ritual sacrifice, or whatever the hell this is.

                Like

              • kim

                JM I’m sure I have but my memory when it comes to movies is very cloudy for some reason. I’ll check it out again and see.

                Like

              • I so agree with your last comment Kim, about the media. I’ve said this before, but what also really concerns me is how willing expert witnesses will be in the future to testify in high profile cases. In Jose Baez’s book, he talked about how some of his experts dropped out because they had families and were receiving threats. As we know, in this case, Dr. Samuels, Dr. Geffner and Alyce LaViolette were harassed and threatened to pieces. A lynch mob was organized to post negative reviews on YouTube and all the various book sites, even though those reviewers hadn’t read their experts’ books. Even here on this blog’s comments, people have trashed Alyce for testifying. Travis’s sister organized a campaign to prevent Alyce from speaking at events concerning domestic violence. Death threats were left on her office voicemail. The psychologists had death threats as well. I haven’t heard that Dr. DeMarte was harassed, and I’m not sure if her laptop theft was connected or not, but if it was that was equally as vile. Not only that, but would more witnesses have come forward in support of Jodi if they were not afraid? We don’t know, but I tend to believe Gus Searcy when he talked about that, and he also received death threats, not to mention, he was harassed by someone who was asked to do so by Chris Hughes. The media approached a juror outside the courtroom early on in the trial. Dismissed jurors were literally hounded by the media. Casey Anthony, who was acquitted, never goes out without a bulletproof vest. In both cases, interested observers crowded outside the courtrooms daily.

                Trials need expert witnesses. Juries need to understand. And defendants have due process rights. If witnesses continue to be intimidated, high profile trials will become more like a gladiators’ arena. Somehow, this has to stop.

                Also, while I admit to using a derogatory term or two towards Dr. DeMarte, I’ve chosen not to do so here because a few posters (such as yourself) admired her. While my opinion of her may vary from yours, you’ve been polite enough to entertain and even consider my views. I owe you the same respect, as far as I’m concerned.

                Like

              • lissajrobinson

                AA, all very salient points about the media’s involvement, and how regular people can literally start to infect (seems fitting given the viral nature of how things spread in this trial) the judicial process and the rights of a defendant — now, and in the future. It is one thing to be critical, but it is a whole other ball game when you start using threats, harassment or set up rallies to bring down someone’s career.

                You’ve got to wonder if this jury was worried about what may happen if they didn’t come to a verdict that the public would respect or accept.

                To be perfectly honest, if I was committed of a crime in the US I would be terrified. I also don’t have the best past (not criminal!), and I would hate the idea that all of this would not only be dug up but passed around on HLNTV, social media or wherever before, during and after a trial. Equally, I would be nervous about being a witness or juror. That just isn’t right.

                Like

              • Lissa, I do indeed worry about the jury feeling fear that if they didn’t convict Jodi, something might happen to them. In all likelihood, they’ve heard what happened to the OJ jurors, and if they didn’t, they’ve heard what happened to the Casey Anthony jurors. Also, unlike Casey’s jury, Jodi’s jury wasn’t sequestered. So, they left that courtroom every day for lunch, breaks and at the end of the day, and saw the mob scene outside, both of media and “Justice for Travis” fans. That had to have impacted them to some degree — even if it was just to play on their sympathy. They know their names will be released to the public within a certain period of time. Imagine knowing all of that and worrying about your family! The day they arrived at the court house for jury duty, they had no idea they might be chosen for such a high profile case. But they knew shortly into the trial, especially when one of them was approached by the media early on, and the judge asked them frequently if any others had been approached.

                Like

              • Lissa, it may stupefy and confound you even further to know that some people, using their own names, who posted on Facebook in support of Jodi, were tracked down and threatened. I know this for an absolute fact. Being called names on Facebook or Twitter is one thing. But having something threatening occur at your home is something entirely different.

                Like

        • Lissa Robinson

          John, I had written a very lengthy response, and was sure I hit reply, but it hasn’t show up, so possibly I didn’t and it’s been been lost. I have some work to do, darn it, and will see if I can re-gather all the thoughts I had and repost it later. Darn it!

          Like

        • Well one of them lied, either Detective Flores or the ME, Dr. Horn. Flores testified before the grand jury that the gun wound came first claiming he had a conversation with Dr. Horn in regards to the sequence. In fact, that was the prosecution’s theory until the eve of trial. Then, it changed, and on the stand, Dr. Horn testified that it came last, and that he never had any conversation with Detective Flores about his report. So, someone lied.

          Also, Dr. Horn first testified that the bullet penetrated the brain and that if that happened, Travis would have been incapacitated. But his report listed the dura mater as intact. A bullet can not penetrate the brain without perforating the dura mater. During his later testimony, his third time on the stand, when he was asked about this in a juror question, he claimed it was a typo. Think about that for a moment. It was his third time on the stand. He’d reviewed his report. This was a very high profile death penalty case. But he made a typo in his report and never corrected it?

          Like

          • AA, I noticed that police report, the flores investigation report, indicated that the photo that supposedly shows “someone” standing over the body at about 5:30 described in some detail the “foot” that is supposedly visible, including “a dark colored sock or shoe with striped sweatpants, which have a zipper on the back of the cuff.” Did any of the evidence at the trial close the loop on this? Was clothing of that kind, belonging to Jodi, entered into evidence?

            Like

            • No, it wasn’t. Jodi may have thrown away the clothing, I suppose.

              Like

              • Well, yeah, if she ever even had clothing like that. But the other question is whether others, such as Dustin, did.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA didn’t Jodi discuss with Flores she had pants like what were in pic? I thought I read that

                Like

              • In every photo I’ve seen of Jodi, she dressed fashionably. I’ve never seen a photo of her in sweatpants. That doesn’t mean she didn’t own them, nor that she might not have considered them suitable attire for a car trip though. I guess we may never know whether Dustin wore that type of clothing or not.

                Like

              • You’re right, Kim. That was during the interrogation. I just looked up the transcript. But she describes them as white and they certainly don’t look white in the photo:

                11:16
                DF: Do you have a pair of sweatpants that’s got stripes around the back side with zippers?

                JA: Umm…

                11:22
                DF: Somebody seen you wearing those before.

                11:26
                JA: I’ve got so many clothes. Yeah, I think I do…Wait! I have… Well, I have one that zips in the back.

                11:33
                DF: Mmm Hmm… Its got like stripes… like a big stripe… well, kinda’ towards the back.

                11:38
                JA: It’s got a black stripe all the way down and they’re white. It’s got a black…I have those. They’re at the house.

                DF: Okay.

                11:43
                JA: It’s got umm…I have two pairs actually, one is too small and one is just about right. Umm… when I bought … anyway one was too small and it was on sale and it was a good deal ummm…but yeah, they have stripes and they have a zipper. What does that mean, what is that?

                12:00
                DF: Because I believe you were wearing a pair like that when this happened. Remember I told you about the camera? It was taking pictures by accident.

                12:08
                JA: Mmm hmmm

                12:09
                DF: The camera was upside down. Flash, another time, camera flashed — looks like it was on the ground. May be it was kicked, look at the pictures, and it’s obviously a female, and one of them was wearing those pants.

                12:25
                JA: Oh, I didn’t even bring those pants on that trip, so…

                12:28
                DF: And if we find those pants is that gonna’ make my case a little bit better? Yeah.

                12:35
                JA: (Sighs…)

                Like

            • Kim

              JM neither Jodi’s clothing nor the rope they used during sex found. She doesn’t know where they went

              Like

              • If I’m not mistaken, fibers of the rope were found at the scene though, do you remember that?

                Like

              • Kim

                There was a piece of a fiber found on steps, determined to be from pillow fringe is what I recall

                Like

              • Jesus, doesn’t it seem like there’s some big holes here? They don’t have the gun. They don’t have the knife. They don’t have the clothing. They don’t have the rope.

                I realize it’s all explained by, well, Jodi had it and she’s guilty so she disposed of it, but that’s facile. A lot of work wasn’t done here.

                Like

              • Kim

                JM they’re missing because Jodi disposed if them. I don’t believe gas cans were found. I wonder if she burned some things. Gas doesn’t smell like cigarettes but I wonder if there was a burning smell rather than cigarette.

                Like

              • Well, you know, why doesn’t this come up when Martinez cross-examines her? Hell, why doesn’t it come up on direct? You’re claiming self defense you had better come clean about everything. Didn’t any of the jurors ask?

                This is like a confession where you don’t have critical things that would corroborate it.

                Like

              • Kim

                JM quite frankly, jurors asked the best questions during the trial. Jodi said she threw gun in desert, didnt know about knife because she didn’t even remember stabbing him, and her clothes and the sex rope, she just didnt know. She came out of her fog with bloody hands and doesn’t know when she changed clothes or anything

                Like

              • All right. I’m almost afraid to ask at this point, but did anyone get into whether there was blood in her rental car? I mean someone noticed a cigarette smell. Did anyone look into blood, since her hands were covered in blood and she was in a “fog” and so on?

                This might not really be all that important, but you would think it was something the prosecution would like to have.

                Like

              • Kim

                See next response jm

                Like

              • Kim

                JM and to my knowledge, rental car checked for blood but none in car.

                Like

              • I don’t know how that can be. Well, I guess they wouldn’t have checked for quite a while. When was she charged and arrested?

                Like

              • Kim

                Body found June 9, arrested around July 15?

                Like

              • So they probably didn’t check the car til almost six weeks after the event. I don’t know how long blood remains detectable, but at least that’s an excuse.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA do you remember someone testifying about red kooks if in the car? Or was that some myth?

                Like

              • Here’s a question, let’s say Jodi used a knife from the kitchen and put it in the dishwasher. Would there be a way to forensically prove after a dishwasher cycle that was the knife used?

                Someone also thought they saw a Swiss Army knife in one of the crime scene photos, but I can’t remember which one know. Although, surely if that was there, someone would have tested it?

                Like

              • Kim

                AA some of the online pics have either a pen of some pointer in them. I didn’t realize that and went nuts trying to figure it out lol I don’t recall a knife like that. Did they conclude sizes of knives in dishwasher were not matching the slit throat or other wounds? I don’t know about blood remaining after cye is ran

                Like

              • Was that determined or speculated upon by JM, Kim?

                Like

              • Kim

                AA what piece determined? The clothing was never discovered unless I missed something big?

                Like

              • I don’t know if they concluded anything about the knives, Kim. If I recall correctly, there were 2 missing from the knife block, but 2 were in the dishwasher. I’m not even sure if it was ever concluded they matched those missing from the knife block. There was no testimony nor reports about that whatsoever. One would think they would have tested all the knives in the house to see if any DNA remained though and if they matched the knife wounds. But it appears they didn’t. Or, if they did, whatever they found didn’t match well enough to be brought up during trial because I’m sure Martinez would have gloated over finding a murder weapon.

                Like

              • Kim

                That’s correct, AA, nothing conclusive on knive but I know they described size of blade used in throat and nothing matched

                Like

              • Kim, the jurors also asked some crazy questions like “How do you understand the word skank, Jodi?” Sometimes, though, they asked better questions than the defense — such as about the dura mater being intact.

                I do remember the car rental guy testifying that there were what he thought to be kool-aid stains in the back of the car and that the mats were missing from there. Actually, I found that a little strange. Jodi would have been driving in the front seat. I guess it’s possible she changed and threw her bloody clothes onto the floor in the back of the car as she drove off.

                I also thought blood was detectable for a very long time, but perhaps it depends on the substance it’s found on. I remember a case where blood was detected on a wall some years after a crime.

                Like

              • I’m sorry Kim, I should have specified. I meant was it determined that the fibers found were from a pillow fringe, or was that just one of Martinez’s speculations? I thought it was the latter. Otherwise, what was a pillow from the bed doing in the crime scene in the bathroom and hall?

                Like

              • Kim

                I thought it was determined that it was not rope, AA but I could be wrong

                Like

              • kim

                AA, not sure if I answered this one about the pillow fringe, not sure if it was from the bedroom. The hearing discussing the damaged hard drive was around January 2 or January 3. An outside firm had to be engaged to attempt to repair the damage. Defense argued State was delaying giving up the hard drive but my understanding is that State did not yet have it. That was a long time ago, but that’s my recollection.

                I have to get some work done this afternoon so I have to disengage myself or I will not accomplish a thing! I am enjoying our discussions Heather and AA, and everyone else. And Heather, I wanted to mention, some of your comments regarding the DP have really been taken to heart. Although I’ve said I do not want to see it in this case, my general “sort of” acceptance of it has been challenged by you.

                Like

              • New post about that shoe print evidence. I suppose it might be easier if any comments about the “third party” theory would be shifted to the new post, but of course it’s up to the commenters. Meanwhile I’ll probably float that shoe print information over on twitter and see if anyone comes up with any more information.

                Like

              • Kim, I’m kind of lost here on what the hard drive has to do with the fringe. I thought the hard drive in question was Travis’s. But I have no idea how that became damaged — or even if it did. There was some testimony regarding there being a virus on the hard drive, but Detective Melendez seemed to rule that out. Take your time answering. Work is ALWAYS more important.

                Like

        • Heather

          Realistically, John, how many interptretaions could there possibly be for changing your testimony, saying the complete opposite of what was in their report – written by THEM ? (ME)

          His excuse to get out of it? He said it was a ”typo”, what, in a whole descriptive sentence?

          Flores: He said His change in testimony was a ”misunderstanding”.. yeah right.. in a Murder Trial DP case?

          And Chris Hughes was definitely suffering from memory loss – he could (wouldn’t) recognise his own emails that he had written and sent to Travis.

          And according to Tot Doc DeMarte (I have a different name for her), if you were attacked by a bear your PTSD would be very different that if you were attacked by a tiger, well, because they are different animals! And what’s more, she said it with straight face!

          John, the only different interpretations you want to give are what you want to see. Very reminiscent of ”The Emporor’s New Clothes”, n’est pas ?

          Like

      • Heather

        My sentiments exactly, Lissa.

        What I have a hard time accepting, is why other people, who want to say Jodi is lying, have blinkers on when it comes to seeing that Juan, Flores and Horn lied, and not realise the gun order would raise reasonable doubt had the shot been first? I mean, I despair when I think how obvious this is and would be to a child in primary school! After all, all it takes is common sense! aaaarrrgh!!!! Scream!

        And we’re to swallow that all the jurors missed that? So, which is it, are they just thick or are they biased.. oh what a farce..

        Like

    • That’s a fairly plausible scenario. But it would certainly cast a lot of doubt on the pre-meditation idea. It overcomes the objection that trying to murder him by stabbing him to death is implausible. Of course, it’s not what the prosecution argued, and if the jury found those were the facts despite what the prosecution argued, I think you would have to say their verdict of guilty on pre-meditated murder was wrong.

      Like

      • John

        Not to me. The premeditation for me is a slam dunk. I believe she rented a car, stole the gun, borrowed gas cans, turned off her cell phone all as part of her plan to cover her trail when she killed him. She went with the hope that he would change his mind about her, get back together,etc. She seduced him when she got there. He went along but then would not agree to get back together or take her to Cancun, she then went with Plan B, which she should have known all along was going to be the case and “ended” it with him for good.

        I have heard this alternative theory that some secret Mormon rule was broken by Travis sexual promiscuity and the elders had to shed his blood as an atonement for his sins, yada yada. Wasnt Jodi also Mormon? Shouldnt her blood have been shed too?

        Evidence not withstanding, Jodi is a couple of nuggets short of a happy meal, I believe it occured generally just like the prosecution proposed and justice was served.

        Like

        • Well, you have constructed a scenario consistent with pre-meditated murder. The only problem is that the only “shot first” scenario offered came from a self defense argument, and there was no evidence that Jodi shot him first in the shower with the intent to kill him there.

          Maybe the jury could have properly inferred that anyway. Personally I think that would have been improper, to come up with a scenario favorable to the prosecution with no evidence in the record to support it.

          Like

          • JMRJ, is it at all odd to you that the “shot first” theory was that of the prosecution until the eve of trial? In fact, that’s the theory they used for the Grand Jury. The defense filed an interlocutory appeal in regards to that change in theory.

            Like

            • “Odd”? That might be the right word. The prosecution might have not anticipated that the defendant would testify, but when that became clear they switched because they were afraid her testimony would make sense, therefore be believable, and if it was they might lose on the top count.

              I would agree this is inappropriate, maybe even misconduct. The prosecution isn’t supposed to jockey positions with the defense to see if they can get the maximum win possible; they’re supposed to “do justice”

              Good for the defense that it objected. They’re entitled to know what the prosecution case is, and if there’s a big change like that they should fight it. I’m sure they lost the interlocutory appeal, though, right?

              Like

            • Heather

              Odd? Not a word I would use, AA..!! Yes that was the first thing I noticed, well apart from JM getting lost in what he was ranting, interspersed with telling the jurors she’s a ”LIARR” and other important evidence of premeditation, such as his accusatory remark about Jodi loving the limelight and lying on Oath..

              Of course HE wouldn’t be guilty of his witnesses doing that, would He, and especially not changing His story about the gunshot order to suit Horn’s change in testimony. Sneaky isn’t the word.

              Jodi won’t get the DP, that I am sure of.. er.. sure of.. in AZ? Am I out of my mind?

              Like

        • Okay, John, you have to know that him taking her to Cancun on that trip was by then impossible, right? The trip was 6 days after the killing and already ticketed. You can’t just change a name on an airline ticket, you know. Plus, you did listen to the phone sex tape from May 10, right? And you know that Jodi knew he was going to Cancun, knew he was bringing someone else as a companion, and wasn’t at all concerned about it?

          Jodi was a very recent convert to Mormonism. She didn’t even have a temple recommendation. Travis, on the other hand, was an elder and did have a temple recommendation (which is renewable every 6 months by a process of questioning with the bishop to ensure the person still deserves it). If his bishop knew what he was doing, he would have been sent to the High Council for ex-communication from the church.

          Like

    • John, it was a shell casing — the part left over after a bullet is fired — that was on the floor, not an unused bullet.

      My other questions is, the 25 caliber stolen from her grandparents contained hollow point bullets. According to the ME, Travis was not shot with a hollow point bullet which would have done far more damage. So, did Jodi buy other bullets for the 25 caliber gun she shot him with? Did she pay for them with cash?

      Like

  18. Lissa Robinson

    To everyone, does anyone know if Flore’s report is available anywhere? I would like to look over the witness testimony of Travis’ roommates. Thanks to anyone who can help! Lissa

    Like

  19. Dennis

    Hey, JMRJ

    I just don’t see any evidence that others were in that home, only Jodi.

    “I mean, you have to remember you’re talking about a person with no criminal history and no history of violence suddenly becoming a female Jack the Ripper.”

    Most murderers know their victim; a relationship of some kind is involved, and it’s a one shot deal. That’s why murder has one of the lowest recidivist rates. And as far I understand, many murderers have otherwise clean records, again because murders involve relationships and is not about criminality per se, but hate, revenge, etc. To the violence aspect, many believe Jodi has that capacity and, again, hate, revenge, etc is often involved with murders. This is why I also posted that 48 Hours show because it demonstrates how cold and calculating this woman is.

    And JMRJ. I just want to add something which I think hasn’t been said, was in Juan Martinez’s rebuttal close, and which is very relevatory.

    A question which many people ask is why would Jodi allow documentation of her trip if she was trying to be covert. The answer is that was her plan. The state’s position is that a trip to and from Mesa from anywhere were Jodi documents gassing-up is not possible for her car on one tank. Therefore, Jodi can claim, “How could I have gone to Mesa when there’s no documentation of me filling-up, and no one saw me in Arizona if you want to say I used cash.?” The one phone call in Arizona is over 250 miles away from Mesa and would require a tank refill if she went and returned from there.

    I think a lot of people miss this really important point and I thank the mods here for their indulgence as this discussion seems to be about the possibility of multiple assailants.

    Like

    • Dennis, I don’t know. A lot of things can be made to look incriminating after the fact, after we know there’s a dead body in Mesa (It was in Mesa, right?)

      All of this reasoning is legitimate. The task to do a good investigation, though, is to consider alternative possibilities that are just as arguable. If you have a decedent for whom there were many people that had the motive and the means, you try to construct a case against them, too. And if you can, you don’t charge until you have eliminated all but one.

      And if you can never eliminate all but one you don’t charge at all, because unless you can narrow It down to one, charging one and not others is random and irresponsible. It’s a life altering thing, and not in a good way, to be charged in the first place. Extremely traumatic, really. Not to mention the whole thing takes on a life of its own at that point and no one is willing to retreat.

      I think it’s quite clear the process of elimination didn’t happen here, as it doesn’t in a lot of cases. Can the prosecution still make it stick? Sure, it’s actually not that hard. The defendant is under an oppressive pall of suspicion, and you make your circumstantial case, and you ignore all the other people that the oppressive pall of suspicion could fall upon except that you didn’t charge them, and you get your guilty verdict and then you’re on to your next case, or promotion, or whatever.

      Lots of atrocities can occur that way.

      Like

      • Dennis

        You have good points, but they just don’t seem to apply here. There’s no evidence that I’m aware of that would support a theory of other people involved, or that Travis had enemies. If there was, the defense would have employed it.

        I think the investigation was thorough, the prosecution proved their case, and that it was a rather simple one to begin with. That’s why I used the thought experiment I did on the other post which was to imagine the same case but with a man on trial and his on again/off girlfriend his victim. It’s to cut through the dynamic that I think is preventing people from seeing this case for what it is.

        Like

        • Dennis, the defense went with the self-defense strategy. They didn’t go with a “she didn’t do it” strategy. Therefore, there would have been no relevance for them to raise issues such as Travis had enemies who may have done it. The law doesn’t work that way. Once they picked self-defense as their strategy, they couldn’t waffle back and forth because that sort of evidence would have been irrelevant to their presentation and the judge would not have allowed it.

          So, let me ask you this, you believe the investigation was thorough right? But you have absolutely no qualms about the fact that Ashley Reed, a married woman with a restraining order against her husband, called in an “anonymous” tip (traced to her cell phone) that the police should look into him because he was acting strangely around the time of Travis’s death? And you have no qualms about the fact that when the police interviewed Ashley, she mentioned that while she was leaving her husband, she wanted to move in with Travis, but they decided against it, and that she moved out right around the time Travis was killed, but the police never even spoke to her husband? Yet, Ashley committed suicide a year and a half later under very suspicious circumstances, and that’s when Jodi changed her story to self-defense? None of that bothers you at all?

          And you have no problem with Lisa’s tip to the police that Travis had a former roommate, John Hepworth, with whom he didn’t see eye-to-eye, who had moved out in the middle of the night without telling Travis, so the police should talk to him, but they never did?

          If none of this bothers you at all, then I guess you are happy with the investigation. But it bothers me and it bothered JMRJ, and a great many other people.

          Like

          • Lissa Robinson

            AA and Dennis, I am posting an article by a Criminal Defense Lawyer who practices in Arizona, Vladimir Gagic — he has also been following the case quite closely. It is an insightful article that speaks to the issue of Jodi’s defence being stuck between a rock and a hard place once Juan charged her with M1 with DP.

            He writes on the subject of the Diminished Capacity Defense, which is not actually allowed in Arizona Court (this is what battered women syndrome would typically fall under):

            http://www.phoenixcriminallawyerblog.com/2013/05/should-jodi-arias-have-tried-d.html#.UZEtf_79UIA.twitter

            I am VERY disturbed that the prosecution changed the gun shot wound order, and I believe it was because self-defence was put on the table. In my eyes it is clearly misconduct, especially when you look at the evidence — either Flores or Horn is lying — that fact can’t be denied.

            Like

          • AA, also Ashley is supposed to have committed suicide by gunshot to the head. I imagine this is sexist, but I believe women who actually commit suicide almost always do so with pills or gas, something less violent and messy.

            Not a pleasant topic, but it’s another thing that is not in line with the odds.

            Like

        • Heather

          Dennis, do watch the film ”12 angry men”, its very apt. for you.

          Like

  20. Dennis

    Also Abused, I was answering JMRJ’s question about additional participants.

    I’m not aware of all those issues you write of, but if they had any credence why didn’t the defense use that instead of self-defense. Remember, Jodi originally had a multiple assailant defense/story (as seen in the 48 Hours show I linked to), but she changed it. One would think that she did so because the evidence made the “other people” claim untenable.

    Like

    • Dennis, hi.

      Well, if you look at the update portion of this post you’ll see why the defense didn’t want to go there. They were more worried about her getting a death sentence than getting her acquitted, which is probably why they opted for self defense to begin with. And once they did that, they couldn’t very well argue that someone else did it. It would be inconsistent.

      And I believe AA has suggested that Jodi maintained that there were other(s) at the crime scene for years, until shortly after another witness named Ashley, who was married to one of the other suspects named Dustin, died under suspicious circumstances that were ruled a suicide.

      In other words, Jodi may have been thinking about identifying the people who were there but changed her mind after another witness who might have been in possession of the same information was, you know, murdered. Maybe thinking that would be her fate if she told the truth and identified the real killer(s).

      Quite the whodunit, isn’t it? I don’t mean to make light of it because I know there was a murder here and it’s very upsetting, but at times you have to set that aside and explore whether appearances are deceiving.

      Like

    • Dennis, have you read the police report? The vast majority of what I mentioned above is in the police report. I’m not making it up. Read the police report for yourself. Ashley’s suicide and Steve Bell are not mentioned in there, however.

      That question as to why the defense didn’t use that strategy is one we’ve been talking about here for the past couple of days, most especially because it *was* Jodi’s story after she was arrested as you point out. According to Dr. Samuels, he and Nurmi persuaded Jodi away from that story and to use self-defense, which he believed was the true story.

      Our gracious host here, JMRJ, is a criminal defense lawyer. He was initially upset that the defense attorneys didn’t use the other strategy because self-defense is so difficult to win with. However, in his first update above, he states: “The problem is the death penalty. If you go with the third-party-did-it scenario, well then if the jury goes with it you get an acquittal. But if they don’t they can only convict on the top count and they sentence your client to death. But if you go with self defense and put her up there so they get to know her, you can ask for lesser convictions that don’t involve the death penalty and there’s evidence to support that.”

      So, it’s likely the defense team, hoping for lesser included offenses in the jury instructions (which they succeeded in getting), opted for this defense strategy in hopes of having a better chance of saving their client’s life. By doing so, they could not then put on any evidence about another guy (or guys) who might have “done the crime” because it would be irrelevant.

      And that’s the conundrum we find ourselves in. There were other potential suspects, but the police zeroed in on Jodi. Jodi, interrogated without a lawyer, first denied being there at all. After she was arrested, she told the intruders story and stuck with that for 2 years. Then, she changed her story to self-defense. But, while possible, it seems difficult to believe that a woman of her size could have killed someone fit and strong like Travis in such a fierce manner and with a knife, when he could so easily have overpowered her. It even seems unlikely that she would have attempted to do so, with other methods available (a stronger gun, poison). She also could have killed him when she arrived with the gun, or while he was sleeping, which would have made her odds of success much greater in getting the job done.

      Abused women, women who’ve been through trauma, women who have been raped, they all lie. They are not above false confessions in order to save themselves and their families.

      For me, something just doesn’t fit. There was no motive for Jodi to kill Travis — other than in self-defense. But the throat slash doesn’t fit with self-defense. It fits with a crime of passion, manslaughter. While the state doesn’t have to prove motive, I would like to have one that I can grasp.

      The Cancun trip is NOT a motive because he couldn’t have change the ticket and Jodi knew he was going.

      Does the “if I can’t have you, no one else will” theory fit? But she just had him, twice, and probably would have had him again. It wasn’t as if he was planning to marry anyone soon. Things weren’t going well with Mimi, even though she was going to Cancun with him as “friends.” So, she still had a “chance” to have him.

      Did she just “snap” when he criticized her photography skills — the one remaining thing she believed she was good at, and for which he had previously praised her? That would make more sense to me. Abusers often criticize women for things they are good at, tearing them down, bit by bit. And when they try to take away the one last thing, it’s devastating. I’ve been there. (I’m assuming you believe there was some element of abuse here and hoping that, as a man, you did not like the way Travis spoke to Jodi, at the very least.)

      Or was it another assailant(s) that committed the crime who expected Travis to be alone and then let Jodi go?

      And then, there’s the issue of Chris Hughes getting access to Travis’s emails when he returned from Cancun and saying there was a message in there from Jodi around the time of the May 26th argument, where she said she was going to get an attorney. What was that about?

      One of my biggest problems has always been the roommates seeing Travis’s CTR ring (which he never left home without), his watch, his wallet and his laptop, in the same position for 5 days, but never wondering where Travis was. And they simply had to have smelled the decomposition during that time. Plus they did laundry and didn’t see the blood on the washing machine?

      Something doesn’t smell right. There just HAS to be more to this story that we’ll probably never know.

      Like

      • Kim

        AA how could roommates do laundry when all evidence pics of camera and other laundry were in the washer? I read report and roommate said he did laundry on 7th but then realized it was earlier, before the murder. What am I missing with the laundry?

        Like

        • That’s the big question Kim. Zach first said he did laundry on the Saturday after the killing, the 7th. Then, he said he did laundry on the 4th, the date of the killing.

          Here’s the issue with that. Zach said the 4th was his day off. He got up early to return a rental car (his car was in the shop for repairs). He didn’t come back to the house until 3 p.m. He went to his girlfriend’s house at 4 p.m. An hour isn’t enough time to complete an entire washing and drying cycle (that I know of). So, if he did laundry during that hour, he must have returned to the laundry room when he got home later that night or at some other time to transfer his clothes to the dryer and/or pick up his clothes.

          Jodi said that Travis washed his bedding after they had sex which was 1-2 p.m. The bedding was found in the dryer five days later when Travis’s body was found. Other items of Travis’s clothing (religious undergarments, sweatpants, shirts, shorts, etc.) were found in the washing machine.

          So, if Zach went back to the laundry room when he got home on the 4th, did he move Travis’s clothes out of one of them and then, put them back? If he did laundry on the 7th, as he originally claimed, did he move Travis’s clothes and bedding? And, regardless of which day he did laundry, how come he didn’t notice the blood?

          Like

          • Also, one other thing. Travis was still alive at approximately 5:30. Jodi must have left the house by around 7 in order to be in Kingman by 10:30 when she made calls. If we assume Jodi lied about the bedding being washed earlier in the day, that would have given her an hour and a half to kill Travis, stuff him back in the shower, make some rudimentary attempt at cleaning up, wash the bedding, put the bedding in the dryer, and then, wash Travis’s clothes. Wow, she must be superwoman.

            Like

            • Kim

              Lol my ex referred to me as “super f’n woman” because I was a cleaning machine. Fortunately (he’s my children’s father) we are gr8 friends.

              Like

          • Kim

            Why would he put dry bedding back in dryer? My guess is roommate had to do laundry earlier

            Like

            • I’ve done that in laundry rooms of apartment buildings, actually (put something dry back into the dryer). It’s certainly an odd thing to do in a house.

              So, essentially then, we’re left with a situation where Zach was wrong about BOTH days he said he did laundry (the 4th and 7th), and he actually did laundry beforehand — perhaps on the 3rd — although it seems more likely to me that he would have done laundry on his day off. Why did he change his story? And why didn’t he remember whether he did laundry on a Saturday or not? Most people remember weekends. Travis was found on the 9th which isn’t quite a week later and most people try to do laundry about once a week, so it’s possible. It just makes you go hmmm though.

              Like

            • Heather

              kim, I think the salient point here is that he changed his story (with explanation), I think, 3 times.

              Like

    • Actually Dennis, I should add one other thing. Unless you’ve been through it, it would be impossible to appreciate how you can get worn down in this process. You might give the truth at first, be told constantly that you can’t be believed, and end up changing your story so that at least someone will believe you. It is extremely difficult to be constantly called a liar and a murderer, and I think that is so even if it’s true. When it’s not true it is unimaginably traumatic and disorienting.

      I’ve said here before that at this point I don’t believe Jodi can distinguish between what she might have imagined in response to the pressures of defending herself and what really happened. For all intents and purposes she is ruined as a witness.

      Like

  21. Dennis

    I agree with JMRJ in one respect I suppose: They should have argued manslaughter or 2nd as that would have been much more credible. But there’s no evidence whatsoever that anyone but Jodi killed Travis.

    I don’t think that Jodi was physically abused or that Travis was a pedophile. There’s no evidence of either, though there is evidence to the contrary.

    As to motive, the state doesn’t have to prove motive, and I’m not about to attempt to get into the head of a woman who I feel is disturbed and a borderline sociopath. From the murder scene, she was obviously not a happy camper.

    Just because you were abused, AA, doesn’t mean someone who claims so was. It’s understandable that you sympathize with those who are, and that’s understandable and admirable, but people do lie about these things.

    Like

    • Okay, so have you read the motion in limine to preclude the testimony of experts regarding the pedophilia claims wherein Dr. Karp mentions Jodi told her Travis admitted to fondling little boys? I know, I know, that came from Jodi, so you may not believe it. I’m just asking if you read it.

      Are you aware that someone on MyDeathSpace way back in April of 2009, right around the time Jodi appeared on one of the shows she did early on, claimed that Jodi would ultimately use the “battered woman” defense — even though, at that time, she was only talking about intruders? It’s on the bottom of Page 20 of the first thread about the case on that forum if you want to check it out. That person claims to have known Travis for a long time, and she was very against Jodi.

      Are you aware that Matt, Jodi’s ex-boyfriend, has said online that he saw Jodi with bruises?

      Are you aware that Gus Searcy overheard a phone call where Travis was yelling at Jodi, and that he has said others were aware of the abuse but are too afraid to come forward?

      Have you seen the post on OccupyHLN where someone writes to Kristen that Travis emotionally, physically, and sexually abused Jodi and that she knew him very well?

      Are you aware that Dr. Karp and Dr. Samuels, both seasoned psychologists believed that Jodi was abused by Travis, and also, Alyce LaViolette, a very seasoned domestic violence counselor? Combined, they have almost 100 years of experience. Is it likely to you that Jodi fooled ALL of them?

      Do you believe that Travis’s language to Jodi in messages and on the phone sex tape was NOT abusive? If you don’t, then, you’ll never believe she could have been abused.

      Yes, there are women who lie about abuse, indeed. But it’s quite rare based on statistics I’ve read, and occurs less than 5% of the time. Sure, Jodi could be one of those women who lies, but having watched her testimony, I believe she was abused.

      And I will tell you that I started watching because I didn’t believe it. In fact, I hadn’t been following the case. I saw a post on Facebook from a woman I respect greatly suggesting Jodi was a narcissistic, and I read one article and was in agreement. A few days later, when Jodi took the stand, my friend changed her tune and talked about how Jodi’s testimony was too close for comfort to the experiences she endured. At that point, I decided to read a bit more. After reading about a dozen articles, I was still convinced Jodi was lying and that my friend might have been confused. But then, I decided to listen to Jodi’s testimony. As she described how she felt waking up to nasty texts from Travis in the middle of the night, I knew she was describing panic attacks, although she didn’t have the words. The more I listened, the more I related.

      In various domestic violence groups I’ve been in online, I’ve spotted a couple of fakers unfortunately. As abused women who have had a difficult time being believed, we always want to give every benefit of the doubt. But those women have slipped up and changed their stories about the abuse over and over again. Reading the portions I’ve been able to of the psychologists who evaluated Jodi, her story has always been consistent in regards to abuse.

      Another problem I had was with the “overkill” but I read up on other women who killed their abusers and found many similar situations. And I spoke with other abused women, and also looked into myself. If I had to kill my ex-husband the night he tried to kill me, it wouldn’t have been pretty, and I wouldn’t have stopped until I was sure he was thoroughly dead.

      Like

    • Heather

      Dennis we are all capable of lying about things and probably all have at some point in our lives. The difference here is that it is someone’s life on the line. The truth is the Truth and why would you Not tell it if you were innocent? Of course you would. Anyone would. What makes you think Jodi is any different?

      Like

  22. I think there’s quite possibly one thing we can all agree on, regardless of which “side” we’re on. The more you look at this, the crazier and crazier it becomes.

    Like

  23. Dennis

    Do I think that Travis treated Jodi like dirt at times? Yes, he sounds like he could be an ass who only saw women as sex toys. But do I think he physically abused her? No.

    As to the experts, the only evidence they had was Jodi’s word so their foundation is made of sand. Isn’t it also true that Jodi claimed much more than 4 events of physical abuse when she thought that would enhance her PTSD claim?

    We also have a quite interesting disagreement about Jodi’s testimony. You think she comes across as honest and credible; I think she’s enormously dishonest doomed herself with her testimony.

    Like

    • Dennis, I thoroughly admire you for not claiming Travis was a saint of a man, as many others do. We will have to disagree about the experts, however. They had thousands of pages of communications available to them that neither we or the jury were privy to (between Jodi and Travis and their communications to others). If the photos Jodi mentioned in her post-conviction interview exist, then, I assume they had access to them too, and possibly other photos as well. Therefore, the only evidence available to them was not Jodi’s word. No, it’s not true that Jodi claimed more than 4 events of physical abuse to enhance her claim. She mentioned more than 4 events when she spoke to the defense psychologist than Dr. DeMarte recalls her mentioning to her. However, I personally wouldn’t be able to relate very well to Dr. DeMarte because of her manner, and she spent far less time with Jodi than the other experts did. It’s not easy to speak about abusive events, and I often find myself truncating or consolidating them.

      I guess we’ll have to disagree about our impressions of Jodi’s testimony. There are many who agree with you, and many others who agree with me. But that’s what makes this a wonderful world. If everyone saw everything the same way, it would be rather boring.

      Like

    • Heather

      That, Dennis, is because you assume she WOULD lie, isn’t it, and you have made up your mind long ago that she did and can’t allow yourself to think otherwise..

      Really, Dennis, would you lie if your life was at stake and risk being found out?

      Like

  24. JMRJ, I just read your second update. Travis’s sister started that petition, along with a petition to not allow Alyce LaViolette to continue speaking at engagements in regards to domestic violence. Unfortunately, I don’t see how Travis’s Law would ever pass. The ONLY way to plead self-defense is to bring up aspects of the murder victim’s character which are undesirable. If they didn’t want those brought up, why didn’t they urge Martinez to accept Jodi’s plea deal offer of second degree murder?

    Like

    • Kim

      AA what would you think if somehow it was proven the allegations made against Travis were made up by Jodi? Just curious.

      Like

      • I’d be surprised. I don’t know what else to say. There was a woman in a group I was on who fooled me initially. I think she had read my story because she emulated a few parts of it (like her ex taking money from the bank account after his arrest). Most of the other women in the group were almost immediately suspicious of her though. She put up pictures of her kids, but something didn’t even seem right with them. Later, her stories just didn’t add up at all. It actually became almost laughable, but I felt sorry for her that she would come into a domestic violence group and do all that, just to get attention. I mean, she didn’t have any other secondary gain — although she did ask to borrow money, so I suppose that could have been behind what she was doing. Domestic violence victims usually don’t have money to give anyone though, so it was a rather stupid place to ask.

        For me, it’s the consistency of Jodi’s stories that has convinced me. She told all three psychological experts the same story over the course of more than 2 years. Most people who are lying about abuse seem to forget their lies and tell a different story at some other point. Of course, we all tell a bit more or leave a bit out when we tell the story multiple times. But the core of the story is the same. Her father discussing her mood changes during the time she was with Travis got me, along with Darryl talking about how she changed. The way Travis spoke to her in messages, very Jekyll & Hyde was another factor.

        And for me, one of the most convincing things was that post on MyDeathSpace back in February 2009 from someone who despised Jodi claiming and was friends with Travis for years, that he/she wouldn’t be surprised if Jodi used the “battered woman” defense. At that time, Jodi’s story was about the abusers. In fact, the 48 hours special had just aired. Only 8 months had passed since Travis died, and only 7 since Jodi was arrested. So, where did this person get that idea from? Had he/she heard rumours that Travis was abusive? I’ll never forget when I came upon that post. I was trying to figure out where all the hatred stemmed from and started reading that thread.

        Again, to answer your question, I’d be surprised. Not that it’s impossible. If she lied, she should get the Academy Award.

        Like

      • Heather

        Well kim, all I can ask you is, would you risk lying if your like was at stake?

        Like

      • Kim, I know you don’t believe Jodi was abused, so I would like to turn the question back on you. What would you think if there were numerous people who came forward later supporting Jodi’s allegations of abuse by Travis? Would you feel any differently? Without putting words into your mouth, would you have any more understanding of self-defense, then?

        Like

        • kim

          AA, sure, I’ll answer that. If there was credible evidence connecting abuse from Travis I would definitely re-think my position on the appropriateness of this verdict. Based upon some of the facts that we know from the trial, not sure if I would totally agree with the self-defense because of the extent of the injuries, but I could see my opinion changing to manslaughter if the facts presented themself. And the “abuse” would need to be more than words. The phone sex tape was totally degrading. I’m surprised she didn’t put the phone down and we would have heard silence rather than her responding to him. I think he degraded her, but from some of his words it appears they may have degraded each other sexually. She strikes me as a woman, like so many women I know (who are not abused) who see sex as fulfilling some void of self esteem. I find her to be physically very attractive and from some of her self photographs she appears to be a sensual person. There’s nothing wrong with that and I’m not being critical of her for that.

          And that last chain of texts where he said she was evil, sociopath, etc. something prompted that. I think it was you who mentioned there was an email where Jodi said she was going to consult with an attorney. There has been speculation, yes, from the State’s supporters :-) that Jodi told him about taped phone conversation and he called her out on the legalities of recording the call. AZ/CA have different laws relating to if both parties need to be aware of recording, and one of the States, can’t recall which one, says you revert to the State with the more conservative position, i.e. both parties need to be aware of the recording.

          But going back to your original question, absolutely, I would change my mind to at least a lesser charge.

          Like

          • Thanks very much for answering, Kim. I’ve also known many women who view sex as a form of self esteem. Many of them are in or end up in abusive relationships. And I think of that degradation as a form of abuse, to be honest. Not all abuse is physical. I hope you don’t think that.

            It was Chris Hughes who stated he saw an email where Jodi said she was going to consult an attorney on the following Monday after their argument on May 26, 2008. I’m not sure he’s a credible source at all. It seems strange to me that instead of consulting an attorney, Jodi rented her car on that date.

            I have another possibility for that fight, or maybe two. I can’t see him being angry about the sex tape. It stopped and started, so he must have been aware of it as it was occurring. What we heard was a pieced together version of multiple recordings from one session. So, my other possibilities: (1) Perhaps Jodi told him she had an abortion. He did say whatever she did hurt him worse than his other father’s death, and that he would tell the Hughes, her family, and all their friends about what she’d done. (I hope we won’t engage her in the impossibility of her becoming pregnant from anal sex, as I’ve seen mentioned on other sites which I find actually quite tragic. Obviously, some people don’t realize sperm are great little swimmers!) (2) She told him she had sought the counsel of a bishop in regards to his attraction to children. I think either one of those actions would have made him extremely angry. She had mentioned sending him pamphlets regarding his attraction to children.

            Finally, what would it take for you to believe Jodi was abused? You mentioned words would not be sufficient. And I assume that means words of a person she told, who perhaps observed her bruises. Why do you take me at my word that I was abused when I have no collaborating evidence either, other than a police report and an injunction for protection? (I do actually have a video of him standing over me with a wine bottle wearing a surgical glove and saying he’s going to kill me. And I have photos of bruises to my stomach. But you have never seen ANY of my evidence, yet you haven’t doubted me.)

            Like

            • Her not doubting you might have something to do with the fact that your abuser didn’t wind up dead with his throat slit in the well of a shower, and you standing accused of doing that, never having seriously or officially brought up the abuse thing before that.

              The fact that Jodi is accused (now convicted) makes a huge difference in how people perceive things.

              Like

              • And my question is: should it make such a huge difference?

                After all, it could have been that killed my husband that night and it could be my trial that we’re currently discussing. I’m not a bad looking woman and some would say I’m very attractive. (Of course, I think I used to be much better looking.) He’s not a bad looking man, and a pillar of his society. Of course, I don’t believe I would have slashed his throat, but one never knows.

                Like

              • AA, I certainly agree it should not make such a huge difference. Making some difference would be reasonable – a basis for skepticism because the defendant has such an interest in being believed.

                That’s one reason I think the decision to charge in the first place should only be undertaken with a great deal of care and circumspection. It’s a fateful step, and most people it happens to never really recover from being charged even if they are eventually exonerated. Especially in a murder case, they should do everything they can to identify every suspect, and not charge anyone until they have eliminated all the others. Here, for example, they had a slew of leads they didn’t follow up on at all once they focused on her. And truth be told, this would have been an easy case to do that with, because she was placed at the scene at the time by very reliable evidence. The only thing you had to do then was look for other suspects who might also have been there, and other suspects who had connections to her under circumstances suggesting complicity. If you don’t find any such after a reasonable effort, well then go ahead and charge her, alone.

                Obviously, they didn’t do that here.

                Like

              • Indeed, JMRJ, it appears they didn’t. We have one of the very finest judicial systems in the world but it’s a sorry state of affairs that so many are wrongfully accused and often convicted, nonetheless. My views of the death penalty are based in large part on the rate of exonerations, some which have occured post-mortem.

                Like

            • kim

              AA I agree that not all abuse is physical. Emotional abuse can be much worse in some situations. I am speaking to the type of abuse that would lend itself to put a woman, or man, in a position to try to justify what Jodi did to Travis in a self defense situation based upon abuse.

              When I said “words alone not sufficient” I meant the name calling. We are in agreement that he treated her very poorly and degraded her sexually. Does Jodi have no responsibility for her statements and actions during that phone sex tape? She more than giggled, she responded very sexually to him. I believe she said “I LIKE IT” and some other phrases indicating she liked the exchange. Did she not send him texts about being a naughty little girl (I believe I read one that was in evidence, correct me if I’m wrong)?

              What would it take for me to believe Jodi was abused? At this point her credibility is shot with me, not that I matter in her world. I really don’t know. If her friend from jail, Donovan (sp?), came up to me and said she saw Travis hit her I would not believe her. On the other hand, if a friend or independent person who saw the bruises and could state the facts surrounding the incident, although not seeing it first hand, I might believe that person. The credibility and/or demeanor of people is so important when you do not have anything to substantiate any type of crime. At this point a family member or someone like a Donovan friend coming forward on her behalf would appear self serving as they did not volunteer this information for consideration for the jury. Does that make sense?

              I know you feel like you watched a very different trial than me, but I honestly found it hard to believe most everything she said. I don’t need medical reports, police reports or pictures to believe someone was abused. Early on in my career I tried over a hundred domestic violence cases with zero evidence, primarily because it was right after the OJ trial and we had a 19 year old girl beat to death with a baseball bat occur around the same time and judges refused to reduce domestic violence charges for fear someone would be killed again. Jodi’s testimony just did not ring true to me. I try to flip the facts around, if she was the “victim” in a domestic violence trial of mine, do I think I could successfully prosecute her claims of domestic violence? I could, but I don’t think I would be successful, not because of my predisposition to her, but I am thinking about her as a witness, which she would be in that situation. I don’t think she made a very good witness. Thinking back to something JM wrote, going with the intruder theory, she could have possibly stayed off of the stand and given the jury reasonable doubt. But again, I’m looking at the abuse as it relates to her self defense assertion.

              I’ve spent a lot of time trying to write this, I am taking your question very seriously, and I want to give my “flipped scenario” some more thoughts. As far as my believing you, I guess I’m looking at it from a secondary gain position, what do you have to gain by sharing this with us? I couldn’t stand up in a court of law and say “I know AA was forced to use self defense because we blogged about it and I know it’s true.” And I haven’t been exposed to any lies by you, quite the opposite, you have substantiated the facts you’ve presented and I have verified some of them, like the Ashley Reed info.

              Sorry this has gone on so long but your question was thought provoking!
              Thanks for taking the time to read.

              Like

              • Heather

                Kim, what would get Jodi to kill him? He was chasing after her to kill her. What would You do, kim?
                kim, Jodi was Acting on that tape. Can’t you tell?

                Like

              • kim

                Heather, as I’ve said before, no sense in rehashing our respective views but neither I, nor the jury, believe he was chasing her. Jodi was acting on that tape? IMO she was acting in court and she continued with it into the post conviction interview.

                Like

              • You know, Kim, this is one area you might do some re-thinking. We have this dogma about “demeanor”, that looking at a witness and taking it all in can tell you whether they’re lying, or psycho, or whatever. Totally untrue in my experience. People often seem honest and are. Then again some people seem honest and aren’t. Some people seem shifty and are. Some aren’t.

                Demeanor tells you almost nothing.

                A peculiar temptation flowing from this misconception is to make all kinds of unwarranted judgments about someone who is formally accused. Once accused, a person’s every gesture, expression, syllable gets harshly scrutinized.

                This has been emphatically the case with this Jodi Arias thing. I watched the post-conviction interview, I didn’t watch the trial at all. My conclusion from her “demeanor” is that she could be anywhere from the most amazing psychopathic monster to one of the gentlest and child-like pliable and soft hearted females on the planet. In other words, it told me nothing, and it wouldn’t be any different if I’d been in the room watching her.

                I could get a better sense of her by talking with her for a long time, I think. Seeing how her mind works both on innocuous subjects and portentous ones. But although this would give me a sense of her, it would be far from anything conclusive. And even then, a legitimate assessment would not so much be based on “demeanor” as the content of the conversation.

                Now, how does this work in this context? Take the gas cans. She buys gas cans for the trip. In the harsh light of scrutiny after the accusation, this can seem like planning. However, when there’s no dead body lying in a shower somewhere that is associated with you, the explanation that someone buys gas cans before driving some distance in the desert is perfectly reasonable and arouses no suspicion at all. I would call the gas cans very weak evidence of planning, because there is another perfectly innocent explanation. Same with the cell phone being off.

                One problem with these kinds of prosecutions is that once you focus on a single person, you can often find a lot of things like that, things that even under the circumstances are equivocal but can certainly support an adverse inference just as they can support an innocuous one. In other words, stringing a bunch of these things together isn’t at all impressive, but it seems impressive: you give the defendant more and more to explain and because of the initial prejudice against the accused to begin with, it looks like he’s making excuses. It looks like he’s “guilty”.

                Until you realize that all that circumstantial “proof” might very well be bullshit, and the only reasons it got gathered together at all was that the investigation focused on this particular person, and then everything they can find out about that person, including an incident where she kicked her mother’s leg under the dining room table when she was a teenager, gets dragged out to show that she’s a “murderess”.

                And then here again, as with Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony, you have the “femme fatale” archetype, tapping into that primitive lizard brain, and pretty soon the public is in a frenzy seeking its ritual sacrifice.

                Meanwhile, in the frenzy, for all we know a genuine murderer is safe, astonished and maybe even amused at the spectacle he has unwittingly caused. His ugly, hidden and brutal act has been transformed by forces he never imagined into a public sensation and someone else is absorbing the scorn and derision due him.

                So troubling, isn’t it?

                Like

              • I’ll tell you what troubles me here. Ordinarily I would say that a woman attacking a man with a knife to kill him was too far fetched a scenario to be believed without lots of unequivocal corroboration. But here you have a man who is documented through photographs to be in a vulnerable position – naked in the shower. Now while I still think the scenario has likelihood problems, they are substantially less because of those circumstances.

                Of course, the same vulnerable victim opportunity would apply to any other would be assailant. That’s why the question of whether someone else was there is so important.

                On the other side, if you look at the Flores police report there was this creepy and threatening – and anonymous – email sent to one of the victim’s girlfriends, and I think it was even around the same time as the killing. Maddeningly, it appears the cops did nothing to track down who might have sent that email, beyond getting an opinion from the girlfriend that it might have been JA. Once they had JA lying about having been there in the first place, they had a likely conviction and they went no further.

                Lying may imply guilt, and under the circumstances it did here, but implication and reasonable certainty are miles apart.

                There’s no statute of limitations on murder, they can take their time. And they didn’t. They picked an obvious and easy target as soon as they had enough, and they left a lot of evidence just floating out there with no questions answered, and barely any questions asked.

                So when they get their conviction it’s not the statement that it’s supposed to be.

                Like

              • kim

                JM, I’m glad I found this blog. It has definitely provoked a great deal of thought.

                Like

              • Kim! Glad to be of service. LOL

                Like

              • kim

                I found you on twitter. You will see I’m much more opinionated with my thoughts about JA on that site :-)

                Like

              • Heather

                kim, the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that you and loads of other people in the US, take everything you see, hear and read about at face value. You don’t seem to see below the surface, you take everything as gospel, as true, as standard. What about thinking outside the box?

                Well, people aren’t all the same. We all have different psychologies so, how can you and others judge someone you don’t know? I had an email this morning telling me that 99% of America hate this woman. Don’t you see how there’s something VERY WRONG with this picture? Its either BLACK or WHITE, pardon me, but is this the way Americans view other people? Maybe its as simple as not being fully American, the Mexican influence that ‘true’ Americans have a problem with.

                I’m different, I look at the shades of grey and I look below the surface. You want to try it sometime.

                Like

              • Kim, I’m grateful that you put so much effort into responding.

                As regards to “Does Jodi have no responsibility for her statements and actions during that phone sex tape?” I have to answer only that I have known many abused women who were sexually abused during their abusive relationships and were frightened to do anything else other than act as if they enjoyed it. Luckily, other than one rather violent rape by my ex-husband, I was spared from most sexual abuse as he was indulging himself in that regard with other people. However, listening to some of the stories I’ve heard has affected me, and some of those women are unable to even involve themselves with men on any level in the aftermath.

                Donavan has stated she met Jodi in the Maricopa County jail while she was held awaiting trial, so she could not have any personal knowledge of Jodi’s relationship with Travis. While I admit it would seem somewhat “questionable” to most people if another witness to the abuse stepped forward at this time, I believe I would find it more credible than you might. I say that because this all occurred in a very tight-lipped Mormon community where sexual abuse and domestic abuse are simply not discussed and the fear of retribution is great. Also because the woman my ex moved in with after being arrested — one of his mistresses — made inquiries about our relationship after she threw him out, and discovered that many people suspected something was awry in our house and both saw and heard things, but never stepped forward. They also told her that if anything happened to me, they would still refuse to become involved. I was bitter about that for quite some time, to be honest, until I dealt with it in therapy after my therapist told me people almost never want to involve themselves in situations regarding these matters. My husband wore a wedding ring, but most people in the neighbourhood had never even seen his wife, me. His excuse was either that I was dying of some ailment, or that I was mentally unstable and too afraid to leave the house. In fact, those were also stories he used to garner pity from other women he had sexual relations with, and I saw those stories with my own eyes after his arrest.

                As I’ve said before, there’s only one lie that I know for a fact Jodi told (that she wasn’t in Mesa at all) and I can only imagine her fear or perhaps extreme denial that led her to tell that lie. Committing such a violent murder or witnessing it occur (if we assume someone else did it) would put many people into a state of extreme denial and fear. While she admitted on the stand to killing Travis, she doesn’t seem to have any clue what really happened.

                There are huge missing chunks from the night my husband tried to kill me that I don’t recall. Luckily, because I videotaped him, gave a statement to police and spoke with friends, I’ve been able to fill in some of those details. However, to this day, if one of my friends told me I said the sky was decidedly red that night or that there was a bear in my kitchen, I would not be capable of disputing whether I actually said that or not. Only one brief memory came back from the entire night and that was a snippet of one conversation I had, but that took over a year to come back. Even now, the rest of that conversation is a blur. Originally, I only knew that conversation even took place because the caller was in distress and I called another friend who knew her and asked her to call the first friend as I was in no shape to deal with her issues. I don’t remember making that call. I only have knowledge of it because the other friend subsequently told me about it.

                Thus, while you believe Jodi is a liar — in part because of the fugue — my own personal experience provides me with a different perspective.

                Nonetheless, I so greatly appreciate the work that you did with domestic violence victims. I hope that regardless of whatever work you do, you will still be able to help a few others during the course of your career. I don’t know whether the Ohio bar has a pro bono requirement or not, but one area where domestic violence victims desperately need help and generally find no help available is in divorce. Many are forced to self-represent against aggressive attorneys. Even a little help in understanding how to construct a motion or response goes a long way.

                Like

              • kim

                AA, thanks for your response, I read some of it but have to run to an appt. I wanted to point out on the Donovan comment, that was an example, I meant someone like her, not her. She is a convicted felon, IMO may not have Jodi’s best interest at heart, regardless of what she says. I know she did not know Jodi then. As far as someone else stepping forward, I said I COULD accept that, it would depend upon the circumstances, credibility of what they reported, credibility of the person, etc. If someone from the Mormon community who was involved with all of these people stepped forward, I would probably find that person more credible, not because they are Mormon but presuming they would also know Travis and would not have a particular bias toward either Travis or Jodi.

                I will read the rest of your comment and respond later. Thanks for responding, I appreciate being able to have a decent conversation with you without being called a “hater”.

                Like

              • JMRJ, the creepy email sent to Lisa (one of Travis’s other girlfriends) was sent in December 2007, which was six or seven months before Travis was killed. I wouldn’t characterize that as occurring around the same time. Lisa was the girlfriend with an ex-boyfriend who had a violent criminal history. I think he would have been a much more likely suspect to have authored the email. I agree that it’s maddening no further investigation was done.

                Not only that, but I still question Travis’s vulnerability while he was conscious in the shower — albeit naked — versus a more opportune moment of vulnerability while he was asleep naked in bed, or naked after orgasm — and both of those opportunities were available for Jodi to kill him. Kim argues that Jodi wanted Travis to see her killing him, but that’s problematic for me. A shot to the temple with a weak caliber gun still provides him the opportunity to defend himself and does not instantly render him incapacitated (contrary to Dr. Horn’s testimony that it would have — especially since it did not perforate the dura mater). Likewise, a stab to the chest, which punctured the vena cava, did not render him incapacitated for quite some time (and Dr. Horn even agreed with that). Wouldn’t therefore, slashing his throat while he slept have been the better option? Surely, he would have awoken during such an act and looked into his killer’s eyes. In fact, given his proclivity for kinky sex, he could even have been tied up or handcuffed while sleeping and then, had his throat slashed with the same ultimate result.

                Again, as I’ve said so many times before, this just doesn’t make sense.

                Like

              • AA, yes, what I meant about him being vulnerable in the shower is just that if he were otherwise conscious and dressed and all, I would have thought the idea that she would attack him with a knife with the intent of killing him was borderline fanciful. His reduced position in the photos gets you from borderline fanciful to, you know, still implausible, but with just enough room to say, well, maybe. You can’t rule it out completely.

                Which again gets back to maddening. With a scenario that weak, it’s really unforgivable that other ideas were not explored by the police before they even charged her.

                Like

              • One question, Kim, is Donavan a convicted felon? I thought she was found not guilty by a jury. I may not have gotten that information from a reliable source though and haven’t looked it up.

                Like

              • kim

                AA, Donovan plead guilty to a F2 Arson of Occupied Structure in January, 2009 and applied for early release of probation most recently in 2012, I believe. Here is the case. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2008-154315

                Like

              • Thanks for the information on Donavan, Kim. I was unsure of the source I heard from, as I mentioned. That clarifies it.

                Like

              • JMRJ, I think your summation of the evidence in this case (particularly as it pertains to gas cans and the cell phone, etc.) is one of the best I’ve ever seen anywhere. If you wouldn’t mind, I’d actually like to repost it on the JAII site. I think many of the members there would enjoy it.

                Demeanour, schmeanour, unfortunately. As my ex-husband’s attorney said in an email to the attorney I had briefly: “You’ve met my guy in court. He’s calm, rational, nice guy, right? Whereas your client is most likely an hysterical raving lunatic, I’d imagine.” That attorney had seen me in court briefly on three occasions. The only time I ever became upset was when his client deliberately walked in my direction and shook his fist at me, and I collapsed crying. All the other times he saw me in court, I was well dressed and perfectly rational, and I never testified. My attorney’s view of my ex was that he presented as an angry raving lunatic, and she couldn’t understand why I had ever had anything to do with him, let alone married him, especially with his wild uncontrolled long hair. It’s interesting how one’s perceptions can change depending upon which side you’re on, isn’t it?

                Like

              • Sure, repost all you like, just include a link. Can’t let all that work go unrecognized as well as uncompensated. Ugh.

                Like

  25. Dennis

    Just to interject here about the abuse in this case:

    The type of abuse that’s germane here is physical abuse because of the self-defense claim, but there was no evidence of such abuse other than Jodi’s word.

    I can accept that there are women who are physically abused and who hide it so well that no one knows about it. I can also see that a woman who had killed her boyfriend and only had her word about that abuse could be
    believed by a jury. But Jodi Arias wasn’t that woman. Her long history of lies in this case, and her problematic performance on cross (a generally accepted view I think) made her abuse claims unbelievable.

    Like

    • kim

      Dennis,
      I agree, Jodi is her own worst enemy. JM and AA raise some good questions about the intruder theory, not sure why it wasn’t pursued in more detail, or maybe there was more but maybe it was nothing “noteworthy”. Joking aside, the Ashley/Dustin information bugs me, but AA, I didn’t see that you respond about the timing, she died in March and Jodi change to an affirmative defense in August. Not sure if that amount of time is indicative of fear from Ashley’s “suicide” or not. Might be, could be the lag in the paperwork. My discounting this theory also goes back to my lack of belief of what Jodi says, and I think she would sell her own mother’s soul to save her own skin, which she kind of did with her testimony of being beaten with a wooden spoon.

      Like

      • Kim, I did respond about the timing, but it’s buried above somewhere. My understand (and please correct me if you find otherwise) is that Jodi first changed her plea in the May (or perhaps early June) after Ashley died. It took some time for a hearing. I’m also not sure if there’s any connection between the two, but it could point to some fear.

        While I personally did not understand the relevance of Jodi’s childhood being included in her testimony (especially since 50% of abuse victims have never suffered any type of childhood abuse), I wouldn’t call it selling her mother’s soul to save her life, by any means.

        While I respect you and our discussions here a great deal, comments like this (and a few others you have made) leave me wondering if perhaps you were “hanging out” with some of the “pro Travis” folks online during the trial (whether on a forum or on Twitter) and that influenced your opinion. Looking for a place to review testimony online during my lunch break early on (I then watched recordings at night), I resorted to Twitter and found a few people who were watching live and tweeting. When they made some rather disgusting comments about why Nurmi often had one hand in his pocket while examining witnesses, I found I simply could not tolerate it. I then read the live blog on HLN’s site which was fairly factual until I got home to watch the actual testimony. Those who “hung out” with the “pro Travis” folks seem to have come to different conclusions, and it has indeed seemed as if they were watching a differing trial.

        Like

    • Dennis, while I don’t expect you to understand, emotional and sexual abuse can be far worse than physical abuse any day of the week. I don’t see a long history of lies on the part of Jodi Arias. I see a frightened woman who lied about not being in Mesa on the date Travis Alexander was killed. I’m not sure her intruders story was a lie and she doesn’t recall what actually occurred on that date, so I cannot say she lied. I neither believe her performance on cross was problematic nor that it’s a widely held view. Many people view her as performing exceptionally well on cross, despite an adversary (Juan Martinez) who was extremely aggressive and forms compounded confusing questions. I certainly wouldn’t have held up as well as she did and I am fairly certain I would have performed much worse. On the two occasions I was in court with my ex-husband’s attorney (who reminds me of Juan Martinez from a stylistic standpoint) for brief hearings, it took all the strength I had left not to stand up and yell “LIAR.”

      Like

  26. kim

    JM, I wanted to mention a fact that came into the trial. I know what the response is by others as her experts discussed it at length, but want your opinion. This has nothing to do with the intruder or other party theory we have been discussing, but I would still like your opinion on it.

    Probably the most significant alleged abuse Jodi testified about occurred between a few dates of journal entries by Jodi. The alleged attack was in response to Jodi allegedly walking in on Travis masterbating to pictures of young boys in their underwear. The attack, if my memory serves me correctly, was that he threw her on the ground and choked her to the point of passing out. The journal entry that occurred a couple days after the alleged attach specifically states she has not written any entries in the past few days because nothing noteworthy has happened. Your thoughts?

    Like

    • Well, one thought is that since there was an opportunity to make a contemporaneous record and one would think that such a record would have been made if in fact that attack had happened, you could conclude that the attack never happened and was fabricated.

      Another thought is that Jodi is the kind of person who thinks different and sometimes conflicting things at different times, and while this may sound sexist that tends more to be a characteristic of female minds than male. So maybe she was just in a good mood the day she made the journal entry and didn’t have the attack in her mind at all. This interpretation might be somewhat undercut if there were other contemporaneous entries of similar things.

      Another thought is that maybe she just didn’t want to reduce such unpleasant things to writing, or this particular unpleasant thing.

      I tend to think odd behavior, or for that matter normal behavior, by Jodi either before or after the murder is of very limited probative value. I think anything she says is of limited probative value in and of itself, although if other “indicia of reliability” can be found I’d believe her just as I would believe anyone else.

      The biggest disadvantage for a criminal defendant is that they will not be believed, whereas prosecutor witnesses, particularly police, will be believed whether there is corroborating evidence or not. Defense lawyers have to be much more careful of the kind of evidence they put on, because most of the effort you have to spend at a trial is directed at overcoming the huge credibility gap. This is what makes the “presumption of innocence” little more than a joke. Sure, we don’t convict you until a police officer gets up there in his uniform and swears you did it, which is then regarded as holy truth even if the testimony is preposterous. It is the most easily overcome presumption in the law.

      Which is another reason things like this case happen. The police and prosecutors are so used to getting their way and being believed they don’t worry about it. They don’t worry that, say, they’ve constructed a scenario where a woman with murderous intent decides to kill a larger and more powerful man by stabbing him to death and that there are other viable scenarios out there they should look into.

      Like

      • kim

        JM, thx, that’s basically what her experts said. There was nothing in her journals about pedophilia or abuse, her reasoning was that she ascribes to the Law of Attraction and didn’t write negative things in her journal.

        Like

        • Well, Kim, you’re focusing on the prosecution argument about the journal. Because that wasn’t her only reasoning for not including anything about abuse or that she’d witnessed Travis masturbating to photos of a little boy. She testified that she carried her journal everywhere and Travis had access to it. She also testified that whenever she had written anything even remotely negative about him in her journal, it had caused an argument, and he had ripped the pages out. And there were pages ripped out of her journal. Furthermore, she testified that in the Mormon culture (as occurs in many other cultures), journals are passed down from generation to generation to read, and she didn’t want something to exist in the journal that her children and grandchildren would read and think poorly of either her or Travis Alexander if they continued to socialize in the same circles.

          Why do I find this plausible? Well, for one thing, abused women often erase Facebook or group posts about abuse or even anything derogatory towards their husbands, or even any posts that talk about frustrating days. I’ve witnesses this myself from talking to abused women. We even had incidents such as where an estranged abusive boyfriend hacked into his girlfriend’s Facebook account and wrote to all of us she was conversing with to get information about her. Some folks were stupid enough to call him or give him their phone numbers and were then harassed. In another case, where an abusive estranged husband hacked into his wife’s Facebook and I had previously given her (while she was in control of her own account) my phone number, he harassed me and I had to change my phone number. During my own marriage, I often posted on a little private Yahoo group that I had in existence about some of the things that happened (although not the physical abuse ever) between my husband and I. I subsequently deleted those messages. I didn’t keep a journal until the very last few months when I felt my life was in serious danger, and then, I only “journaled” about the abusive events. By that time, I was expecting to be killed and hoped someone might find my “diary of abuse” as I named it and suspect that he was the perpetrator.

          In fact, we tell women not to keep any writings about the abuse on the premises, and if they’re going to document it, to send the documentation to someone else. If an abuser discovers that his victim is documenting the abuse, it can quickly spiral into a deadly situation. We’ve encountered many women who journal and we tell them to be extremely careful not to mention anything that, if discovered, could trigger a rage that could threaten their lives. We also tell them to delete their internet history so that visits to sites discussing domestic violence can not easily be detected. Unfortunately, abusers often install key stroke loggers on their victims’ computers which can cause a problem, and we’ve seen more than one case of that occurring.

          Another suggestions is not to talk about abuse on any phone that the abuser has access to records of, such as a cell phone registered to an account in both their names, or one he might be able to hack into. Unfortunately, people in relationships often give one another their typical passwords or they can be guessed. There’s been more than one case of potential witnesses being harassed by an abuser, or where the victim is smeared to the witness by an abuser. It’s also not uncommon for a potential witness who has been told about the abuse to beg a victim to delete anything that includes his/her name because they don’t want to be involved.

          Jodi may (and from what Matt and Gus Searcy said) was, in fact, talking about the abuse to others towards the end. She may have begun trying to cover those tracks to some degree. Of course, after she was accused of murder, that would only make her look more guilty, unfortunately.

          In regards specifically to the journal and the manner in which they can be viewed by another post-morten, a friend began reading her mother’s journals after she passed away. Her mother was in her late 90s and my friend is in her late 50s. It took her almost 2 years to bring herself to read the journals. She had never understood what had happened exactly when her father left, as she was a small child. She recalled some anger, on his part, but did not understand her mother’s cautions about him when she sought him out in her early twenties. Reading the journals, she was astounded to discover that he had abused her mother and that her mother had gone to extreme lengths, even back then, to protect her children. It gave her an entirely new perspective of her mother, and also caused her great guilt for not having been aware. Two other friends discovered documentation and/or journals indicating past indiscretions of their parents post-mortem, which resulted in children that were never acknowledged during their lives. So, Jodi’s reasoning even there has merit, from that perspective.

          I was involved in various new age positive thinking groups myself prior to my marriage long before they were labeled “The Secret” (such as Unity Church, Church of Religious Science) and even wrote my own published book and toured the country giving actual motivational seminars (unlike Travis, who “motivated” sales groups for PPL) and I can attest that writing about abuse would not be considered appropriate.

          While the lack of journaling about events of abuse may even have impacted the jurors — especially because of the prosecution’s focus on there being no record therein of the abuse — it is not, in and of itself, indicative of anything other than either (a) her desire not to write about such events in her journal to protect future generations, (b) her desire not to incite Travis’s ire should he discover her writings, or (c) her belief in positive thinking not wanting to focus on the negative.

          Like

          • kim

            You are correct, AA, JM addressed some of your comments in his response to me, which is why I didn’t reiterate. My apologies for not being more comprehensive with my response.

            Like

  27. kim

    *attached, not attached :-)

    Like

  28. kim

    ugh attacked!

    Like

  29. kim

    JM quick question off topic. What’s your thought on Diana Tennis taking the facts of her case to twitter? She’s representing Caryn Kelley in FL (think that’s her name). Jury is being selected tomorrow and Friday.

    Like

  30. GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

    Wow. Don’t even know where to start. You are a lawyer commenting on the Jodi Arias case, one you freely admit you have not been watching, but nonetheless, you feel you have enough information with which to make a ‘logical argument’ that Ms Arias is probably NOT GUILTY? I am sure you will deny this and say that you did not say that but you did and you know you did. Every single website that takes this Jodi Arias is probably NOT GUILTY position uses circular reasoning to argue their case. Except everyone understands circular reasoning is no reasoning at all and lacks any evidence to support it. You listen to folks who are clearly in support of Jodi Arias (and ALL of them have their own personal agenda for doing so) and ignore others who explain why their assertions are nothing but fantasy , not based on fact or evidence and then assume that the Jodi supporters are telling you all the facts with which you need to arrive at an opinion. Amazing. You are a lawyer, too..right? Many people following the actual trial and social media are very much aware that there is a marketing group behind one jodiinnocent website that spews all sorts of NON factual information. LIKE, the somebody else did it argument. OR, the gas can argument is meaningless. (Uh…no. And the jury clearly disagrees with you. Lying on the stand is extremely relevant.) Its ludicrous if you had been watching the trial to take statements like that and assume this is based on any sort of truth. Its fiction concocted by Simon J Hill of Renegade Mktg Group. Then of course there are the numerous mentally unbalanced folk who have decided to weigh in and add further ludicrous NON-factual information which finally filters down to you and you run with it. But again, every single blog, website, twitter or FB page out there arguing in this woman’s defense uses circular reasoning. No “reasoning” at all. Its irresponsible and shows that I guess anybody could take the Bar Exam and pass.

    Like

    • LOL. I agree, I think just about anybody could take the bar exam and pass if they went to law school for three years and passed all that and then did an intensive review course for six weeks where you cram all the law in the universe into your seemingly pea-sized brain and hold it there just long enough to spit it all back out at blinding speed before it goes stale and you forget it all.

      As for Renegade Marketing Group, never heard of them but if they come around here they had better click that “donate” button first and I don’t mean just click if you get my meaning. People like you, impoverished though your opinion may be, are welcome to throw it up here for others to ponder, but marketers need to pay their way, especially with a name like “renegade”, because despite appearances we’re pretty staid, polite and respectful of authority around here.

      But we don’t always agree with authority. Then again we don’t fight authority lightly, because we heard that song from the Mellencamp guy once.

      Like

      • GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

        My opinion is “impoverished”? Oh pray tell… Aren’t you the one who has not been watching the trial ..yet believes you have something of ‘value’ to add to the public discourse about the case because of your reading up on fringe conspiracy theorists who say the Mormon Mafia is behind Travis Alexander’s killing. OR …is it OJ Simpson this week or that the 3rd gas can issue is really just a meaningless bit of trollop to the defense’s case that premeditation was not present. How on earth would you know …? if you had not been watching the trial?

        On the one hand you talk about how it is impossible to take a snapshot about a person’s psyche/demeanor (post-verdict interview) because demeanor could mean anything in a given situation and the ‘watcher’ is often not privy to much background information. On the other, even though you start off with all these qualifiers and logical assessments about one thing, you try to connect this one idea as if it is meaningful to this other which is the public is most likely wrong in their assessment of Ms Arias. You make statements about how Ms Arias might be the worst psychopathic monster we’ve ever met OR just about the most gentlest soft-spoken woman the media ever met…you then promptly go into argument explaining why she is Probably NOT GUILTY. Again, you freely admit that you have not been watching the trial. Have NOT seen and heard and watched this defendant tell her story for more than 18 days on the stand. To assume your opinion is meaningful at all in comparison with those that have actually watched every bit of this trial is absurd and, as mentioned above your entire argument is circuitous.

        Like

        • LOL I didn’t say your opinion was impoverished, I said it may be impoverished. See how you conclude too much from too little evidence?

          Careful. You’re talking to a tricky lawyer.

          Like

          • I’m sorry, JMRJ, I just don’t know if your readers can take anything you say at face value. After all, you’re one of those “anyones” who went to law school for 3 years and passed the bar. Surely that must make you guilty of some crime or another? (Pardon my sarcasm.)

            Little lawyer joke for some levity. What’s the difference between a law student who graduated at the top of his class and one who graduated at the bottom of his?

            Nothing, neither one can practice law until he passes the bar.

            Like

        • Guilty, truth is I don’t know whether she’s guilty or not and haven’t offered an opinion on that. I think there are huge problems with the State’s case, though. Staggering problems. It is certainly possible that she is innocent and has been wrongly convicted in my view. Much of the basis for that opinion is stuff that wasn’t presented at the trial, so watching the trial wouldn’t have made any difference to that extent.

          Calm down. No one’s going to bite you over here.

          Like

        • At least my opinion is meaningful since I also “watched every bit of this trial”. I did so, however, without the assistance of HLN commentaries and editing. Did you?

          By the way, I’ve never seen JMRJ conclude that Jodi Arias is probably not guilty in any of his comments. He has always left that possibility open.

          Like

          • chris

            AA,
            Are you still reading these comments? If so, I’d like to ask you about something surprising I discovered about the felony-murder charge — namely, a reason to think the defense should have been able to get it dismissed. But I’m not a lawyer and may be making a mistake. I posted my argument, with case citations to two federal courts, on http://www.occupyhln.org yesterday.

            Like

      • Yes, JMRJ, and that’s assuming that “anyone” passed the LSAT was accepted to law school in the first place and was then able to withstand the grueling pace of first year. At one time, I had many incredibly brilliant friends who, even despite accomplishing all of the above, failed their bar exams. Then again, anyone could do it, right? LOL

        Like

  31. GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

    Oh and BTW, as a woman who worked with DV victims at a crisis support shelter for over a decade, I am not in any way shape or form ignorant about the insidiousness of Domestic Violence. I know about DV and its because I know about it that I was especially shocked at Ms LaViolette’s testimony when it came to her pitiful argument that all stalking victims report to the authorities. It is either grossly incompetent for Ms LaV to really believe this or GROSSLY unethical for her to say this. Actual research supports the exact opposite and I am hard pressed to believe Ms :LaViolette is ignorant as to this research. ONLY fifty percent of those who experience Intimate Partner Stalking (spouses or partners) seek out the authorities and report the stalking behavior of their spouse/partner. The reasons, and Ms LaViolette KNOWS this because if she is the expert she claims she is then she knows, that many partner/spouses being stalked by their partner/spouses are to a certan extent in denial as to the behavior JUST like victims of abuse often can convince themselves the abuse is somehow deserved. That their own behavior is making the partner abuse them. Victims of IP stalking also often do not realize just HOW dangerous the stalking behavior can be. The research goes on to state that of the fifty percent who DO finally report the stalking behavior of their partner to the authorities, say the stalking behavior had gone on for a FULL YEAR PRIOR TO THEIR reporting it to the authorities. In THIS case..Why SOME women who have been abused (if they are actually telling the truth, because many survivors see right through Jodi Arias’ political use of their pain) cannot see that they are either projecting their OWN helplessness onto Jodi Arias OR they have unresolved issues and think that anyone who just cries “ABUSE” is abused, is beyond me. Since when BTW, as a LAWYER, should we EVER just accept a claim of abuse or sexual deviancy without demanding some sort of corroborating evidence? This is exactly WHY if you are innocent and stand wrongly accused you have the right to confront your accuser. This case is all so backward and the gender bias it has brought out in people is shocking. Somehow I feel quite confident that Kirk Nurmi himself -who defends those accused of sexual crimes -would be SPITTING nails if someone called one of his clients an abuser and sexual deviant and that plaintiff had ZERO evidence to support the allegations. In the end it is oh so very obvious if Travis were the one who had killed Jodi Arias and was claiming what SHE is claiming, he would NEVER be given the sorts of passes this defendant has engendered with some people.

    Like

    • Guilty, the sworn testimony of an alleged victim IS evidence. It may not be good evidence, and in this case I surely agree that without corroboration it wasn’t good evidence. But it is evidence. Stop saying ZERO evidence, it’s beneath you.

      And, as a LAWYER I have to tell you, as a rule I don’t accept anyone’s allegations about anything without some corroborating evidence, unlike DA’s, judges and many jurors who treat police testimony as if it came from the burning bush.

      Like

    • lissajrobinson

      Guilty, while you are correct about the reporting statistics, the way you are applying them to this situation is laughable. How is it that Travis told EVERYONE about his stalker except the police? Sorry, it doesn’t add up. In addition, you are applying this rule to only one side of the argument here. Statistically, the same rule can be applied to the number of men or women who report being abuse. So, herein lies the problem with your logic. You believe that Travis was stalked despite any actual evidence, but you deny Jodi’s claim that she was abused because you say there is no evidence. You can’t have it both ways.

      Like

      • Touche! Keep playing nice though. We’re cultivating an image over here at Lawyers on Strike.

        Like

        • lissajrobinson

          Yes, I promise, and I’ve been enjoying the conversation immensely. I had actually wrote a couple of long posts previously, but they didn’t stick. I think it may be that I wasn’t logged into my WordPress.com account, not sure. Darn it. I appreciate you offering up your space for such in depth discussion about the trial. Thank you.

          Like

      • That’s a perfect response lissa. Not to mention, of course, that Travis DID in fact report the tire slashing to the authorities while with one girlfriend (Lisa), but then couldn’t find the time to wait for the police to arrive to take a report and instead, saw an opportunity to get her to spend the night with him.

        And, of course, Travis continued to frequently (almost daily) correspond with and telephone the person he called a “stalker” (Jodi) and even engage in sexual relations with her. In fact, while texting with one romantic interest and calling Jodi a “stalker” and discussing how afraid he was of her, he was simultaneously texting with Jodi (the “stalker” he feared so greatly), explaining his desire to engage her in many of his explicit sexual fantasies about her.

        And let’s not omit from the discussion the fact that he also referred to another ex-girlfriend, Deanna, as his “stalker.”

        Are there any statistics on this behaviour? If there are, I haven’t uncovered them as yet.

        I’m so terrified of my ex-husband’s stalking behaviour that disobeyed a court order to disclose my address during discovery, which resulted in my pleadings being stricken and the judge barring me from participating and me losing everything I had worked hard for all my life. I’m neither communicating with my ex-husband nor inviting him over for sex.

        Like

  32. lissajrobinson

    Personally, I think Jodi was pushed into a corner with the M1 charge after pleading to M2. Why? A couple of things. I am not sure if many people are aware that domestic violence is somewhat of an speciality for Juan Martinez. Hence, he knows the angles well, and he knows how to rub them the other direction. In fact, he seems quite adept at detracting from the scientific evidence and keeping everyone focused on the emotions of the case — not the flawed logic behind the evidence itself.

    In fact, he is so good at doing that it actually frightens me. He had the gull to state during the trial during one of his quick talking rants that the “battered women syndrome” should not be allowed in a court of law since it can’t be blood tested for proof. Wow.

    But now it gets interesting. In Arizona, using that BWS as defence is pretty near impossible anyway since the Diminished Capacity Defence is not an allowed in Arizona. Interesting, no?

    http://www.phoenixcriminallawyerblog.com/2013/05/should-jodi-arias-have-tried-d.html#.UZEtkN2aqJM.facebook

    Somehow, Juan was able to apply histrionics to his characterization of Jodi Arias and get away with it. She has no prior history of violence (except one kick to her mother in 27 years), she never once stalked one of her previous boyfriends — all of whom had cheated on her just like Travis had. There is no pattern or even an escalating pattern here, but there was clearly a very toxic relationship. I think it was an anomolous situation that had a deadly outcome. I think M2 fit much more than M1 does and she pleaded to it.

    Like

  33. HonestAbe

    Far be it from me for ever shy away from a debate but this trial has set our system back centuries. Perhaps it’s because of the one-sided witch hunt that the media has organized, who knows but I don’t think I have ever seen anyone on trial with so many people against her. If let free, I could easily see citizens throwing a rope over a tree branch and lynching Jodi. What many don’t realize is that this case is not only about Travis and Jodi, it’s about the ease in which the prosecution has in putting a needle in a citizen’s arm. Let’s face it, this case is entirely about circumstantial evidence. No one has yet to explain why someone would go through the trouble of staging a robbery to use a gun and then use it last. For that matter, no one has proven that it was used last. If you follow the trial you will know that CNN hired a forensic doctor who said Travis WAS probably shot first. No one has yet to explain why Jodi would go to great lengths to travel incognito just to announce herself by discharging a gun that could be heard outside or even inside by any of his roommates should they happen to be home. No one has yet to note that instead of buying gas cans linking her to the premise that it might look like something was planned, she could have just paid cash for gas. No one has yet to explain how a 5’6″ girl wielding only a knife, could escape with only minor cuts on her hand. No one has yet to explain why the medical examiner noted that Travis fought valiantly, yet Jodi didn’t even get a fat lip, broken nose, black eye. Juan Martinez has described a ridiculous scenario where Jodi stabbed Travis in the shower, allowed him to get up and examine the wounds, stab him on the back and him not do anything but allow her to continue her assault. Oddly, no one has challenged this. No one, even the defense team, has objected that there is no way for him to tell with 100% certainty what happened. As a matter of fact, although CNN and the prosecution has assumed that all of the stab wounds were applied in the 62 seconds, we do not know that for a fact. We do not even know if he was shot first. Where was the doctor who could say that he could have survived a shot from a small caliber weapon in the face? We know for a fact, based on the CNN doctor, that there is at least one. So looking back, is it completely crazy for a single girl traveling through the desert alone to carry extra gas? I can tell you my neighbor packs 6 cans when he travels from AS to CA. Is it possible that the weapon stolen was a coincidence? Would it matter if I could prove that the .25 cal is the 5th most common gun produced and stolen in the U.S.? would you believe me if I told you that it makes no sense to drive with an upside down license plate if you are trying to avoid detection? Would you think it odd that Jodi would plan a murder but set up a time when she would be expected elsewhere, with no intention of arriving there on-time? Why would she bring a gun, then use it last putting herself in harms way when Travis would surely defend himself against a knife attack? Why wouldn’t she shoot him in the shower and end it there? Oddly, everyone loves Travis Alexander, even if he has been proven a liar, a playboy, a fraud, and someone who could definitely had pedophilia tendencies (no one talks about a 12 year old girl having her first orgasm as if it is hot unless that tendency exists). I certainly don’t think it’s fair to perform a character assassination on the deceased but don’t you think he made himself an easy target? While you watch the trial, listen to it on the radio, or even go there in person, realize that this conviction and the inevitable death sentence for Jodi, is opening the door for more false convictions. Unfortunately, Jodi Arias is being put on trial in the wake of OJ (who never seems to go away completely) and Casey Anthony which is no doubt clouding the judgement of all. Unfortunately, whole other states such as IL have recognized that we have convicted and executed innocent people, the people on this jury have just lowered the bar for any of us to come upon an odd set of circumstances that leads us down the hallway to a table with straps to end what could easily be the death of an innocent person.

    Like