The Grim Result Of The Jodi Arias Trial

I can understand why people get interested in criminal trials intellectually, and even why some of those trials can become “sensational”, appealing to baser interests.  It’s the same reason people like murder mysteries or whodunnits.  Sherlock Holmes could not have become a popular series unless there were something inside of us, or in the way our minds work, that such fictional stories appeal to.  So the real life versions understandably command attention.

I can also understand the satisfaction of being proven right, and having that acknowledged, with the caveat that prudence and wisdom would counsel that this feeling is not to be over-indulged.  It’s a matter of manners, mostly, a concept that has undergone a sea change in the internet age:  a deplorable lack of manners has been unleashed, as any trip to any message board on virtually any topic will reveal immediately.  The unmannerly have found so much company that they are no longer ashamed and are dragging much of our popular culture down.  I don’t think the bottom is in, either.

In any case, what I can never understand is how some people feel glee or exuberance at a guilty verdict in a criminal trial.  To me a guilty verdict is always a sad occurrence, even when I believe it is justified.  And the more serious the crime, the sadder it is.

So Jodi Arias was found guilty of first degree murder and now a death sentence is on the table.  The mob, led by the execrable Nancy Grace, is already foaming at the mouth and looking for blood.  A friend of the victim weighs in:

“It just feels so good … to finally have the truth and be vindicated,” said Dave Hall, choking back tears.

Don’t forget how close “vindicated” is to “vindictive”, David.

The big crowd outside the courthouse “erupted in cheers” at the verdict.  Ugh.

By any sane measure this was a horrible incident and a tragedy for all concerned, Jodi Arias included.  I indicated elsewhere (near the end of this post) that it was hard for me to see an acquittal on all possible homicide convictions, since self-defense seemed to be belied by the nature of the victim’s wounds.  But my opinion, although it is soft since I didn’t follow this one closely, is that although murder with premeditation had some support, it wasn’t enough for a conviction.  In other words I think the jury got it wrong here, but I would probably not be able to quarrel with a lesser murder or manslaughter conviction.

I do not think the death penalty is appropriate here under any circumstances, and I’ll venture a guess that the jury will not authorize it.

I’m worried, and I think lawyers and judges should be especially worried, that the unremitting scorn heaped upon juries who acquitted in high profile cases like Casey Anthony’s and OJ Simpson’s has distorted the jury pool nation wide.  And it’s yet another failure of the legal profession and lawyers that, far from alleviating this problem, lawyers have often aggravated it.  And not only have they suffered no professional consequences, they have ridden their ethically challenged behavior to fame and fortune.  And there are more wannabes waiting in the wings.

Lawyers are important for so many reasons, but maintaining perspective and, yes, dignity in the middle of adjudicating some of the worst things human beings can do is among the most important.  If the profession as a whole was more introspective, somber and grim on occasions such as these people would be ashamed to engage in their unseemly revelry.  Nancy Grace would probably be disbarred and running a psychic hotline, where she belongs.

And we’d all be better off.

Advertisements

492 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

492 responses to “The Grim Result Of The Jodi Arias Trial

  1. Heather

    In my opinion, Nasty Disgrace should be sectioned, she’s the one, along with her cronies who have brainwashed the mindless masses who cannot think for themselves.
    The mob mentality, groupthink, is just horrendous; I’m British and was shocked to the core when I saw it on the video. I agree, how can Anyone rejoice in anyone’s death, and I bet they all go to church, too. Its disgusting.

    Here’s what I saw on psychology today, I’m reeling over this:
    ”She was convicted not just
    for killing Travis (rightfully so), but also unofficially (comments abound on
    the net corroborating this) for killing Caylee Anthony and Nicole Brown
    Simpson. This trial was offered up for gutter entertainment, not a legal
    proceeding, and the public put all their personal feelings of “making it
    right” for all the previous unrelated trials that didn’t result in a
    conviction onto it. One person said this was a “victory for America”.

    So they want to kill Jodi Arias because Casey Anthony was aquitted? And O J Simpson, too? Mindless ignorant morons! Its shocking.

    The said ignoramouses have all been brainwashed by HLN it seems to me, and, taking everything Martinez said in his ranting madness closing argument, as gospel truth, they cling on every word and repeat it as fact? Yes, and they’re proud of it.

    Martinez didn’t prove premeditation at all, and, he knew it, that was why the body of his so called closing argument was based on character assasination of the defence witnesses, hearsay and accusations; he hadn’t proved anything – because he couldn’t.

    I suspect there were mormons in the jury, almost a certainty – mormons protect their own. How can anyone fail to see how Kirk Nurmi’s closing argument made sense? He couldn’t have said it any clearer. How also can anyone fail to see corruption was alive and well in the courtroom? Horn, Flores, Dr Demented, Chris and Skye Hughes ALL LIED! Yet in his closing argument, Martinez accuses Jodi Arias of lying on oath! How dare he.

    He spoke of Jodi Arias loving the limelight – how can he accuse her of that after his autograph signing antics? Where has any of this proved premeditation?

    I am thoroughly and utterly disgusted, appalled at how this farce of a trial has been. I am sickened by the likes of Nasty Disgrace, who tried her best to brainwash the public and succeeded. If Anyone is guilty, its HER.

    Like

    • Heather, I have a place for you and the author of this article. It’s called Occupy HLN, and there, we stand up for the constitution, due process, the burden of proof remaining on the State (presumption of innocence), and the right for a defendant to put forth a defense without being smeared for it. What we’re against is the sensationalist trial-by-media, led by the op-ed propaganda entertainment arm of the prison lobby, HLN. Find us at occupyhln.org or fb.me/occupyhln.

      Like

      • Heather

        Occupy HLN, Thank you, I will!

        Like

      • Kim

        @Occupy, Do you think we need to remove cameras from courtroom? I’m starting to think they no longer belong. Thx

        Like

        • Heather

          Kim, is that so people can’t see the unfairness of this and other trials of women who have suffered abuse, so that death sentences can be handed out and no one will know the circumstances?

          Like

          • kim

            No, my point on the cameras being removed from the courtroom is it puts an element into the system that is not necessary. Reporters can report on what is going on in the trial. This exactly why we have the HLN media circus and that cuts both ways, don’t see it as pro defendant or pro prosecution. I have worked with domestic violence victims time and time again and would never deny a true victim access to any remedies or safe haven. Can’t have it both ways, either the circus is there or it is not.

            Like

            • Heather

              But.. kim, would the outcome be any different ?

              At least with camera’s in the court we can see the corruption that goes on.

              Like

              • Heather

                A Camera in the court?

                That gives room for change, for it to dawn on the people who make the rules that the way they run their current injustice system HAS to change. , Well, maybe I’m being naive here, but I don’t think anyone would like their judicial system to be seen as barbaric, they wouldnt like the exposure seen by the rest of the civilsed world (apart from a few countries) or is it that they couldn’t give a damn, as I suspect?

                Like

              • Kim

                My point with the cameras is, and it goes back to Casey Anthony, when the cameras are involved there is commentary on both sides and that commentary inflames the public. I honestly fear for defendants found not guilty when convicted in the public opinion. Sad to say but I’m surprised some lunatic hasn’t harmed Casey Anthony.

                Like

              • Heather

                I see your point, kim, defendants are on a lose/lose situation, whether wrongly convicted or declared innocent.
                I can only hope that the injustice that Jodi has suffered from just about everyone but the few by comparison who know she is innocent, that this trial serves as a precedent for the future. Things have to change in the US.

                Like

          • Justice

            Heather Sweetheart, Jodi Arias suffered no abuse. None, zero, zilch, 00000. Heather, I really disagree with your opinion of the trial and how unfair it was. The woman was given 18 days to present her side in an honest manner. She had nothing that was believeable to present. Nothing to back up her testimony. I think the judge was even too lenient in the testimoy. Jodi sat all through the trial with a smug defiant look on her face, the tears were fake, she has never been remorseful or sorry. She covered her face and peeped out the cracks between her fingers because she really was unable to produce real tears. Thats the way I fake cry with the Grandkids to fool them and watch their face. For some reason it is a little unsettling how you seem to be a little over done with this murderer. You like everyone including me really dont know the real Jodi Arias. You cant let people walk when a crime of this magnitude has happened. That would be very concerning.

            Like

            • Justice, you have watched FAR too much Nancy Grace and her ilk on HLN. If you honestly believe Jodi peeked through her fingers while “fake” crying, then you’ve been influenced by Nancy’s distorted view of the world. Do you know the real Nancy Grace? By the way, it’s all an act. Jose Baez talked about it in his book. During commercials, she’s an entirely different person.

              But let me ask you this, if, in your opinion, Jodi Arias should be sentenced to the death penalty, what should Ariel Castro be sentenced to?

              Like

              • Lindsay

                Also Abused, Nancy Grace was a Prosecutor before. She tried a big case in Atlanta at the same time my uncle’s murder case was being tried. Unfortunately, we didn’t get her as a Prosecutor. Ours took a plea deal. My uncle’s murder was premeditated as well and he was shot in the head. His murderer served about 10 years and has been free for a while now. Seeing Nancy Grace in the courtroom was impressive. No, she didn’t act like she does on TV now-that wouldn’t be appropriate in the courtroom. She won her case- it was some high profile murder case.
                Anyway, you can’t compare two completely different cases like Arias and Castro-it’s like comparing two different cases of abuse. Personally, I think they should both be sentenced to death-neither will be of any use to society. But, that being said, Arias most likely will not be given the death penalty. She is a woman, and most woman escape the death penalty. Double standard-yes. If a man did this, I have no doubt he would be sentenced to death. We will just have to see how the jury decides.

                Like

              • Lindsay, I’m truly sorry to hear that your uncle was murdered. Such a terrible thing to happen.

                What I know of Nancy Grace’s career as a prosecutor is that she was twice cited for prosecutorial misconduct, which resulted in one of those cases being overturned on appeal. It’s much more difficult to overturn a plea deal, by the way. What I dislike about her even more is that she has been known to pay people with knowledge of her case to appear on her shows over the course of her career and say things that later turned out to be untrue based on testimony, and that she incites virtual witch hunts of anyone she deems to be a “criminal.” Two women even committed suicide that may have links to Nancy Grace’s treatment of them on her show.

                I don’t honestly know what to say about your view that Jodi Arias deserves the same punishment as Ariel Castro, or that Jodi Arias would be of no use to society. I can’t even fathom either of those statements as coming from a reasonable person. But again, I’m sorry for the loss of your uncle and realize that perhaps your views are altered as a result.

                Like

            • Heather

              So, Justice, you don’t know the real Jodi Arias.. but lets kill her anyway?
              If You had to fight for your life you would just let them kill you, is that it?
              And You would like to things like this, total lies written about you?

              The judge.. too.. ”Lenient”? That Judge is/was as biased as they come!
              Did you have cotton wool in your ears everytime she allowed JM to be abusive to Jodi and witnesses? Almost every time the defence objected, the judge allowed it. No wonder you don’t see that Jodi was abused by Travis.

              What you Should be saying is that the Judge should have STOPPED the TA Family from smirking and eye rolling with smug looks on their faces, right close to the jury, oh yes, she WAS far too lenient there.

              ”Jodi sat all through the trial with a smug defiant look on her face, the tears were fake, she has never been remorseful or sorry. She covered her face and peeped out the cracks between her fingers because she really was unable to produce real tears. Thats the way I fake cry with the Grandkids to fool them and watch”

              Sorry to have to say this, but say it I must.. the paragraph above shows me what sort of a person you are.
              What you have said couldn’t be further from the truth about Jodi; you call tears running down her face, FAKE??? ”Sat through the trial ”defiant” ??
              Well, seeing you have shown me what sort of person you are, why should it surprise me that you called her, ”defiant” ?

              In contrast, I have not seen ONE REAL TEAR coming from the TA Family when they spoke–what I saw was acting and not very good acting at that. What I saw were their smirks, eye rolling and smugness – for the Cameras and the jurors, If they were really grieving (and after 5 years its hard to believe; one would think this had only just happened ), they just wouldn’t be smirking and pulling faces – it doesn’t go together, sorry.

              Like

              • Heather! Good to see you back here, you’ve been a little quiet of late. How’s everything across the pond? Petrol prices manageable for you guys? Need us to bully some of those middle east countries and get some more crude for you?

                Like

              • Heather

                Good afternoon, John! Its called life taking over, how very inconsiderate isn’t it!!! LOL
                I’m thankful not to have a car.. where I live in London its so much easier – and cheaper to use the buses or tubes! The price of Petrol is simply shocking here, same as everything else, which is why I’m definitely going to buy some tomato plants for my greenhouse – missed the chance of growing stuff this year but I will next year!
                Yes, I’m sure we’d all love you to come and do some bullying, make sure you make a beeline for 10 Downing Street first!! 🙂

                Like

            • Justice, if you really think Jodi wasn’t abused, then you probably think a bear doesn’t crap in the woods, but in the middle of a McDonalds parking lot. Calling a woman a B, slut, whore, cunt, denigrating her passion of photography, using her like an object and refusing to reciprocate the love she gave and was trying to get from him. That’s classic Madonna-Whore Complex, and if you have the intellectual ambition to learn about this and more, I suggest this article: http://www.occupyhln.org/tasmind

              Like

      • Heather

        Hello Jason, you asked me to blog on your site, I did yesterday, which blog? Well, definitely the blog about Tot Doc, the video was hilarious. However, when I went back to look at the posts today, mine was missing?
        I remember the post underneath mine, so I haven’t got mixed up. Any reasons for this?

        Like

    • R.

      Excellent commentary! Nurmi’s closing was stellar and he doesn’t get enough credit. Disgraceful Nancy is the sociopath here. She’d sell her mother and probably her twins for fame, money and just having her face on television every night.

      Like

      • Heather

        Damned right she would, R !

        I would jail her, her cronies, for trying to pervert the course of Justice and brainwashing the moronic masses with lies, who can’t think for themselves. Dr Horn, Chris Hughes and Dr DeMented, and the Det, Ins Flores for lying on Oath, they perjored themselves. And lastly I would jail Martinez for knowing it was NOT premeditation and telling the Jury it was, because he hated Jodi and wanted her dead.

        Like

    • There are essentially two kinds of people who think she is guilty of Murder 1, or GUILTY OF SOMETHING.

      1: those who watch HLN and are brainwashed and need INTERPRETATION of testimony by the “experts” on HLN.
      2: those on the jury, and in the public, who can only see and hear “she stabbed him 29 times and slit his throat”. and “she gave three stories”. Those people do NOT PAY ATTENTION at all to the defense witnesses or anything supporting the defense. It is almost like they cupped their hands over their ears when anyone testifies FOR THE DEFENSE. They will quote and quote what a witness said to the prosecutor, but will never quote how the question was asked and how that may have produced the only answer the witness could give.

      It is almost like the joke question: “have you ever been caught masturbating in the closet”?

      “yes”, admits you were masturbating in the closet”
      “No”, admits you never got caught.

      Example of some of the DUAL QUESTIONS:

      Witness: Darryl Brewer.
      Prosecutor: “Jodi told you she was going to Mesa and asked to borrow gas cans, right?”
      Darryl: with some reluctance: YES.

      On cross Nurmi asks him if she actually said she was going to Mesa when she asked to borrow the gas cans. Darryl says: “I don’t recall her saying she was going to Mesa”.

      This was a deceitful common line of questioning by Martinez……..confuse the witness with dual “trick” questions, and get the answer only to part two of the question, but claim the witness said YES to both questions.

      One example of him doing this to Jodi:

      You said you returned the gas can to the SAME STORE…..so would you be surprised they have no record of it?” (paraphrase)
      Jodi: “yes, I would be surprised because I did return it and got a cash refund”.

      Now, I may be wrong and missed something she said previously about returning it to the SAME store……as this trial was five months long and I did not commit to memory every word of everyone’s testimony. Does anyone know if she said she returned to SAME STORE in prior testimony? If so, can you quote the testimony…..the question and the answer?

      Like

      • Kim

        On the question of whether she said “same Walmart”, yes she did say that and further clarified it was in the same center where the Starbux was located. Mr Martinez then asked again, “Same store?” And she said yes. I just listened to that again the other day.

        Like

      • Heather

        I don’t recall Jodi ever saying that, all she said was that she returned the gas cans and got a cash refund, I could be wrong. He’s a toad, Martinez, sneaky and Jodi stood her ground–the haters hate that.. the haters tell me he should get yes/no answers or she’s lying, WTF!

        You’re my kind of woman, Marion!

        Like

    • bill

      Interesting that Jodi was to make up for Caylee and Nicole, because it was like the strike against Afghanistan was to make up for Vietnam…except it has turned into the same story.

      Like

    • James Farr

      Also seems possible the ‘lynch-mob’ reaction to her sentencing was due to a general disbelief, or shall we call it `a lack of confidence,’ in the legal system, relief over the possibility that she might have gotten off or that her sentence would be something absurd like second-degree murder, manslaughter (unbelievably) or some kind of medical/psychiatric sentence,.

      Like

  2. Heather

    I also think the juror’s computers should be checked; its fantasy and unthinkable for the judge to not have sequestered the Jury, which to my mind is showing bias from the start; plenty occasions of that, followed.

    A friend who empathised with me in my sadness and tears told me he thought the jurors were afraid of being lynched and because of that, decided to give the 1st degree murder verdict. He also said he thought they were afraid of a riot outside the court, and that in due course the verdict will be lessened – for the simple fact that anyone could see this was Not premeditated. I hope he’s right, for it surely cannot end here. Right now its injustice at its finest. I think Jodi should have been aquitted, but, Arizona being a Republican State, I fear there’s little chance of that.

    None of this would happen here in Britain. Jodi has spent the past 5 years in Jail – guilty before any verdict, which is shocking. Over here a person would get Bail. I will always think of Arizona as the Killing State.

    Like

    • Hi Heather.

      Yes, the message has gotten through loud and clear that juries who acquit will face ridicule, obloquy and even death threats, like the Casey Anthony jury did. It is not an atmosphere conducive to sober deliberation and clear headedness.

      On the other hand, an out and out acquittal here was basically impossible. Even her own account of events didn’t square with self defense, which requires that the justified conduct is not wildly disproportionate. You might be able to successfully argue self defense if there weren’t so many stab wounds, and in particular the slashed throat. That last wound pretty much precluded a successful self defense claim, I think.

      It’s more than a little disconcerting, and even puzzling, that after what seems like no significant violence in her history she could suddenly become so brutally – not to mention successfully – homicidal, especially in a situation where she would have been so vastly outmatched, physically.

      Personally, I don’t put much stock in any version she has given, although the I-shot-him-first scenario seemed to match up with the blood spatters in the sink of the bathroom. I did see a segment from CNN on that aspect. But she’s clever, and could construct a scenario around facts she’s given.

      It would not shock me if it turned out that there was someone else involved, although it is hard to believe there wouldn’t be some indication of that somewhere, and I’m not aware of any. So for that reason it seems highly unlikely and I’d be surprised – but not shocked.

      Anyway, the whole thing is very sad, and now she’s on a suicide watch and we’re going to have a big to-do about whether the State is going to kill her. This is a very ugly episode in every way. Talking to a Brit, I’m embarrassed for our system, and our media.

      Like

      • Follow Occupy HLN, and there, we stand up for the constitution, due process, the burden of proof remaining on the State (presumption of innocence), and the right for a defendant to put forth a defense without being smeared for it. What we’re against is the sensationalist trial-by-media, led by the op-ed propaganda entertainment arm of the prison lobby, HLN. Find us at occupyhln.org or fb.me/occupyhln.

        Like

      • JMRJ, thank you so much for your wonderful article. I really enjoyed reading it. I worry so much that this trial will impact upon the willingness of experts to testify in such high profile cases in the future. All three of the defense experts (Dr. Richard Samuels (psychologis), Alyce LaViolette (counselor and domestic violence expert) and Dr. Robert Geffner (neuropsychologist and domestic violence expert) received death threats and also, numerous dreadful reviews about their books on Amazon, B&N, etc., and on YouTube. In addition, the proprietors and directors of future speaking engagements for Ms. LaViolette received hundreds of phone calls and messages asking them to cancel her engagements, and Ms. LaViolette received death threats on her office phone.

        I read Jose Baez’s book about his representation of Casey Anthony and he discussed therein the unwillingness of experts with families to testify. In fact, one or two of his experts backed out at the last minute.

        The impact of this mob mentality on future high profile trials is something we really cannot predict at this point.

        In regards to the nature of the wounds Jodi inflicted upon Travis, have you looked into any other cases of abused women who killed their abusers? For example, Wendy Maldonado, Susan Wright, Brenda Clubine, Barbara Sheehan (which was in NY since you mention practicing there), or any others. You can find detailed stories about those cases with a simple Google search. Abused women almost always use “overkill” (much as I detest that term) probably due to the high degree of fear that they feel. I’m an abuse survivor and on the last night I was with my ex-husband, he tried to kill me, donning a surgical glove and raising a large wine bottle.

        I had been speaking to domestic violence hotlines and counselors by phone for six months prior to that fateful night and I was prepared that it may happen. I was trying to leave and had unfortunately told him. I had a suspicion he would try to kill me that day and I began videotaping with my phone. I also had a house phone in my hand ready to call the police. One of his customers, who had become a close friend of his, was the commander of the local police department. I was really unsure that the police would do anything. He always told me if I called them, his friend would clear it all up. Although he had threatened to kill me before and abused me, even chasing up the stairs after me telling me he was going to kill me, I had never quite seen the look of murder in his eyes that I saw that night. This occurred in the kitchen and domestic violence counselors had instructed me to always attempt to leave the kitchen — a dangerous place with knives.

        However, at that moment, I was terrified. I considered attempting to move back into the kitchen to grab a knife. I knew that if I stabbed him, I would have to stab and stab and stab until he was dead. I had always known that’s what I’d have to do if I ever attacked back. There was no way for me that I could take the risk of him living. I got lucky that night. He noticed I was videotaping and became more concerned about that for a moment. I told him I had sent the video to a friend. That gave me the opportunity I needed to call the police and they arrived very quickly.

        I always have to think that if things had worked out differently, it could well have been my trial all over the media and not Jodi’s. Other than that police report, there were not reports of abuse. He was very well thought of in the community. I had begun confessing to a few friends who lived far away in other states what was occurring in the months proceeding that night, and I had kept a “journal of abuse”. However, before that, I had never told anyone, not a living soul. If he had killed me before I told anyone, or if I had killed him in self-defense, no one would be any the wiser. That’s merely my story — but there are so many others of women in similar situations. There are always multiple wounds and “overkill”.

        To add one thing to the Jodi/Travis story, she testified that he had choked her until she passed out. In domestic violence situations, that’s considered an extremely high indicator of lethality.

        Like

        • kim

          Wow AA, I just read this, I’m so sorry! That is so frightening. You are a very strong woman!

          Like

          • Thank you Kim. I don’t consider myself strong at all. I consider myself lucky. I had no choice that night. It was either be killed, try to kill him, or call the police and hope they did something. What happened after that was actually so much worse than the abuse, strange as that may sound. Getting away from these monsters is actually worse than being with them!

            Like

      • Heather

        I have to agree that self defence wasn’t the best, John.. and I think the same as you that someone else was there, but proving that would have meant more investigation or maybe it was simply that the State prevented that; I wouldn’t be at all surprised, they prevented other evidence being shown.
        I’m still thinking about Dustin Thompson, for one, and I’m sure Chris Hughes and his wife have much to hide, why else would they have needed to lie? It stinks of something Mormon to me. Then there are the room mates..

        Something doesn’t add up and the more I think about it, the more I feel that Jodi and her family were threatened, its just that there was no proof of that either.. the real pity is that not one member of the jury had any heart or soul or more importantly, any sense; if we can see things didn’t add up, why couldn’t they? I have a feeling the so called lies about intruders wasn’t far off the mark, but again, where’s the proof..
        The defence certainly haven’t had it easy. Could they still investigate, as it will now go to Appeal?

        If our government wanted to murder someone and they couldn’t prove it was premeditated, we would be aware of it, not stick our heads in the sand and call for the kill like an angry pack of rabid dogs. I really can’t grasp their mentality. I think it boils down to gross stupidity plus living in a fascist State.

        Also, I think they see an intelligent woman who, underneath all of this, (killing aside) is beautiful, talented and is a really good person. They haven’t thought for a nano second what they would do if they were in fear of their lives and had to kill someone to survive, and how they would feel to be treated like this. I just think they compare themselves to her and see themselves wanting, don’t like that feeling, and so she must die.. Its so unbelievably sick, its dreadful, but I can’t think of what else it Could be?

        Like

        • bill

          maybe the jury could have swallowed the intruder story if she stuck to it.

          Like

          • Heather

            Yes Bill, I think she should have, on the other hand its proving it, mind you if it had happened like that, it happened and the jury may have accepted it. I’m still thinking someone else came in that day and the intruders story wasn’t far from the truth.

            Like

  3. Heather

    Hello JMRJ,

    Yes, its terribly sad, this is why it cannot end here, it just can’t.

    I don’t feel that we agree on everything, though; because initially Jodi lied, I think its too easy to say that, because she’s clever, she could concoct a scenario. I feel that its also too easy to look at the number of stab wounds and think it doesn’t addup to self defence.
    Being that I have never killed anyone before, I can only try putting myself in the situation, and what I think might be the reason for the numerous times he was stabbed, is that she was scared out of her wits that he wouldn’t be dead and would come after her again, like he did when she accidentally shot him; feeling mortal fear such as this, how can we be sure when we have never experienced it?

    I have also been on your train of thought, that someone else could have been involved. Also, as Jodi can’t remember stabbing him, how can she be held responsible for overkill? I think its all too easy to let our thoughts run away with us and think that, simply because it sounds right to us?

    We all should know for a fact that Dr Horn lied, for he had to admit his ”typo” error, even though that typo ran the length of a sentence, and Martinez Had to continue with saying he was shot last or it would be admitting his witness had lied on oath. I have puzzled how anyone would think she stabbed him first in the shower; how would he have just let her do it, he would have easily overpowered her, I agree.

    I think Jodi has been consistent with everything she said, having to re-iterate what happened time after time, day after day, and it would, I think, be impossible even for someone as intelligent as Jodi, to not make any slip ups on the stand.

    Anyone with any common sense could see if they watched the trial that Martinez hates her and is determined to kill her; something extremely wrong wanting to kill her – when he can’t prove it was premeditated. Ugly? Its the ugliest thing I have ever seen in my life; lies and corruption of witnesses for the prosecution = The Death Penalty?
    I can’t believe this is happening, its like the people in Arizona are straight out of the Middle Ages. Its a wonder they don’t ask for a public beheading, for I don’t doubt they would if it was on offer.

    This is a Witch Hunt, no question about it :(. Jodi is a person, a woman abused, who was pushed over the edge by a violent abuser, that is why this isn’t a fair trial.
    Women are not believed in the State of Arizona and, I think, in Texas too, also from what my friend in the US tells me, Oklahoma is just as bad.
    The US INjustice sytem has Got to change, and may Jodi’s farce of a trial set the precedent. I really cannot see how anyone can give her the death penalty now with the public knowing how unfair and unjust this is. But, does the State of Arizona care? I don’t think so, abused women are just commodities to be dispensed with on a whim, evidence doesn’t come into it. Its totally barbaric.

    Like

    • Heather, I really have to apologize, I didn’t follow the trial closely enough to even know who “Dr. Horn” is. The only in-depth report that caught me was this CNN thing where they were discussing whether the victim was shot first or stabbed first, with JA’s side saying the former and the prosecution saying the latter, and I thought that JA’s side clearly had the better of that argument.

      But since you seem to have followed it so closely, let me ask you to consider the scenario where the victim is shot first. In the face, pretty much, right? Wasn’t he a salesman or speaker, and a rather nice looking man?

      So he’s bleeding all over the sink and looking at himself in the mirror right over the sink and seeing how disfigured he is, and realizing JA shot him and starts demanding that she finish the job because he doesn’t want to go through life disfigured like that? And he just keeps egging her on because he really wants her to kill him and she’s doing as he asks but she’s not very good at – which she really couldn’t have been – it which is why there are so many non-fatal stab wounds? And that might also account for how she could possibly have “overpowered” him because in fact she didn’t: he wanted her to kill him and although he himself was in a suicidal/homicidal rage he wasn’t really resisting.

      Of course, you understand that this would still be a homicide by JA under the law. But here in New York that could wind up being manslaughter or even criminally negligent homicide which especially in the latter case is very different from murder.

      But I don’t know that much about it. It’s just hard for me to accept that she could have done that to him all by herself. At least if he was resisting. So it seems likely that either there was someone else or that he wasn’t resisting.

      Like

      • Heather

        Hi JMRJ I followed the trial every night, live, you can also learn the truth, and I mean the REAL TRUTH as opposed to the obvious Republican/can’t mentality there is in AZ. on the Jodiariasisinnocent site where you will find intelligent posts from everyone, not people calling you an idiot, if you know what I mean!
        ….Here is what happened:
        Firstly, a man bigger and stronger that Jodi isn’t going to let her give him multiple stab wounds. He didn’t tell her to kill him.

        Jodi arrived at his house on June 3rd, she was en route to see various people, she stopped at a nail bar to get her nails done – that really isn’t consistent with going to stab Travis to death! She contemplated (because she was due to take photographs of her friend’s child (I think), but as Travis had wanted her to go there, she decided to do that – he had told her, or ordered, I don’t know, to bring the discs of the photographs of them on their road trips. She called Travis saying she was on her way.

        When she arrived she let herself in because the door was always left open, and Travis was on the computer with his back to her. If Jodi had gone there to Murder him, whydidn’t she just fire bullets into the back of his head there and then, she (according to Martinez) stole a gun for precisely that purpose.

        She arrived there at 4am, they hugged and kissed – and went to bed, no sex, Jodi said she was tired. The next day they had sex and he took naked explicit photos of Jodi, and she took naked ones of him. TA used a rope, hence there was a knife to cut it there as well.

        They were in his study after that and Jodi gave him the discs he wanted. BUT, when he went to put them onto the computer they were damaged. Travis flew into a rage and hurled them at the wall. He then bent Jodi over a chair and had rough sex with her.

        Jodi had planned to leave that afternoon and go to the friend’s house as she had been expected the day before, so she packed her camera and things she brought to Travis’.. then to make Travis happy she asked him if he would like her to take some photos of him. He agreed. Jodi, being a photographer, thought the effect of water on his newly toned body (he had been exercising ready for the trip to Cancun) would be good. BTW she had already moved back to CA at that point and was seeing other people, for a possible relationship; she had decided TA wasn’t marriage material and was starting to grow a backbone but she hadn’t minded him taking Mimi Hall to Cancun .

        So, back to the shower. Jodi stared taking photos of Travis, then she accidentally dropped his camera (hers was already packed )
        Travis suddenly went into a rage and told her a 5 year old could do better–or words similar, they were demeaning. He flew at her, body slammed her on the floor. She managed to roll away and in terror (she had never seen Travis get as angry as that) ,and ran fearing for her life. She ran into the closet, got his gun off the shelf, first of all banging the door shut as she ran in there. TA was wet and it took a few more seconds to run after her. Jodi didn’t know the gun was loaded or not. She knew the gun was there as she had seen it before; TA made her his cleaner and demanded she wear a French maid outfit so she knew where the gun was.

        Jodi grabbed the gun and stood there petrified, I would think, she pointed it straight at him to Make Him Stop. Any normal person would, not TA, he was extremely angry. He lunged at her and the gun went off. Jodi thought she’d hit the wall but it hit TA in the left temple (think it was or could be the right), it didn’t stop him and they both fell in the blast. Somehow Jodi got out of his way so he wouldn’t pin her down. She ran, got the knife, (she must have done because she remembers it making a clang on the tiled floor afterwards when she dropped it), other than that, Jodi doesn’t remember anything. TA yelled at her, ”Fucking kill you, bitch” and went after her. The gunshot did not incapacitate him, the bullet had lodged in his cheek, (opposite cheek to where it entered) Had Jodi planned to murder him, why was it only a .25 calibre gun??? Answer: Because she did not bring a gun with her, it was Travis’. In AZ one doesn’t have to register a gun, so his friends wouldn’t know if he had one or not.

        Dr Horn, for the prosecution, said in his report that it wouldn’t have incapacitated him, then, changed his story months later; it was a sentence. He tried to wriggle out of his lie, saying he made ”a typo” A TYPO? In a murder case? He was the ME, He said the gunshot came first and WOULD have incapacitated him. Jennifer Wilmott caught him out.

        I think that’s covered the essential facts. All the rest, gas cans, etc were a red herring, irrelevant.
        Jodi paid with her Debit Card. Who would leave a paper trail when she bought things on route to TA, supposedly to murder him, like Martinez insisted?

        Like

        • So, did the prosecution have the gun or the knife, or both, in evidence?

          Like

          • Heather

            No. They had Nothing of any consequence at all! Certainly nothing to prove premeditation. Martinez knew that if he yelled and shouted loudly enough, ranted on and on and TOLD the jury what to do, that she did plan to kill him and, ”look at his injuries? ”There he was, a sitting duck, naked, and vulnerable and she stabbed him. Then after she had slit his throat, she shot him after he was already dead”, he would convince the Jury to give the verdict he wanted, 1st Degree Murder. Total CRAP!.

            Like

          • kim

            I am not 100% sold on the “gun shot last” theory, but I didn’t try the case and won’t criticize State’s decision. However, considering his position in the shower & State’s theory, she stabbed him in a fatal area, not enough to kill him immediately, but she did some serious damage that ultimately would have been fatal even if it had been the only wound. There was testimony that her hand/fingers were cut, I’m sure he tried to fight back but the wound was significant.

            As far as Jodi’s history of violence, there was testimony she was violent with her mother during teen-age years. Testimony came into the trial from one of the State’s witnesses that she stalked him and slashed his tires. There were I believe 3 incidents of slashed tires (1 with Travi’s ex girlfriend and 2 (2 nights in a row), involving Travis’s BMW (and there was NO evidence that replacing slashed expensive tires angered him, but a dropped camera did?). I don’t believe all 3 incidents were testified to, but the tire slashing was definitely testified to by one of the State’s witnesses.

            There was absolutely no evidence in Travis’s home of a gun, cleaning supplies for a gun, bullets, holster, etc. As I’m sure you know, the same caliber gun was stolen from Jodi’s grandparents’ home 2 days after an email/text argument between Jodi and Travis whereby Travis told her she was “the worst thing that ever happened to him/”, which was 7 days prior to his murder. Jodi testified it was Travis’s gun she grabbed from his top shelf in his closet that she climbed up to retrieve while being chased by him. Not a piece of furniture/clothing out of place in that closet. Jodi further testified she disposed of gun somewhere in the desert. She’s not sure where she put knife.

            The gas can testimony and CD of pics did her in with the premeditation, amongst other things. She testified that she had no plan at all of going to see Travis, yet she happened to take a CD that contained pics of the 2 of them so she could show him the pics. Huh? Daryl, ex who gave her gas cans, testified she told him she was going to Mesa, she testified differently.

            There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but circumstantial evidence can and does support the conviction. The relationship was definitely toxic. Travis was not a saint, but he did not deserve to be slaughtered. On the issue of the death penalty, not sure how that will play out, but IMO the important issue has been decided.

            Like

            • AK

              “Testimony came into the trial from one of the State’s witnesses that she stalked him and slashed his tires. There were I believe 3 incidents of slashed tires (1 with Travi’s ex girlfriend and 2 (2 nights in a row), involving Travis’s BMW (and there was NO evidence that replacing slashed expensive tires angered him, but a dropped camera did?). I don’t believe all 3 incidents were testified to, but the tire slashing was definitely testified to by one of the State’s witnesses”

              This is heresay. Did this witness see Jodi ACTUALLY slashing the tires? Probably not. He or she just heard from Travis. Even though there is a police report of tire slashing, there is no proof that Jodi was apart of this. It could have easily been another one of Travis’ exes.

              Like

              • Kim

                I agree it was hearsay but nonetheless it came in without an objection. The defense tried for over 4 years to find an angry ex and how many did they find? I’m not condoning behavior of people hating on those who have a different opinion by any means. In the end, neither my opinion nor anyone else’s opinion matters. The 12 jurors’ opinions are what matter and I would have respected any decision except an acquittal.

                Like

            • So no one introduced the knife or the gun at trial? Neither prosecution or defense? This is bizarre. If the defense shifts to self defense they had better produce the gun and the knife or have some really, really, really REALLY good explanation for why they can’t, which obviously doesn’t mean “somewhere in the desert” and “I don’t know”.

              On the other hand the prosecution really ought to have those things if they are alleging the defendant confessed, right?

              I beginning to see why people got so interested. This is messed up.

              I still think the narrative of “she started stabbing him in the shower and that’s why she could overpower him”, while possible, is inherently not credible. Something is missing here, maybe more than one thing.

              Like

              • Lindsay Gimblet

                The defense didn’t allege she confessed-she confessed. She was on the stand for 18 days. She confessed to the detectives (on tape) and she confessed again on the stand.

                Like

              • Well, Lindsay alleged v. did is not the point. When someone confesses you try to get independent confirmation of the facts they give you, because there are so many nutcases that confess to things they didn’t do. So if she says she shot him and stabbed him you definitely want to get the knife and gun to make sure she isn’t just making it up. And that also applied to her account on the stand. Did none of the jurors ask where the knife and gun were?

                Like

            • AK

              “The gas can testimony and CD of pics did her in with the premeditation, amongst other things. She testified that she had no plan at all of going to see Travis, yet she happened to take a CD that contained pics of the 2 of them so she could show him the pics. Huh? Daryl, ex who gave her gas cans, testified she told him she was going to Mesa, she testified differently”

              This means Jodi lied. Lying does not equate to premeditation. Just because she plan of visiting him, doesnt equate to premeditation. If you were to planning on visiting your friend, and your friend is suddenly murdered and somehow you were the prime suspect. Does this equal premeditation? No. Furthermore, re: CD, lets stick with the fact she wanted to show them to him, and remind him of all the good times. Travis didnt buy it. She went in a fury/rage=heat of passion, and therefore should be convicted of manslaughter or second degree murder.

              Like

              • AK

                “I agree it was hearsay but nonetheless it came in without an objection. The defense tried for over 4 years to find an angry ex and how many did they find? ”

                “It came in without objection” Yes, thats why the trial was not fair!

                “The defense tried for over 4 years to find an angry ex and how many did they find? ”

                I suspect the exes were also part of the Mormon faith, and would have probably feared the wrath of the Mormon community, if they came out against Travis.

                Like

            • Heather

              kim, I don’t see any fairness in convicting someone on circumstantial evidence – least of all in a death penalty case. Matinez, in essence, convicted her with supposition. This is very wrong in my opinion.
              I take it you are fine with the verdict of the DP.

              Jodi killed Travis Alexander in self defence. Martinez wants to murder her in cold blood. He is murdering her for defending herself agaist a violent and abusive man. And you think this is fair and just?
              That is a fact. (evidence in tapes , IM’s and emails)

              Like

            • Heather

              I don’t know whether you are aware of this, Kim, but reading your post, I don’t think you can be. Travis led a double life, in it was his dirty little secret–Jodi.
              Travis had told his friends that he wanted to end the relationship with Jodi, when in fact that was the furthest from his mind. He wanted to go out with other women because he wanted to get married, but Not to Jodi; even though both he and Jodi were in a relationship at the time, Travis wanted a pure and Mormon wife and.Jodi, in his estimation, was just good for sex, (even though he had indoctrinated her into the Mormon religion and baptised her), and he wanted to keep it that way, in fact Travis cheated on every woman he was dating at the same time, including Jodi.

              Travis’s friends were under the impression that their relationship was finished, and so when Jodi appeared suddenly without knowing anything about this, Travis, to keep his dirty little secret a secret, told his friends that Jodi was stalking him. Hence this is what his ex girlfriend said on the stand, which, although she may have thought it true at the time, she clearly found out that it wasn’t.Yet, became a witness for the prosecution. Her name was Lisa Andrews.

              I believe, in the same token, Travis told his friends that it was Jodi who slashed his tyres.

              None of this adds up to any evidence at all, seeing that it all had come from Travis, that, at best was hearsay. Martinez, knowing all these things were hearsay, brainwashed whoever was willing, that this was evidence of premeditation, and those who were willing to be suckered in believed it as the gospel truth and did want Martinez had basically told them to do, convict om 1st Degree Murder.

              Martinez’ below the belt antics were that of a salesman; a choice of words to convince you, which was exactly what he was doing, he wanted you to ”buy it”, and it worked!

              ”The history of violence” ?

              So at 14 she kicked her mother; we all heard or at least I did, that Jodi’s parents were both physically abusive to not only Jodi, but her brother as well. How come you only look at what you want to look at, Kim?
              If my mother and father had physically abused me, at the age of 14, I would have most definitely hit back. Teenagers do that, it isn’t unusual in normal households. And Jodi’s household was far from normal.

              The people who criticise Jodi, say, why did she go back to him, this makes her guilty!. Well, in psychology, its called ”going home.”

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, just saw this post. I am not looking at only what I want to look at. It all comes back to “what Jodi says”. I don’t recall any other evidence coming into the trial that supported abuse from her parents. Her experts received their information from Jodi. Jodi’s brother did not testify at trial so the jurors could not consider that, other than what Jodi said about him. Again, goes back to the credibility they obviously did not find in her. I found it interesting in her post verdict interview she mentioned her mom and how (I’m paraphrasing here) supportive her mom has been after all the she did to her, something along those lines.

                I agree Travis was a jerk to her. I would be furious if a guy treated me like that or talked to me like that. That does not justify a killing. Much of what the friends are saying is in the media, so again, I won’t rely on what they say about Jodi either as much of it is inflammatory and did not belong in the trial, which is why it wasn’t in the trial.

                My decision was made after the testimony, not after closing arguments. In cases I’ve tried I find closing arguments, both sides, to be the attorneys’ recollection of testimony, which can be flawed, exaggerated, or bs.

                Like

            • Heather

              Kim, the jury heard that Jodi’s parents were violent to her early on in the trial hearings, so the history of violence thing at age 14.? Anyone would be angry and hit back, apparently she kicked her mother, well, the lesson here is, don’t be violent with your children. Jodi’s father once pushed her into furniture, a piano, I believe, he also pushed her really hard into the door frame. There was a history of abuse in the home, not just to Jodi but with her brother too, Jodi told the jury that her mother went to hit her brother with a wooden spoon and she put her hand there to stop it and got hit.
              Of course, Martinez only looked one side, from kicking her mother that once, so she now had a ”history of violence”..

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, I think that argument goes both ways on the “history of violence” she demonstrated from her parents. Again, all Jodi’s words not corroborated by anyone during the trial. If I’m not mistaken, in her post conviction interview she apologizes to her mother for all she has done to her and also discusses her lack of mitigating factors to avoid DP. She says she has none. She didn’t grow up in around drugs, abuse, etc. I’m paraphrasing, but in the portion I watched she discussed those things. Her words were “her attorneys told her no mitigating factors” d/t the lack of these in her life.

                Like

              • Heather

                Hi kim,

                Re the violence.. I think its up to the parents to set an example, they shouldn’t be showing violence to their children, so I find it understandable that Jodi would have hit and kicked her mother that once.. she was only 14 after all, There would be no reason for Jodi to have shown violence had her parents not been violent to her, imo.

                Even though Jodi had spoken at the beginning of her trial about the violence she received from her parents, all Martinez focussed on of course was that Jodi showed she had a ”history of violence”, in order to support his argument for the DP.

                I can’t imagine that any child, if treated with respect, would show violence out of the blue for no reason. But that was what Martinez focused on, a 14 year old who was pushed into furniture and a door frame, hitting and kicking back.

                We all know that children push boundary lines, knocking on walls to see if it caves in, but that doesn’t give parents the right to use violence, because I can’t see any reason to be violent to children, nor with anyone.. unless of course someone has used violence against you, you’re in terror and are fighting for your life.

                Like

              • Heather

                Correction: Oooops..spelling and grammatical error!!! 🙂

                Like

              • In her interview, Jodi said that the kicking of her mother incident was under the table after her mother kicked her, she kicked back. I really wouldn’t consider that a “history of violence.” I don’t even think a person could really kick someone very hard under a table. That was seriously mischaracterized by Martinez.

                Like

          • If she had produced the gun, it would have helped her case. But she was in a “fog” for hours & remembers that it’s near the road somewhere in the desert. When she was arrested, she was leaving town for a few days & had packed two knives and a gun in the car. Who was she going after next?
            Jodi dated a man who trained for MMA fighting & also trained in swordfighting & Jodi worked out with him in both arts. She said he committed suicide years ago, but he’s an actor & played on the TV series Lost. The photos match. His current girlfriend says she has often wrestled with him too. There’s such a pile of lie upon lie that it’s hard to tell where the truth may be found.

            Like

            • Heather

              Sorry, Jennifer, but from what you write it sounds to me like you love to hate. Plenty of people do, you’re not alone.

              Your so-called ”facts” are utterly preposterous, ”When she was arrested she was leaving town for a few days and had packed 2 knives and a gun in the car. Who was she going after next?”

              Again, sorry Jennifer, but you hace just unmasked yourself from someone who might have come here to have intelligent and discussion, to being seen as one of the haters that we intelligent folk, abhor.

              There is only ”lie upon lie..” because you want it to be that way. Your ”facts” are ridiculous at best. Don’t you have anything good and exciting going on in your life that you have to concoct these elaborate stories?

              Like

  4. Heather

    Here is the perfect example of a person brainwashed:
    This is a real post.

    Hi Anonymous,

    ‘BLANK’ commented on: “Is Jodi Arias a Sociopath?”

    Subject: Thankfully a Guilty of Premeditated Murder-1 for Jodi
    ”I believe when this article was written more information of Jodi’s childhood
    had not come to light. When her parents interviews by Det. Flores came
    out…Bang…there is was out of the mouths of her own parents. Jodi was
    already showing aberrant behavior.

    After the pot bust at 14 she doubled down on her secret life and her
    relationship with her parents was severed for all intensive purposes. Her
    parents admit..she became secret and paranoid.

    Secret and paranoid were hallmarks of her relationship with Travis.

    Jodi must have realized that she had proclivities that her parents would
    object and she wasn’t going to stop them so, moving to her grandparents meant
    that they couldn’t spy on her anymore.

    Quitting school was the start of her downward spiral. She had no goals and
    could not plan for the future. She would have to work as a waitress and
    better professions would be out of her reach. She never took any steps to get
    an education but continued to find men who were pot dealers or one who was an
    alcoholic and her life continued as a waitress with financial issues always
    pending.

    I believe meeting Travis gave her the idea that if she could social climb,
    snag him, her waitress days would be over. She could also climb the ladder in
    PPL with his help and save herself the trouble of really working hard by
    skipping head on the coat tails of Travis who looked successful and told her
    he made six figures.

    Sex became her calling card when she learned Travis was not that experienced.
    She wasn’t the first woman to use sex to get her man. The problem was LDS
    came along for the ride and had a hold on Travis. So, she joins LDS to get
    that out of the way.

    After Travis broke up with her..she Lied to her father and said she was
    moving to Mesa to Marry Travis..and there’s her BIG Fantasy that started the
    ball rolling on her obsession with Travis. Jodi’s life went downhill from
    there because she got desperate, more in debt, became risky with her
    stalking,etc. and blew it with everyone in Mesa even Travis.

    After that email…he warns her he’s going to tell her parents about her
    sociopath behaviors. He’s also going to tell everyone else..PPL. Jodi’s dad
    said she was about to claim bankruptcy due to her debt. Jodi still owned
    Travis for the broken BMW.

    Had Travis told everyone the things she had done in Mesa..and her parents
    that would have rocked her world including her involvement with PPL and LDS
    for potential suitors. She was afraid of becoming ostracized, humiliated and
    especially her parents finding out the kind of life she had been
    leading..stalking,slashing tires,etc.

    That why 2 days later she steals the gun and kills him. She could not risk
    being discovered for behaving like a sociopath and as long as Travis
    lived…he could expose her anytime to all those people and she would have
    been ostracized by everyone at PPL and LDS.

    Her jealousy about Cancun was minor compared to saving her reputation &
    keeping her parents unaware and in the dark about her life of failures. She
    wasted years on Travis and came home in debt and demoralized but still Jodi
    always blames everyone else for her predicaments in life and why she lies and
    blames Travis for her having to kill him”.

    Like

  5. Heather

    I forgot to add;; ‘Blank’ believed what he wanted to believe, (don’t they All)

    The article he spoke about was from Pitchforks latest post, I happened to post the link. Her post was only a posted a week ago.

    Like

    • Marion

      “Blank” must have “co-authored” this nonsense scenario with Juan martinez himself. What an unintelligent CROCK!!

      Like

      • Heather

        Exactly, Marion! I found it today in my inbox.

        Like

      • Heather

        And here’s another one, marion.. I despair, I really do. How would anyone expect Jodi to look??? WTF! She was fearing for her life on a murder charge..has spent 5 years in jail.. is 5 years older and wiser…and this stupid person is bothered by the way she has changed her ”look” ? O M G!
        And thinks she can judge who has BPD? These haters hand out labels as if its mandatory!

        ”After watching only a few minutes of this trial and hearing about JA, my gut
        turned and I had an overwhelming visceral response to her as I watched and
        listened. It’s the kind of response that only someone who has successfully
        extracted themselves from a relationship with a BPD can recognize as it
        quickly feels familiarly spooky and too close for comfort.

        The comments and points made by “if you have ever been entangled are dead on
        accurate in my opinion. Nothing that a BPD says or appears to be on the
        surface can be trusted or believed as they have an inherent gift for
        deception and projection. What they fear most is exposure and will split and
        change in all manners of their personality to avoid it, sometimes within the
        same sentence.

        What struck me first were the multiple changes in appearance from all of JA’s
        photographs compared to her court “look”. I’m weighing in that she is a BPD
        not from a professional stand point but from my gut reaction that is one I
        trust after my own experience and learning about BPD’s. It’s a permanent
        fixture in my radar now and goes off whenever a BPD is near. The comments
        made here state it better than I ever could and I resonate the same to the
        letter.”

        Like

  6. Lindsay

    I’m sorry, but you are an idiot to think no premeditation, or that she accidentally shot him. It is obvious you did not follow this case, and therefore you are making uneducated assumptions as to what happened. While a death penalty should never be an easy decision, if you truly watched and understood this case, you would see that this is one criminal that should get the DP. I am so glad tha someone of your mindset was not on the jury. Heck, I hope you are never chosen for a jury. You don’t seem to understand justice.

    Like

    • I only saw that one CNN segment and maybe read a few headlines here and there. I was trying not to get drawn in.

      But the question remains: how does little Jodi Arias overpower her boyfriend? If the prosecution’s case is that the gunshot came last, it’s practically impossible to believe that she could have killed him with a knife like that. Men are just much more powerful.

      Actually, I’m personally aware of a woman killing a man with a knife but it was one slash, without warning, that nicked the jugular. A woman overcoming a man with a knife during a struggle? Possible, but highly implausible.

      Like

      • Lindsay

        First stab was in the chest, actually a fatal wound. It wasn’t immediately fatal, but that is how she started it. From that point on, it was easy for her to stab an additional almost 30 times, then slice his throat to his spine. I see she is small, but she was able to do it. After slicing his throat, she then drug his body back into the shower- she admits to that. Still difficult for her to do, but she was able to.
        And there was no overcoming him-first stab was a surprise to him. He was unarmed and unaware. I tried to not get involved in this case, but as it continued on and I heard some details, I got sucked in. I can guarantee if an ugly girl or a man did this, no one would have an issue with guilty and DP.

        Like

        • Plunges a knife into his heart having caught him unawares? Not just a nick on his throat like the case I’m familiar with after swinging a knife in a slashing motion, but a powerful thrust sufficient to penetrate into the chest?

          It’s possible. Barely. But it’s so unlikely you start looking for other explanations. The gunshot wound first explains things a lot better, and is more consistent with the blood all over the sink. Based on that CNN segment I saw, anyway.

          And I can only speak for myself but just by training and inclination I always have an issue with guilty and DP, although sometimes my reflex skepticism is overcome by proof.

          Like

          • Lindsay

            It’s possible. The blood splatter in the sink is due to him coughing up blood from the chest stab wound. So you saw one segment and now you know what happened? Initially I thought she shot him first-makes sense. But after hearing the ME testimony, I believe the shot was last.
            I’m not sure what case you are talking about with a nick on his throat, considering his throat was sliced open. That also would take strength, but can be done.
            And I also may jump to the death penalty, being a victim of a violent, premeditated crime. But to the extent that the victim was butchered is beyond a simple murder case. If he was shot once, or even twice, to death, it would be a completely different story. But this was beyond just murder. This was malice.

            Like

            • I don’t know, Lindsay. The “nick in the throat” was another case I am familiar with where a woman killed a man with a knife but it was a freak slash with no warning. There was no struggle. Let’s face it, if a woman takes a knife to a man she loses, absent some fortuitous occurrence that is by definition unlikely. The likelihood is that something else went on here.

              Like

              • Lindsay

                What do you think went on?

                Like

              • Because it is so unlikely that she could have overpowered him in a struggle, the possibility that there was someone else involved should have been considered and investigated. And although this seems freakish, the possibility that he wanted to die because he had been badly disfigured by the gunshot to the head, and then encouraged her to finish the job might also be on the table, simply because it explains why she might have been able to kill him with a knife even though he had the capacity to defend himself, when experience tells you she should not have been able to do that. At least she probably should not have been able to.

                Doesn’t this aspect of it bother you?

                Like

        • Marion

          You are obviously a very dumb person and don’t even understand that there is no such word as “drug” him in the shower. The word is “dragged” and after you used that uneducated word I saw your lack of intelligence. You keep saying “it was difficult, but she did it”? Really? How convenient to justify your utter ignorance in that way.

          Like

          • Lindsay

            Wow, I can now see that this isn’t a site to discuss the case. This is a site to try to bully people that believe Jodi Arias is guilty. I think you should go follow her support site, jodiariasisinnocent.com. That seems like a better place for you to slam people that think she’s guilty. And as for my saying it was difficult, if you followed the previous poster’s comment, I was reiterating what they said. I’m sorry you are such an angry person and I hope you find help to resolve it. Hopefully we won’t see you on tv next for something similar.
            Again, since it is obvious this is a biased site that will bully others who believe JA is guilty, I’m signing off. Oh, and it’s quite hypocritical to judge me on a grammatical error by calling me a very dumb person (what intellectual wording) and yet call me ignorant for justifying my view on the case. Oh wait, you didn’t even attempt a justification of your views…

            Like

        • Heather

          Well, Lindsay is doesn’t take the brain of Britain to know that Martinez did an excellent job of sucking you in.
          Nothing about whether the person was ugly or beautiful, Lindsay, this trial is about a young woman who had to kill to save her life; once the gun accidentally went off, he told her, ”Fucking kill you, bitch”, and as he wasn’t rendered totally incapacitated, went after her, hence the pool of blood in the hallway.

          This trial is about an innocent abused woman who the State has convicted, without any evidence whatsoever of premeditation. Martinez was desperate to kill her. Think of the money and fame he would have, and the adoration from his moronic fans who had to be told by him what to think.

          Call this JUSTICE?

          This is about getting justice for Jodi and ALL women who have been abused, physically, sexually, verbally and emotionally.

          Like

          • Lindsay

            And what proof do you have that Jodi was abused? You are blaming the victim for being brutally murdered. You say she is innocent-did you watch the trial? Did you watch her 18 days of testimony?
            This has nothing to do with justice for all women who have been abused-she was never abused. If you had experience in that aspect you would see it. But you don’t- you are solely judging on whatever limited info you have in Britain.

            Like

            • AK

              I hope I am replying to the correct comment made by Lindsay.

              “Do you have proof of the choking, pushing, kicking? Also, do you know what a double-jointed finger is? I can do that to my finger, and it has never been broken”

              In the court of law, Jodi is to be presumed innocent until the jury decides on a verdict. She actually doesn’t even need to prove that. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. In order for a first degree murder conviction, the prosecution needs to prove premeditation, that’s all the matters. I feel the Jury has been tainted by the media frenzy.

              Like

            • Heather

              Lindsay, Have you heard of getting information online, and seeing the trial live from the courtroom, hearing the news, googling for information, going on different sites, seeing the police report, etc, etc.? The information I have had, isn’t limited, in fact I think I have had more information than you have or you would see things a lot differently

              I don’t have to be in America to get all the information, you know. The internet is a wonderful medium.

              Like

      • Mother was a nurse & she said that many times when someone “went off” they needed several people to restrain them, no matter what their size or sex. When someone is in a highly emotional state, they don’t think about how they can hurt themselves & become very much stronger than they appear. Jodi was dressed in sweatpants & loose blouse. He was naked & wet in the shower in a fully tiled bathroom & hallway. Jodi said the tiles were VERY slippery when wet (her emphasis, not mine). She blinded him with the camera flash, pulled the knife from behind her & stabbed him before he could see what was coming. Once the superior vena cava was sliced, his strength left fast. A friend of mine nearly died from internal bleeding & she said that it’s so odd as the blood leaves your brain, everything seems to get far away and you get very weak and disconnected from what’s happening to you. Travis was dying already & with his weakening strength, his only impulse was to flee. He was never supposed to leave the shower, but got past her somehow. She kept slashing as he stumbled around the bathroom & around to the doorway. His strength finally gave out at the end of the hallway.The stomping marks on his legs & torn skin on the back of his heel looks as if she tried to kick him over before he finally fell. He was no threat & never tried to fight her, & her next boyfriend later that same day described her as very strong. She had to decide to cut his throat. He was already down & dying, but she decided to cut his throat anyway, while he was still aware of who was doing this to him. There was no blood in the gunshot wound, so he was dead when he was shot, to through detectives off & make them think it was 2 people who did it. She supported this setting of the scene with her second story, when she said 2 ninjas did it, one with a knife & one with a gun.
        Anybody who thinks a small person with training couldn’t take down an unsuspecting, defenseless larger person has never witnessed a hog slaughter. If it’s fast & unexpected, death follows quickly; if it’s too slow, both parties can die a gory death. Just saying.
        And what was she doing, leaving town with 2 knives and a gun hidden in the car with her? Only 2 other people knew she had gone to Mesa as far as she knew at that time. Was she going to take care of them?

        Like

        • BTW, I watched the trial on computer directly from the courtroom’s live feed. I do my own thinking.

          Like

        • You haven’t answered one of the most important questions of all though. If her plan was to kill him, why didn’t she shoot him when she arrived? Why didn’t she shoot him or stab him while he was asleep? She said she woke up about an hour before he did.

          Perhaps she was leaving at the time of her arrest because she was terrified. All Travis’s friends believed she had killed him and were threatening her. That being said, I have seen no evidence anywhere (other than rumours) that she had a gun and two knives hidden in the car. And premeditation is not proven by actions post-crime.

          Like

    • Lindsay, it’s quite obvious you follow HLN and not the facts. The author of this article indeed is correct. There is no physical evidence of premeditation (that’s why Juan kept saying “covert mission” in his closing), no confession, no notes, no telling anybody what she was “planning”.

      Juan had only circumstantial stories of premeditation — each of which could be separately proven false. Juan wanted the aggregate of his circumstantial stories — in particular 6 I outline, and believe the aggregate equals premeditation.

      Get off your HLN bandwagon and follow a real news source, although HLN does have a monopoly on the high profile crimes “market”.

      Like

      • Lindsay

        I’m sorry, are you the real news source? You sound credible.

        Like

      • I thought that was Nurmi saying “covert mission.” I heard it when he was talking. But feel sorry for her attorneys. This client is so rotten that salt wouldn’t save her. They did everything they knew to do, and then some. They used everything they could think of to put off the inevitable, but could not paint a pretty picture over this woman. From her klepto ways (actually caught on camera stealing), shooting birds in court, making faces, & behaving aggressively to the Prosecutor (Why would she antagonize someone with that kind of power over her future?), they had a time with her. She didn’t understand why nobody believed her or why she had to do what her attorneys said. She got into only one fight in jail, though; but her cell has to be tossed every now and then to recover stolen items & contraband. She recognizes no authority but her own, & that’s probably why she may get the death penalty; no remorse. None. Not even sorry she drove the 1000+ miles to Mesa that week, & doesn’t understand that she put a gasoline bomb in her trunk in midsummer to drive in 110-degree heat. Incredible.

        Like

        • Heather

          Jennifer, I had no idea there were birds in the courtroom, haha funny, I never saw any!!!

          ”She got into only one fight in jail, though; but her cell has to be tossed every now and then to recover stolen items & contraband.”

          Please tell me how she gets out of jail ”every now and then” to go stealing ? What does she do, a moonlight flit ? Shoot and stab the guards ?

          Like

    • Heather

      Don’t understand justice, Lindsay? Well, I guess that is expected from someone that wants Jodi to get the DP. Tell you what, anyone who has common sense would understand everything about this farce of a case.

      Like

      • Lindsay

        Thanks for understanding that I have common sense!

        Like

        • Paul

          lindsay. this is not a case in which the criminal deserves the death penalty. two wrongs don’t make a right. if it’s wrong for jodi arias to kill, it’s equally as wrong for juan martinez to kill.

          Like

          • Juan Martinez is doing his job as prescribed by law, and he’s very good at it. His record is 14-0 in death penalty cases; I’m not counting Jodi because she may still pull her fat from that fire if she follows her attorneys’ directions. He’s not the one who will put the needle in her arm, or who will turn the key in the lock if she gets Life in prison. That’s a process that’s written in the law and is up to the Legislature of the State of Arizona. Take it up with them. Calling people names won’t change Arizona legislators’ minds.

            Like

            • Okay, Jennifer Cherry Rose, I think you’ve been getting your information from some online source because you are perpetuating a rumour that is incorrect but has been flying around the various sites that support “Justice for Travis”. Juan Martinez has tried three different death penalty cases in which the jury convicted of manslaughter, not first degree murder. His record, therefore, is certainly not 14-0.

              Like

            • Heather

              ”Calling people names won’t change Arizona ligislators’ minds”
              That’s because they are sadists, they thrive on getting someone the death penalty, even more palatable when the person is innocent.

              How many prisoners are innocent in Arizona, Texa, Oklahoma and other States ?

              How many of those innocent men and women are put to death after having languished in Jail for years?

              Answer: Far too many to count; the USA is well-known for it, worldwide.

              The people who legislate in these States, are barbaric, inhuman and inhumane, the Only suitable way to describe them.

              And if you think otherwise, I feel sorry for you. I would rather love than hate.
              Maybe you should start thinking about the Law of Attraction?

              Like

              • Lindsay

                Lol Heather-The Law of Attraction! You mean the same thing that Jodi Arias goes by?
                And you would rather love than hate??? What about your horrible, hateful, judgmental words about Travis Alexander? Give it up.

                Like

            • Heather

              Jennifer are you saying that because its his job, he has to send everyone on a criminal case to death, whether they’re innocent or not ?

              Like

    • bill

      don’t you think if she planned it she should have shot him earlier during her time there, rather than just before the housemates were coming home and additionally her appointment with Ryan would not be too off schedule?
      For premeditation it seems like she wasn’t very good at planning.

      Like

  7. AK

    I commend your insights. I feel the same way about manslaughter. I think that verdict would have been much more apt. Given her memory lapses, and based on the fact that the prosecution’s case was riddled with lies and heresy. It’s SO hard to argue with those who believe she should get the first degree murder. The person I had a argument with, made comments suggesting I was “innocent and gullible”/ my “friends would take advantage of me because of my innocence”. WTF. You don’t even know me. I feel I’m being persecuted for my own views. It’s a free society. I think there are many more supporters, but are scared to talk because of the lynch mob attitude. Wake up- it is 2013, not 1693.

    Like

    • It’s 2013 all right, but the more things change…

      Like

    • The author of this article said he might have not followed the case too closely, but he’s correct. This is a classic case of heat-of-passion manslaughter. And I don’t say that blindly. I know what I’m saying. Find us on Facebook or our website for TRUE details such as the ones the author of this article lays out. …. http://www.occupyhln.org or http;//www.facebook.com/occupyhln

      Like

    • Jodi said on her post-verdict interview that she now knows what she did. So if her memory has come back and she can tell the jury, she may only get Life with a chance of parole.

      Like

    • Heather

      Thank you, AK, I appreciate it

      Whilst everyone is entitled to have an opinion, its having an informed opinion that counts, as well as having intelligence and common sense, which is really all that’s need if we are to say we are decent human beings.

      I have had the same from the haters, I have been told to die, that I’m sick, I’m jodi, etc., etc.. They have absolutely nothing intelligent to say. I agree, the lynchmob, groupthink and mindless attitude is frightening, are these people so uneducated–all of them? Seems so. It is impossible to argue with them because they’re are of that mentality and mindset, and unfortunately have been brought up with it. Yes, WTF indeed.

      I very much concur that there are many more supporters afraid to talk, and really, who can blame them, these people would turn a gun on you as quick as blinking.

      Gus Searcy, when he was interviewed said he knows a few people who know more, but who are afraid to speak and wouldn;t go on the stand.

      The whole trial is/was shameful.

      Like

  8. lara

    What is wrong with all of you? You have no idea what its like to suffer. Jodi Arias needs to be held accountable.

    Like

    • Lindsay

      I agree! I thought I was the only commenter on here that sees what is going on.

      Like

    • Marion

      No idea what it is like to suffer? I think not……we have all SUFFERED through Juan Martinez LIES and fantasy case…..not to mention his obnoxious style of cross examination. You obviously drank the koolaid because you have no mind of your own and absolutely no insight into human behavior.

      Like

      • Heather

        Too right, Marion!

        Like

      • lara

        I’m sorry for my comment Marion. I shouldn’t have posted. I was just really bad off mentally yesterday. I didn’t mean to offend. It wasn’t meant for you personally. It was just my opinion but I shouldn’t have worded it like that.

        Like

    • Marion

      Amnd please tell us the last time YOU “SUFFERED” by being stabbed even ONE TIME?

      Like

      • lara

        I was abused for 9 years since I was little. I was threatened with a knife. locked away, in the dark or in the cold. Kept naked. Beaten. Forced to do sexual acts that you probably don’t even know of and so much more. I live in fear that he will find me and come back. I will never get over it. You have no compassion, no sympathy. I’m sure you would support my abuser if he was on trial. Its people like you that make me not want to leave my home ever. I didn’t kill him, I turned the razors on myself. I’m trying to get help but like you nobody cares.

        Like

        • Very sad, Lara. I’m sorry.

          You might rethink the idea of airing these thoughts in a comments section of a blog, where people take their positions and defend them and for the most part it’s anonymous. I hope you are getting help but if that’s a problem contact me privately and I’ll see if I can help.

          Like

          • lara

            I know you are right and I don’t usually. I just couldn’t stop. Its this case. Its those girls that were just freed. And its people that just say horrible things and don’t care. I’m sorry. I get so emotional. Its people. Its this society. Why can’t people care about another human being? Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. I’m trying. Its so hard. I know this doesn’t have to do with your discussion. I’m sorry, you can delete these if you want.

            Like

            • Heather

              Lara, I am so sorry to read that you have been through this, really sorry, ((((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))))))

              You are so right, something is so wrong with society in the US, and of course other parts of the world. People don’t care anymore, you’re right again and its really shocking. Here in Britain its different, we realised the DP was wrong and abolished it years ago. From what I have seen, the Jodi haters online, they are simply vile and I’m the same as you are, I get very emotional at the disgusting way the spoke to me. It shows their mentality. If only they had common sense and a brain.. HUGS.

              Like

            • Lara you don’t need to apologize, I won’t delete anything unless you want me to. If you need help click on “contact” above and send me an email and I’ll see if there’s anything I can do. I’m not a therapist, but I might be able to point you in the right direction.

              Like

        • Heather

          I have a friend I met online, she’s in the US. She tells me that women who have been abused, if they tell anyone in authority they get the blame. In this trial, Martinez views abused women like commodities, they’re bad people and need to be dispensed with. Its disgusting, I’m appalled. When is the US going to learn?

          HUGS, Lara, I feel for you and hope you can get the help you desperately need. Much love, Heather

          Like

          • Lindsay

            Oh, I didn’t realize you don’t live in the US. That explains some things. I do have to say, though, having been in an abusive situation before, I went to the police and they treated me very well. I received a lot of support. The laws here are if someone calls 911 for possible domestic violence, but then want to take it back, the police still arrest and charge the alleged perpetrator. Then they go to court, etc.
            the thing with this case-it’s obvious to women who have been abused that JA was not.
            So I’m sorry, but the friend you met online wasn’t entirely accurate.

            Like

            • Well Lindsay, my abuse occurred in the US and I did report it to the police and yet, I wasn’t treated well at all. And before you say anything else, this occurred two years ago, not in the distant past. While my (now ex-)husband was arrested and charged with a felony, when he wouldn’t take a plea bargain and I had moved away, the prosecutor decided to nolle prosse the criminal case. He was a previously convicted felon (which I knew nothing about), had an ex-wife in another state who had been granted an order of protection against him, had another wife who died under mysterious circumstances and a serious girlfriend/wife who had been “missing” for more than a decade. I only ever knew about one ex-wife but not about the order of protection.

              In addition, my ex-husband stole the family business which was my only source of income, pillaged from my bank accounts, charged his legal fees to my account, changed my mailing address to his new address on USPS.com, confiscated my mail including debit/credit cards and turned off water in the house we had lived in, temporarily awarded to me after he was arrested. The police did nothing to help me. I had NO choice than to leave. I moved to another state far away, but it didn’t end there. I still had to go through the divorce. During discovery a year later, the judge ordered me to disclose my new home address to him, along with my work address — even though I participate in an address confidentiality program which provides me with a legal substitute address. When I refused, the judge struck my pleadings and awarded him a default divorce, based on fraud where he obtained a judgment against me for $31,000 — another avenue to track me down and find me. I have appealed which is currently pending. My new state filed an amicus curiae brief in support of my position that I should not have been ordered to disclose my address.

              While I’m very glad you had a positive experience with the police in your jurisdiction, I have heard hundreds of stories over the last two years of women who did not have positive experiences — anything but. One woman I know, her ex violated the order of protection 13 times before the police decided to arrest him. Even in my new state, I was in court waiting for a hearing to domesticate my order of protection here, and a hearing shortly before mine was of a woman complaining that her abuser had violated her order of protection. She showed the judge her phone with abusive, threatening text messages from her abuser. Did the judge rule that the order was violated and incarcerate him? No, he simply warned him not to do it again.

              Depending on the jurisdiction, many women have called the police multiple times and they have done nothing if the abuser says it’s a misunderstanding. Not every jurisdiction is the same.

              You may or may not recall Jodi testifying that her first boyfriend, Bobby Juarez, had abused her and she called the police, but they did nothing. There is another woman on YouTube who claims Bobby Juarez also abused her. It’s an unfortunate fact that many women go from one abusive relationship into another. The shame that carries, coupled with the low self esteem, often results in those women not being able to seek help.

              Like

              • Lindsay

                Wow Also abused- I am so sorry you have had to go through all of that. I guess I am lucky to have had a supportive police department. I hope everything gets straightened out and that you are soon free of him.

                Like

              • Thank you Lindsay. I appreciate your kind words. You are lucky to have had such support from your police department. That is not the norm. Do you live in CA, by any chance? I’ve heard that CA has the best trained police departments in regards to domestic violence.

                Like

            • Heather

              I thought for a minute, Lara, that because you have been the victim of abuse yourself, you would be the first person to understand this case; clearly you don’t show any compassion or empathy, and yet you expect or should I say, like it, when someone shows they are sympathetic to you??

              And it doesn’t matter a jot whether I come from London UK or from out of space, what counts here is having the ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes and it seems that you either cannot do that, or won’t. I feel sorry for you.

              FYI my friend is an American and if anyone knows the realities of women not being believed, it is her. Some people, such as yourself, and I don’t wish to be rude, seem to enjoy or accept the fantasy of the American Dream, but its what I call being comfortably numb..

              Like

              • lara

                Heather, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you in any way. I don’t understand, I don’t think it matters at all where you are from, in fact I think London is really great. Its true that I don’t think think Jodi is telling the truth but I totally respect the fact that you and others believe her and want to stand up for her. I was just distraught about people saying cruel things about Travis’ family. I also don’t think its right that people should say bad things about Jodi’s family or even Travis and Jodi themselves. Its the same feeling I get when I read any mean comment. I admit I am over emotional and I shouldn’t read them at all. I believe in freedom of speech but I don’t know why people have to hurt others so much. I don’t understand what you meant by the fantasy of the american dream. I just have been getting worse lately for some reason and yes I would like it if people could be sympathetic. I really do put myself in other’s shoes. In fact I can’t stop thinking. I know I shouldn’t commented in the first place or now but I did want to try to explain myself. Again I’m sorry.

                Like

              • Heather

                Lara, what a sweet post to me, thankyou! I appreciate it.

                I am probably one of the most, if not, the most compassionate and understanding of people, this is not to say that if I truly think someone is guilty, I won’t be the first to speak out.

                I hope I haven’t trashed Travis’ family, however, when I see their antics, eye-rolling in the court, I want to shout at them to Stop, its vulgar and IMO, rude and disrespectful; I think the judge should have said something, not to mention terrible that they are doing it for the cameras.. yes, I understand that they have lost their brother–blood is thicker than water.. but I also think that their wanting revenge, is horrible, but I suppose understandable, considering the horrific way he died.. but I have a hard time reconciling with this.. its been 5 years and I know, whilst it must hurt having to come to terms with what has after all, been said out of his own mouth on tape, that the family must recognise that Travis was not a saint, far from it, in fact.. an abuser and violent. I could see myself in my younger years, pointing a gun to stop someone being violent to me or worse, I shudder to think what it would feel like.. and how Jodi must be feeling right now, that it seems the whole world thinks she’s a liar, to the point that she thinks death would mean freedom.. its so sad I could, well I have cried, many times.

                I don’t consider myself to be a deliberately disrespectful woman, I hope you won’t think this of me.
                And yes, sometimes I have told the ‘haters’ what I think, but I wouldn’t have done, had they not insulted me for putting what I heard and saw with my own eyes and ears..

                I am for the truth and cannot stand it when I see lies and corruption, that’s me, and I am happy with how I think because I don’t insult others, or don’t mean to, just for having what I call, an informed opinion.. but when I can see others twisting things to suit them so they can insult me, well I am only human and this trial has shocked me, really shocked me and still does; I won’t get over this trial in a hurry, not when I see how the US run their so called judicial sytem.. I’m glad you like London 🙂

                I thought from my own experience of having to be my own lawyer when I was being brutally harassed by 5 neighbours, that I had seen it all, but nothing could have prepared me for what I saw in this, what I think, is a farce of a trial. I am still shell-shocked.
                I have a problem figuring how others don’t see it the same as me, I have Gasped at what has been said in that court, not once, but many times.

                I understand that you are in a highly emotional state at the moment and I am sorry if I upset you, its just that when someone has been abused, I cannot for the life of me understand, especially when it comes to women (men think of it as realting personally to Them, such as the phrase, ”boys will be boys”,) , it floored me when you said you didn’t understand. I’m not for one moment trying to minimise the abuse you have, without a doubt, suffered, ((((hugs))))..

                Like

        • Lara, I’m so sorry for what happened to you as a child. I was also abused as a child and I know it’s such a difficult thing to overcome. I went to therapy for a long time to learn to heal from it all. My thoughts are with you for a full recovery. Please take JMRJ up on his/her suggestion. Blessings!

          Like

          • lara

            Thank you. I would like to but one of my problems is that I’m too scared to leave my house. I’m so glad you got help. I didn’t mean to get off topic but other than my family I don’t have anyone but I am blessed to have them. Its more than other people have. I just keep thinking that there are other children that need help right now and I need to focus on thinking of ways I can help, like donating money. I also think I really really need to stay away from the news. Thank you so so much.

            Like

            • Heather

              Lara my heart goes out to you, I get really affected when I hear of anyone suffering.. I can’t seem to help it, its the way I’m made and if I can help someone, I will only be too glad to… my father was the same, he got very disillusioned the older he got, but I feel blessed that I share my father’s thoughts on inhumanity.
              I will always speak out when I see anyone treating others badly, whether it be a bus driver, or whoever, and when I see caring, I have to speak out too, praise where its due and, you know what, people are amazed, well, it shouldn’t be this way, if only others would treat people the way they would like to be treated… after all we only have one life, but maybe I am not taking into account the experience others have been unfortunate to have gone through.. I understand that, too.. its just when it becomes too much–no one should have to take that.. I don’t care who they are, I will be the first to speak out.

              Like

            • Oh sweet Lara, I’m so sorry for all that you’re going through. Please don’t apologize for stating your feelings, girl. You have EVERY right to post how you feel. I totally understand feeling too scared to leave the house. I have felt that way myself at times. I don’t know if you live in the US or not, but if you do, did you know that there are therapists and doctors who will come to your house? Also, there are therapists you can speak to on the phone. With some anti-anxiety medication, you may find yourself able to leave the house again. Wouldn’t that be amazing?

              I’ll share a little bit of my story with you, if that’s okay. For 8 of the 10 years I was married to my ex-husband, I was not allowed to leave the house. I don’t drive due to a seizure disorder and we lived in the back of a huge development in Florida. It was a 45 minute walk just to get to the gate and there were no sidewalks on the road outside the development. So, I really couldn’t go anywhere unless he drove me. After about a year living there, he banned me from leaving the house and I didn’t have a key to get back in, so I didn’t even walk around the neighbourhood anymore. If I did that, someone always told him and I would get in trouble, so it wasn’t worth it. Occasionally, he took me somewhere, like out to dinner or to a concert during those 8 years. We would often have to cross a street after he parked the car. As we crossed, he would push me down in oncoming traffic and I became soooo terrified that a car would run me over. My ex was also poisoning me with arsenic, so my health was not good and I had trouble walking anyway. It wasn’t very difficult for him to push me down, and I had a very difficult time getting back up on my own. But, he would walk away and leave me there. Cars would swerve around me, hitting their brakes.

              After he was arrested, changed my mailing address to his new address so I couldn’t even receive my mail, pillaged my bank accounts, stole the business that was my sole source of income, and finally, shut off water in the house which I’d been temporarily awarded as part of the order of protection. I couldn’t live there anymore. I knew that I had to move somewhere with good public transportation and get a job. While taking expensive cabs in Florida to get an ID (which he never allowed me to have) and to get a new passport and get my green card updated so that I could get out of there and get a job, I tried to consolidate trips if the places I had to go were close to one another. But I discovered I was absolutely terrified of crossing streets, especially big ones with oncoming traffic. I would stand there, sometimes for hours, unable to cross a street, letting lights change multiple times while I tried to pluck up the courage to cross. I felt rather ridiculous as I was a 45 year old woman, at that time. I had lived in Chicago from I was 20 until I was 37 and I had crossed many many big streets. But suddenly, I just wasn’t able to do it. Luckily, people helped me, probably thinking I was visually impaired, and I let them, I’m embarrassed to admit.

              Then, I moved here to a big city with lots of big streets to cross. For an entire month, I went out every day and walked to the nearest crossing and told myself I was going to do it so I could walk to the train station and go for a ride. But every day, I came back home unable to cross the street. Finally, one day, I actually did it. I couldn’t believe I did it. It took all the strength I had. I kept a friend on the phone with me while I did it so I had someone to talk to.

              Then, I got into therapy with a domestic violence counselor. I didn’t have to cross any big streets to get to her office. She was amazing and sent me to see a psychiatrist for evaluation. Because she knew of my problem with crossing streets, she arranged for a cab to take me there and take me home afterwards. The psychiatrist prescribed an anxiety medication I could take “as needed.” I started applying for jobs and, because I had to cross streets to get to the train or bus to go on interviews, I would often take 1/4 of a pill (which the psychiatrist said I could do) before heading out. I never liked to have to rely on medication but I knew it was necessary for a while to get me through my terrible anxiety, and it worked.

              Well, today, about 2 years later, I cross big streets every day without even thinking about it. Every once in a while, I catch myself, realizing that there I am, crossing the big street, and I have no fear. I’m able to do something without thinking that seemed like a monumental task to me just 2 years ago.

              I told you this long story because I really want to give you some hope and also so that you know I understand. Our fears are terrifying but some therapy and perhaps a little medication can really help us through them. I really hope you can seek some help, perhaps with someone coming to your home, or by telephone, for a while. I truly believe you will overcome this, just as I overcame my big fear. Please don’t ever apologize for posting. There is always someone who understands. I send you big hugs and wish you all the very best. I only wish I could do more.

              Like

        • bill

          wow, I am so sorry to hear this is your story.
          have a hug from me.

          Like

    • Heather

      It would seem you are blind to the abuse in this case. Travis was a liar, and a violent abuser, he knew he had problems with anger, yet did nothing about it. He used and demeaned Jodi for his own selfish gain. Do you see all this as nothing? You don’t see how Jodi suffered? In effect Travis Alexander signed his own death warrant. I am not saying his death wasn’t horrific, I’m saying that no one made him abuse Jodi, he did that all by himself. Mental, physical and emotional abuse, this is what Jodi suffered.
      I cannot understand for the life of me that you as a woman wouldn’t understand this?

      Like

      • Lindsay

        He did not abuse Jodi. Have you not watched all of her interviews? Did you listen to her 18 days on the stand? She is lying. She is not an abused woman. She is a manipulator and liar, but not abused.

        Like

        • I listened to all the testimony in the case and I believe she was abused. Did you hear about the email exchange with the Hughes? Have you read this motion submitted by the prosecution which contains excerpts from the reports of both Dr. Samuels and Dr. Carp (who backed out of the case because of her own cancer): http://twitdoc.com/upload/zou2/ja-expert-hearsay-issue.pdf

          Like

        • Heather

          Not abused, Lindsay?? Really?.

          Have You not heard the tapes, IM’s emails, Travis calling her names, degrading and demeaning her, breaking her finger when he pushed her down a kicked her, almost choked her to death, abused her body, used her for nothing other than himself, whilst cheating on her and telling lies to his friends about her, saying he wanted to end it, but wanting to keep his dirty little secret.
          Maybe you don’t see all this as abusive, maybe its normal for you to be treated this way?.

          Seems so, for I am mystified that there could be anything else, except for a sort of inverted snobbery. Maybe you compare abuse, thinking you had it worse; whatever it is, your thinking and feeling is what I would not expect from a humane and decent citizen, to be; from the way you express your feelings, you seem to be full of hate.. for a woman, a woman you don’t know..

          Like

          • Lindsay

            Do you have proof of the choking, pushing, kicking? Also, do you know what a double-jointed finger is? I can do that to my finger, and it has never been broken.
            The text messages-have you never called someone names when they have threatened you? And cheating-she was aware of that. He never tried to hide it. Do you know of his upbringing? Do you thing someone cheating deserves to be butchered?
            And he did want to end it, but she kept coming around offering kinky sex. Most guys who aren’t attached wouldn’t pass that up.
            Again, I ask you- did you watch the trial? Did you watch Jodi’s 18 days on the stand? If not, I challenge you to watch that. Then, see if your opinion has changed.
            I don’t compare abuse. I just can see that she was not abused.

            Like

            • Heather

              Do you see things upside down and the wrong way round on purpose?

              Because you are giving me the distinct impression.

              Like

              • Lindsay

                Heather- So I’m taking that as a no, you don’t have anything to go on. You are accusing someone of abuse without proof, so quick to judge them because they are no longer on this earth to defend themself. And so quick to defend the murderer.

                Like

            • Lindsay, I have a few questions for you. You mentioned earlier that you were abused. Do you have proof that you were abused? I don’t have a shred of proof, nothing, other than the video I made the night he tried to kill me. I have some photos of bruising to my stomach but that could have occurred for some other reason.

              Do you talk to other abused women, and, if so, do they have proof they were abused? I talk to many. Some do have witnesses and hospital/police reports. But many more have absolutely no proof. Like me, they hid it. Like me, they told no one.

              Do you really believe most unattached guys would continue to have sex with someone just because she keeps coming around? I’ve asked a LOT of guys that question. A 17-20 year old guy might, and in fact, my friend’s son actually did for a time with a rather questionable girl. But when she became really weird and started spying on him, even he made it quite clear that it was over and stopped messing around with her sexually — even though his hormones were raging. But a 30 year old guy? No, they really wouldn’t, and most especially not if they were afraid of the woman. I dated a lot before I got married. I was 33 when my ex and I got together. Not to brag, but I was a gorgeous young woman (I’m not anymore) with a great figure, but I had lousy lousy lousy self esteem. I have to admit that there were a couple of guys I tried to “hold onto” who quite obviously only wanted me for sex or to show me off. However, I didn’t succeed in “hanging on” for more than a couple of months. They eventually pushed me away and “passed it up” as you say. It never went on for 2 years as it did with Jodi and Travis.

              I see all the signs of abuse in Jodi and that’s why I began watching this trial. As I said before, briefly reading about her, I assumed she was guilty and was making up domestic violence. Listening to her testimony about her relationship with Travis, I related on so many levels.

              Like

            • bill

              Actually no. I have not engaged in demeaning language like Travis used. Yes, people get angry but the tirade of late May was something else.
              Lets assume that he never hurt her physically. There were available but the state did not bother to photograph all the texts. I would be very interested to see just how often Travis devolved into those sorts of tirades. People questions why Jodi didn’t leave. Abusive people are only abusive to those who will put up with it. The minute anyone stands up to a bully they often crumple because they don’t know how to handle it.
              I’d also say that Travis probably suffered from madonna/whore complex and it would be very interesting to know what went on inside that meth house in riverside. Travis may have been taking all his anger against his mother out on Jodi.

              Like

              • Heather

                Absolutely right, Bill, the State prevented more than we know about, I’m sure of it, and your last sentence about Jodi taking the abuse for his mother’s abuse of him.. its the way I see it too.

                Like

        • Heather

          And, FYI, no one could keep lying for 18 days on the stand, not even Jodi.
          Jodi was consistent with her answers; the Truth is easy, but apparently its not palatable with you; you convict her for telling the truth.

          This is what the jurors have done, simply because they have been brought up to not believe an abused woman; she MUST be lying! Must be manipulative (we won’t give a thought that she might be telling the truth because this is what our parents and society, courts, etc have taught us, so we Will be right, come hell or high water), ANY woman who says she has suffered abuse, Must Die!

          Abused women are only commodities to be dispensed with, to be put down, Lets GO! But we will pay homage to SAINT TRAVIS, because he’s a man! And men wouldn’t abuse their women. No? Not much!

          Like

          • Lindsay

            Jodi was not consistent with her answers on the stand. You are so quick to judge the justice system in the states, yet you don’t even live here! Have you ever dealt with the US justice system? I admit, it’s not perfect. But nothing in this world is. We all do the best we can with the info presented to us.
            And to say that any woman who has suffered abuse must die- what is wrong with you? She brutally murdered someone. She’s being sentenced for that, not the alleged abuse.

            Like

            • Heather

              Oh Lindsay.. you are hard-going..

              Why wouldn’t anyone, doesn’t matter what country they’re in, judge your INjustice system? Its Barbaric.

              Nothing at all is wrong with me, I can assure you–I was just saying what you think, and for those like you, that’s all.

              Lindsay, the abuse part of it is/was extremely important, how IS it that you can’t/won’t see this? Why do you think the Defence brought in Alyce LaViolette, an expert in Domestic Violence ??? For her to sit in court for the fun of it?

              Like

        • You cannot refute testimony by claiming “she was lying”, just because you don’t like the testimony she gave. You cannot claim “she is not an abused woman” by simply stating all her testimony was a lie. Can you prove it was all another lie?

          If you listen to testimony with BIASED EARS you will NEVER believe any testimony that refutes your original position. Do you want the truth, or do you want/need to be right? (Martinez in a nutshell).

          Like

          • Heather

            Oh, that’s it in a nutshell, Marion, and if Lindsay doesn’t understand and accept that, she will never accept it because, she doesn’t want to, THAT is as clear as day.
            I say heaven help her if she is telling the truth and she gets mail, in JAIL, showering her with a load of abuse, let her see how she would like it, I’m not saying that Lindsay has been abusive at all, she just can’t/won’t see any further than her own nose, for some obscure reason…

            Like

        • Heather

          Lindsay.. I had hoped that by now you would have seen and recognised that Jodi Was abused, she is not lying and she is not a manipulator; think how you would feel if people were saying this about you, how would you feel knowing you are not what people are telling you you are, Can’t you do that? Why do you insist she was not abused, please, tell me.

          Yes, Lindsay, 18 days on the stand, yet she was totally consistent.. ask yourself, would you lie knowing your life was in the balance? No, you would maintain your innocence; to be a good liar and be cross examined every which way on the stand, being asked the same questions in different ways, if you were lying you would most definitely be caught out. Could you RISK THAT?

          Its as if you Want her to be lying, want her to be manipulative. I have seen everything, all there is to see and heard all there is to hear.

          It seems to me that the more truthful a person is, the more others think they have to be lying.. something not right with this picture. It shows me that you haven’t learnt to read people.

          My neighbours accused Me of lying, believe me when I said I wasn’t? Would you? I doubt it. I took them to court, it was easy because I was telling the truth. To hell with the damned judge who couldn’t recognise the truth when he saw it; one of the defendats when I cross examined her, changed her story 3 TIMES! But the judge in his biased wisdom, said they were all decent people.

          Its effortless to tell the truth, that’s the difference, my conscience was clear, was THEIRS?

          Even when others don’t believe you, YOU know you have told the truth. Its a bit different when its a death penalty case, its CRUCIAL.. What would a person gain by lying? I’ll tell you now, that anyone would be doing themselves a great disservice, i.e be caught out and killed. Does that hit home yet, Lindsay?

          Like

  9. ljeanner

    I am so glad to have found this article. Thank you.

    I was absolutely flummoxed by gun shot last when it was proposed by Juan Martinez. I still think it’s gun shot first. For those who didn’t watch, the ME, Dr. Horn insisted it was gun shot last over and over again because he said it would have killed him instantly. There is little merit to his argument for a number of reasons.

    1. The brain was pudding so he can’t say what the actual path of the bullet was. This is important because many people have had projectiles enter the brain and exit, and lived to tell about it.

    2. He only examines dead bodies with similar head wounds. He has no experience or knowledge with respect to brain injury science regarding projectile wounds to the head. So, confidence on this evidence is questionable.

    3. In his report, he states that the dura mater (protection around the brain) was NOT damaged. When he is finally caught out about that very important point — due to Dr. Geffner who is has direct experience with clients who have suffered projectile brain injury (gun shot and nail gun) — he said it was a typo. This is also questionable. Why? Because Flores (detective) originally testified to gun shot first based on what he said Horn told him. Horn denies having that conversation with Flores. Hmmmmmmmm. Really? Who is lying here then? One or the other — maybe both. Who knows.

    My only conclusion to Juan going gun shot last is it confirms his narrative that Jodi is a cold-blooded murderer — sort of a last smack to the head after she stabs him. All the sheeples seem to believe his theory, which he seems to have successfully convinced others by with DeMarte’s testimony.

    I have no idea if it was self-defence or rage from her finally losing it. I love Britain’s system as I believe this would possibly fit under the Loss of Control defence?

    I am convinced that she suffered (and is still suffering PTSD) and the Borderline Personality Disorder fits with the impulsive rage. Most BPD sufferers would not premeditate. In fact, both fit with her present state of mind after the verdict. For those unaware, she is presently in a psych ward on suicide watch. A lot of her behaviour after the killing and over the years certainly seems to fit with PSTD, but I am not a psychologist.

    I don’t believe this was a fair trial. It was a disaster trial from the tabloid bias media to possible perjury, non-sequestered jury, witness intimidation/tampering and suppressed or erred evidence.

    Of course, this is just my opinion.

    Like

    • Heather

      ljeanner, that was an excellent post! Well thought out and very well written.

      Like

    • Dr. Horn said it was gunshot last because there was no blood in the wound, no bleeding from the hole that ripped through his sinus cavity. No blood, no heartbeat. Simple.

      Like

      • ljeanner

        But here is the rub on that one Jennifer. (I posted this on another site, but I am bringing it here).

        If I was on the jury I would be worried and wondering about why the prosecution suddenly went gun shot last. I would also be wondering why detective Flores is confused about the gun wound order. I would also question why it is that the dura mater was reported as “not damaged” and that the ME missed an error that was crucial to his definitive claim that gun shot first would have ‘immediately’ killed Travis. Big red flag. Why? It raises questions as to why the gun short order was changed. The physical evidence doesn’t explain the change, but Jodi’s self-defence claim sure does. Now suddenly, Juan has a narrative that goes in the opposite direction of Jodi’s description of events.

        And then on top of all of that befuddled mess, he can’t actually prove his theory that the bullet would have incapacitated Travis, because he is not a neuropsychologist nor is he a doctor (living patients) — and there is no evidence of the path the bullet took when it entered and exited because the state of the brain (an no shattered bullet pieces). As for the lack of blood to the wound. Well, consider this. If it didn’t enter the brain, which at this point now is quite possible, then there might not be much blood from the wound (this is just a theory).

        After all the deceitful evidence above, I would then be saying to myself, “what the hell is Juan trying to hide or deflect here?” And to what end?

        Like

        • Excellent post, ljeanner. It’s a pity reasonable minds like yours were not on the jury!

          Like

          • ljeanner

            Thanks AA. How can the inconsistencies of this evidence be overlooked by the jury? I am not admonishing the jury by any means, but I think these types of inconsistencies confirm that the verdict was won through the emotion provoked by a brutal killing and the continual persecution of all the defence witnesses (bullying, demeaning, not using their correct title i.e. Dr., calling them liars, etc.)

            Gun shot first was an itch I started scratching from the moment I heard it and I’ve been picking away at it ever since.

            Like

            • ljeanner, how the jury overlooked the inconsistencies is something I honestly do not understand. I wholeheartedly expected them to come back with a manslaughter verdict. I would not have been terribly upset if they came back with second degree murder. But I never expected in my wildest dreams the verdict they did return with.

              I was concerned all along that perhaps Martinez behaved the way he did because he knows the jury pool in that area. After all, he has had a very successful record (even though it’s not 14-0 for first degree murder convictions). I was concerned about Dr. DeMarte’s testimony, despite her inexperience and cold manner. I was particularly concerned about the defense because of the manner in which they seemed to “hint” at possibilities but not clarify them and sit down right before their “big” moments happened. The throat slash ALWAYS concerned me because it was so violent, and I worried how a jury could ever reconcile that.

              And most of all, as an abuse survivor, I sincerely worried about the jurors’ ability to comprehend that intimate partner abuse had occurred. I know all too well how difficult it is for the average person to understand. In fact, I used to be one of those people and I didn’t understand why women stayed with some guy who abused them. And then, it happened to me, and I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard “Why didn’t you just leave?” Or, “What did you do to him to make him that angry?” Or, “Why are you so scared of him?” I continue to hear the latter one even now, and have heard it from both other victims and purported advocates. Since we have no children, most people assume he has no reason to come after me. How do you persuade someone to understand when they’ve never been through it? I don’t know. Obviously the defense team and their experts didn’t know either.

              Like

      • Heather

        Jennifer, I’m afraid this is what happens when you accept all you hear.

        Dr Horn in his Report, said the gunshot came first, and it WOULDN’T have incapacitated him..but the Doc had a short memory, (well it was a couple of months since he testified to that in his report), and the problem with people who change their story? One has to have a good memory in order to be a good liar (and Jodi was consistent on the stand for 18 days, just saying), and, low and behold Horn changed his story, saying that the gunshot came last and it WOULD have incapacitated him.

        When someone such as the ME, lied, you (gen.you) have to ask yourself why?
        When Jennifer Wilmott found him out he went red in the face vand looked decidedly sheepish having to admit he had changed the testimony in his report. however, he explained this as a ”typo”.. huh, riiiight.. a Whole Sentence describing why it wouldn’t have incapacitated him, a ”typo” ???

        Well, one argument regarding why he lied, is that he was a witness for the Prosecution. Got it?

        I’m afraid you are not the only one who hangs on the words of the witnesses for the prosecution, and state them as facts. My question here, is, if you believe what the prosecution’s witnesses tell you, being that you take it as fact (without question), why don’t you believe the witnesses of the Defence and take their words as read, too? Instead you just condemn them out of hand.

        Like

        • Heather

          Martinez: ”Do you have a problem with your memory, Dr Horn?” 🙂

          Like

          • Heather

            Jennifer, Just thought I would add this: Detective Flores lied, changed His story, too. Chris Hughes looked decidedly red in the face, he was extremely evasive as well as showing dumb insolence to the defence while he was on the stand.. you HAVE to ask yourself WHY?

            Could it be that he was Travis’ best friend and was lying through his back teeth by omission, whilst being evasive, and carefully thinking before he answered, not to mention looking as if he would rather be anywhere than on the stand? His body language spoke, even if he didn’t.

            Like

            • Heather

              Chris Hughes’ face just went redder and redder as he read his OWN emails to Travis, they were saying what he himself had written, that Travis ”wasn’t treating Jodi right”, and Why? Because he had been most emphatic stating they were, ”forgeries”..
              🙂

              So, when 3 witnesses for the prosecution LIE on OATH, what are we expected to think, hmmm?

              In his closing nonsense, Martinez told us all that.. ”Jodi lied on oath”..!
              He went on to say that Jodi ”loved the–limelight” ??? WTF, perhaps he lost HIS memory, huh?
              After all, It wasn’t HIM who glorified in signing autographs outside the court with a permanent grin on his face, was it?

              Like

              • Heather

                And, how could I possibly forget seeing Martinez whispering for quite a while, while Dr Demarte was on the stand? Its called coaching the witness–she hadn’t finished her testimony. Not forgetting the nonsense she spouted to the Jury, about the ”Bear and the Tiger” (!) a question one of the jurors had asked her.
                This showed Everyone that at least ONE of the jurors was in doubt about her testimony. We (stupidly) held onto that..

                Like

      • bill

        and yet in the crime scene photos we see blood from Travis nose in spite of the fact that he had been washed off.

        Like

    • I agree with most all of your post. In regard to BPD and PTSD…..I agree with you on that too. I just looked up the characteristics of BPD and Jodi does fit enough of them to diagnose her with BPD. I have thought for a while that BPD explains why she stayed with Travis.

      On the other hand, look at the characteristics and you can say that Travis also suffered from BPD.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

      Like

      • I could not even begin to tell you the number of abused women I’ve talked to who have been misdiagnosed with borderline personality disorder when they’re actually suffering from PTSD. Do a google search on this and you will find many many articles and research papers. The characteristics are so similar. I only wish that had been brought out during the trial. Dr. Geffner touched upon it briefly, but it should have been focused on more as it would have discredited Dr. DeMarte and revealed her lack of experience.

        Several authors have, however, speculated that abusive men fit all the criteria of both borderline and narcissistic personality disorder. Travis had many narcissistic traits, in my opinion.

        Like

  10. kim

    “But my opinion, although it is soft since I didn’t follow this one closely, is that although murder with premeditation had some support, it wasn’t enough for a conviction.”

    I agree with much of what you say, except for the quote above. The trial presented more than enough evidence to support the conviction of premeditated murder. The State followed the rules of evidence and the evidence presented led to the conviction. Had you followed the trial closely your opinion may be different.

    What disturbs me most about the sadness surrounding this fiasco is that the sadness and the families (including Jodi’s family) and lives that have been ruined are ruined because of the actions of 1 individual….Jodi Arias.

    The media is not innocent by any means. If I hear 1 more talking head say Jodi is “playing everyone” I will scream. It takes 2 to play and they are playing right along with her. The media needs to back off on several levels, first by refusing to give this murderer a platform to continue to spew her stories.

    Like

    • Yeah, but Kim, little as I know – and I have to apologize again – a few things bother me here and maybe you can help.

      The idea is that a woman prevailed over a much stronger man in a contested knife fight situation?

      Was there any evidence that Jodi Arias was skilled in such things? Or, did she have any history of violence before this incredibly violent killing?

      Was Travis Alexander a hunter? Did the prosecution have the knife and/or the gun? If not, why not?

      Like

      • Lindsay

        Ok, I was going to sign off, but had to respond to this-then I’ll sign off. The situation started in the shower where he was naked, wet and vulnerable. They were acting out scenes from the movie Psycho, which is why the pictures are the way they are. We can only speculate what happened next, since only JA and TA were there. But based on the evidence, she stabbed him in the chest. He didn’t have a knife, so there wasn’t a knife fight. It was an attack.
        No evidence of her being skilled in stabbing, but I’m not sure what kind of evidence you would be able to get for that. As far as violent behavior, she slashed his tires (with a knife) a couple of separate times, snuck into his house through the doggy door and watched him with his girlfriend sleep on the couch, watched him through the windows without his knowledge, and I think there was the instance that she hid behind the Christmas tree and watched him. So, while only the slashing of tires could possibly fit for the question of previous violence, the rest show her frame of mind.
        The prosecution and defense didn’t have either because JA said she threw the gun in the desert after the crime. I’m not sure what she said she did with the knife. I don’t think it is really important to have those since she admitted to using both on him.

        Like

        • AK

          “So, while only the slashing of tires could possibly fit for the question of previous violence”

          Lindsay, please direct to me the police report where they list Jodi Arias as the prime suspect of the tire slashing. Oh wait, I forgot, no report like that exists. Furthermore, the tire slashing was never brought into the Jury.

          http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-jury-police-complaint-tire-slashing/story?id=19064576#.UYw6zqvSOZm

          “snuck into his house through the doggy door and watched him with his girlfriend sleep on the couch”
          I think this is when he was cheating on her? I may be wrong

          Like

          • Kim

            Marie Hall most definitely testified Jodi slashed his tires and ex girlfriends tires. It was hearsay that no one objected to during her testimony. But it did come in.

            Like

            • AK

              Right, thats exactly why the trial was unfair!

              Q: What is “hearsay” evidence, and why is it usually not accepted?
              A: One type of evidence that usually is not allowed by the rules of evidence is “hearsay.” Hearsay is what might be called “second-hand” evidence. It usually involves a witness testifying not about what he or she personally saw or heard, but to establish as a fact something someone else told the witness. Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible because it may place crucial evidence before the court without allowing the other side to confront the person who is being quoted to challenge the accuracy of the statement or the credibility of the person who made it.

              For example: During a bank robbery, a teller, Ms. A, is the only person who gets a good look at the robber. She tells Officer B that, although the robber was wearing a mask, “he looked like Mr. C,” (a former bank employee). Mr. C is arrested and tried for the robbery. Shortly thereafter, Ms. A moves out of town and cannot be located to testify about what she saw. At the trial, the prosecutor calls Officer B as a witness and asks him to tell the court what Ms. A said about the identity of the robber. Before the officer answers that question, the defendant’s lawyer would certainly object to the admission of his answer into evidence because it would be “hearsay” evidence. In other words, Officer B is being asked to identify Mr. C. as the robber based on what Ms. A. said to him. The judge would almost certainly sustain the objection, and refuse to allow the officer to repeat what Ms. A said.

              Q: Why shouldn’t Officer B’s testimony be admitted by the Court?
              A: Because it is unfair for the jury to be told about Ms. A’s identification of the defendant unless the defense has an opportunity to cross-examine Ms. A in front of the jury. How long and from what distance did she see the robber? How good or bad is Ms. A’s eyesight? What features did she use to make her identification? How long had it been since she last saw Mr. C? Might she have a personal grudge or prior relationship with Mr. C? Might the police have influenced her identification? Unless the defense has a chance to ask Ms. A those types of questions in front of a judge or jury, questions that might raise serious doubts about the accuracy of her identification and/or her credibility, the court cannot allow the prosecution to introduce evidence about her identification of Mr. C.

              Source: https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-90.aspx

              Nonetheless, I still feel the defense should have done a better part during cross examination with Mimi Hall.

              Like

              • kim

                AK, hope I’m replying to correct comment, not sure if the responses are being posted in order. I understand what hearsay evidence is, I’ve tried 100s of cases. There are also many exceptions to the hearsay rule, which allow it to come into testimony, as the judge allowed for both State/Defense in this case. On appeal this one particular bit of testimony will be raised but doubtful it alone will overturn the conviction. Defense counsel should have cross examined Marie about it but they did not, probably because the State did not dwell on it and ask her any follow up questions. What I am finding frustrating about so many of these forums is that people’s emotions are controlling their comments and they are not discussing the legal issues like you raised above with the hearsay comment. The same people on here who are accusing Mr Martinez of name calling are name calling in print all over their posts. We all have our opinions and I find it interesting and educating to reach out to someone with another opinion to see how he/she came to their conclusion, see where my thinking may be incorrect, or how I might be able to show someone how his/her thinking may be incorrect. Provided the people posting on here are posting their thoughts without the mob mentality, their thoughts and opinions should not be attacked. Agreeing with the outcome of the trial is not in and of itself “mob mentality”.

                Like

              • AK

                “What I am finding frustrating about so many of these forums is that people’s emotions are controlling their comments and they are not discussing the legal issues like you raised above with the hearsay comment”

                I agree. I now understand your point of how the evidence despite being heresy was allowed, and therefore the jurors were allowed to use this information in deciding the verdict. Nonetheless, I still think the there was a lot of reasonable doubt that was unaccounted for. I would like to know your thoughts on Cheney’s burden of evidence chart used in the Casey Anthony trial. http://shaunhair.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Cheney-Mason-Burden-of-Proof-0703_rdax_432x480.jpg

                I’m inferring that what he put forth is correct. Even if I strongly believe that she premeditated the murder, that does not translate to guilty verdict.

                I appreciate your insights. There’s been “rumors” on other forums, that a juror admitted to be on iphones, ipads and other electronic devices. I think this is may provide greater justification to the believe the jurors not following the admonition…

                Like

              • AK

                Kim (and everybody else), heres some food for thought regarding impact of the verdict. http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/

                Like

          • There was also no evidence of Travis repairing his tires. In addition, although he called the police on the (allegedly) second of those occasions when his tires were slashed, while with a girlfriend, he decided not to wait until they arrived and instead, go to her house and stay the night with her (which she was unwilling to do before this incident allegedly occurred). Surely, if he was so terrified of his “stalker”, he would have waited for the police to arrive?

            As for sneaking into his house through the doggy door, who said that? Someone on HLN! You do realize they pay people to appear on their shows, right? Have you ever seen a doggy door suitable for a dog like Napoleon (Travis’s dog)? Could you sneak through it? I’m 4’11” and I’d be unable to do so.

            Like

          • bill

            if they were asleep, how do they know she snuck in and watched them?

            Like

        • Who said they were re-enacting Psycho? Jodi?

          And I’ll have to disagree with you about producing the gun and the knife. If she claimed self defense, then producing those weapons would be crucial. She can’t claim that and then not remember where those things are, especially with that allegation out there that she stole the gun from her grandparents.

          Like

          • Lindsay

            I didn’t really think about producing the weapons for the Defense case. I was thinking of the Prosecution’s case. She denies stealing the gun from her grandparents, although it is quite coincidental that the same caliber gun was stolen from them. Personally, I do believe she stole it from them; but that doesn’t matter. She claims it was Travis’. Maybe in her ‘fog’ she can’t remember exactly where she threw everything.

            Like

            • Well, Lindsay, that’s just the point. First, you’re thinking only from the prosecution’s point of view.

              Imagine you’re representing Jodi Arias and the subject of self defense comes up and you know the prosecution doesn’t have the gun or the knife and that Jodi has secreted them. Then if you or the jury are to believe that she acted in self defense, where she freely admits the killing, what is the explanation for not producing the knife and the gun? That you can’t find them? Well, what did you do to find them? You obviously had them when you killed him.

              If I represented her and was claiming self defense I would have turned that desert upside down to find that gun. And I might have insisted that we would not pursue self defense if we couldn’t find it.

              Like

              • Lindsay

                Well, since she has lied about so many other aspects, there is no telling where the weapons are. She said she threw the gun in the desert, but who really knows? And they possibly ‘can’t find it’ because it is stolen?
                I know I am thinking from the prosecution standpoint- I believe they are correct. I would not have represented her after watching her interviews, police tapes, and her just talking. I know her attorney tried to be removed but was denied. I feel sorry for him. Jodi initially wanted to represent herself. I think her attorney wanted to go with a different defense, but Jodi wanted to go with this one. I’m sure he insisted on a different defense, but she thought she would get off with this one.

                Like

              • AK

                ” I know her attorney tried to be removed but was denied. I feel sorry for him”

                People like you try to convolute details which contributes to the whole lynch mob phenomena. Kirk Nurmi was just about to start his own law firm and actually now runs his own law firm. http://maricopasexcrimes.com/ I believe that was his reason to wanting to leave. He wanted to be removed so he could obviously 1) make more money!

                Like

              • The point remains: doesn’t it bother you that she is alleged to have killed him with a knife. I mean, it’s possible. But imagine you are Jodi Arias pre-meditating your murder of Travis Alexander. You can shoot him, you can poison him, but you elect to take the chance of trying to stab him to death, with all the risk that entails? It doesn’t make much sense.

                Like

              • AK

                It does irk me. Your questions are important, as they bring the “Reasonable doubt” aspect into the case. Clearly, the jurors were not able to critically deduce. Nonetheless, I’m more focused on how many individuals are misinformed about the trial’s details, leading to media frenzy, and ultimately leading to the tainted jurors’ incorrect verdict. If the media is able to influence verdicts of death penalty cases, this has serious repercussions for the future of our justice system. Evidence (not hearsay) corroborates with reasonable doubt. The jurors failed to acknowledge this.

                Like

              • Heather

                JMRJ,

                Regarding the knife and the gun:

                I think what is even more important here, is why, when the presecutor says she stole the gun, why she didn’t use it. As for the knife, Jodi does have memory of dropping it on the tiled floor, she head the clang as the knife dropped out of her hand.
                My view is that we all have ‘rational opinions’ as to what We would do given that same situation, when really, Jodi’s mind was not functioning rationally at all, so what she did in those minutes/hours really cannot be argued.
                For instance I could and have sworn that I’ve left my glasses somewhere, when really they’re on my nose all the time. Now, someone could say, well, you knew they were there, didn’t you, you must have realised, surely?, Well, no, we don’t always realise it and that is someone who has not been traumatised (well of course that’s a matter of opinion, losing my glasses can be traumatic for me! lol 🙂

                Like

              • JMRJ: you must be joking with “I would have turned that desert upside down to find that gun”??? She does not remember the EXACT spot off the highway and in the desert where she threw the guns. You do realize how big this desert is, right? In fact, I read that Travis’ family went out there to search for the gun and knife.

                Even if the gun was found and produced it would not prove whose gun it was and whether it was Travis’ gun or her grandfather’s gun since neither California or Arizona require gun registration. I suppose they might be able to trace by serial number as to where the gun was purchased, but not by whom. If it was purchased in California, that would _suggest_ it was not Travis’ gun…..unless he bought it while in California. If it was purchased in Arizona, that would prove it was EITHER TRAVIS OR JODI who purchased it. But nothing could be proven definitively and in either case it could/would only hurt Jodi’s defense and provide more fodder for the prosecution.

                Like

              • Kim

                I don’t know much about guns but if gun found couldn’t they determine if the bullet casing found in bathroom came from the gun?

                Like

            • Heather

              Oh Lindsay..

              I’m afraid you have been hanging on the prosecutor’s every word, which is a grave mistake, pun intended. Martinez is for the State, the State wants to kill her (in cold blood), which is nothing less than premeditated murder, incidentally, when Jodi killed Travis in self defence..There has been No proof of premeditated murder, no matter how Martinez ranted and raved; many times even he got lost in what he was saying, did you catch that?

              IF she stole the gun from her grandparents’ house as you believe, why wouldn’t she have fired bullets into the back of his head when she arrived? According to your belief, she brought the gun. She had many opportunities to have shot him, but she didn’t. It would have been cleaner, wouldn’t it?
              Why risk stabbing him in the shower, what, you think he stood there and just let her do it, (a man much bigger and heavier than Jodi), when he would have overpowered her (he used to do wrestling) ?

              You speak almost derogatorily ( my interpretation) ”Maybe in her ”fog”, she can’t remember exactly where she threw everything.”

              Its can be hard to put oneself in Jodi’s shoes, seeing as none of us have ever killed anyone, but its not that hard to imagine, and indeed it is a fact, that someone going through such a traumatic situation (of having to kill someone in order to save your own life) that, instead of what the haters believe, that she must have been lying (they love the ‘fog’ bit), a part of their brain blocks the memory – self preservation or it would be far too much to cope with.

              Lindsay, I’m afraid your ‘facts’/thoughts are very flawed, exactly how much of the trials did you actually watch? I never missed one.

              Like

            • If you’re planning to murder someone, why stage a burglary at your grandparents’ house to steal a gun, money, a DVD player and other items? Why not just take the gun? Why not buy your own gun? There was a police report of the burglary and that looks very suspicious. But it makes absolutely no sense in terms of premeditation.

              Travis was known to go shooting. Also, in his book chapter, he discussed his mother having a gun. He could have owned a gun or inherited his mother’s gun. Isn’t that possible?

              Like

              • AA, I have seen your posts on jodiariasisinnocent.com but unfortunately I can not post there because for some reason SJ or a “Team Administrator” blocked me two weeks ago. If you had noticed my prior posts there (TrialWatcher) I never said one word against Jodi Arias and have been supportive of her ever since I found the site a couple of months ago. All I said was that I found it disturbing that a lot of posters there were making remarks about the attractiveness , or lack thereof, of certain witnesses for the prosecution. I do not adhere to attacking someone’s looks whether or not I think they are lying in their testimony against Jodi. I found that to be as distasteful as those they criticize for being “haters”. I wrote to SJ twice and asked why I was blocked but he never answered me.

                This forum at least allows people to post their views whether in support of Jodi or against Jodi and i find this forum much more open to adverse views on either “side”.

                I really would love to converse with you and Heather through email if the operator of this site would give you both my email address.

                I am responding right now to your comment as follows:

                “Travis was known to go shooting. Also, in his book chapter, he discussed his mother having a gun. He could have owned a gun or inherited his mother’s gun. Isn’t that possible?”

                One of the most aggravating Travis supporters, I think his name is Dave Hall, kept saying on HLN that he _knows_ Travis did not own a gun because he always asked to borrow a gun from Dave to go to target practice where all of his friends were using RIFLES (video of it was shown over and over). Now wouldn’t Travis look silly if he brought a .25 caliber HANDGUN to the target range? That is why I believe, he asked his friend to borrow a RIFLE. Of course, HLN runs that video of Travis at the shooting range with a rifle and never says anything about this to refute this man’s claim that that is why he “knows” Travis didn’t own a gun.

                Secondly, I believe Arizona does not require gun registration. Not only that but the grandfather’s gun was not registered either. Even if they found the gun in the desert I don’t think that can prove it was either Travis’ gun or the grandfather’s gun. I also read…somewhere….that there are likely many thousands of 25 caliber handguns owned by thousands of people.
                Even if they found the gun, how could they prove who owned it? (Unless of course Jodi purchased this gun herself and had it registered, and no one….not even deceitful Juan Martinez…..ever suggested that )

                Like

              • I have also posted here under the name Marion

                Like

              • Hi trialwatcher,

                “Now wouldn’t Travis look silly if he brought a .25 caliber HANDGUN to the target range? That is why I believe, he asked his friend to borrow a RIFLE.”

                Excellent point and exactly on target (pardon the pun)! It is certainly NOT proof that he did not own a gun. In fact, I think someone who regularly goes out shooting is far more likely to own a gun of their own than someone who doesn’t.

                “Secondly, I believe Arizona does not require gun registration. Not only that but the grandfather’s gun was not registered either.”

                You are correct on both points which were, in fact, brought out during the trial testimony.

                “Even if they found the gun, how could they prove who owned it?”

                They may have been able to forensically match the gun with the bullet that was lodged in Travis’s cheek, and therefore, reasonably presume that it was the same gun used to shoot him. Assuming it had remained somewhere in the desert for almost 5 years, I’m not sure how accurate such a match would have been though as I know very little about forensics.

                While I also know almost nothing about guns and bullets, my understanding is that the grandfather’s gun was loaded with hollow point bullets. Yet, according to Dr. Horn’s testimony, the bullet lodged in Travis’s cheek was not hollow point bullet as, if it had been, it would have exploded and done considerably more damage. I hope I’m stating that correctly. So, then, if one assumes it was the same gun, one also has to assume Jodi bought different bullets and loaded them into the gun. For me, that begs another question. Why? If the hollow point bullets would have caused considerably more damage and her goal was to shoot him and kill him, wouldn’t she have wanted to use the bullets that would cause more damage? Okay, so the counter to that might be that she didn’t want the bullets to be traceable to the gun she allegedly stole from her grandfather. Then, why not buy other hollow point bullets? There are just so many holes!

                Like

              • Heather

                AA, how I wish Kirk Nurmi had said this at the closing argument, but wait.. that’s saying anyone gives a damn, because its my opinion that the jurors had already made up their minds to vote Guilty and give the DP long before the end of the trial, if not as soon as they knew they were going to be on the jury.

                As for your last paragraph, its extremely possible = reasonable doubt.

                Like

              • bill

                If she was clever she would buy a gun in Az where there is no law about registration of a gun, buy bullets and get lots of practice. Go to the library and read up on gunshot wounds to the head and how many bullets and what caliber you need to make sure you kill and not maim.
                Thing is when your emotions take over the really clever thinking goes out the window. Stealing a gun does seem like a good idea…at the time. Factor in some other things that people might steal like the dvd player or whatever else was stolen. The thing is the grandparents had rifles as well that were not locked up and even if not usable they would certainly be salable if one was a genuine thief. Miraculously Jodi’s computer was not stolen because she had it hidden in her clothes hamper. Who does that? Who would think that there was anything salable in that modest house?
                I think that she probably boiled at being so insulted. He raged quite a bit that time at her. She got an idea to draw a line in the sand. She may have swung back and forth with her emotions. Was there any chance for a different outcome? I think he should not have called her again. Should not have spoken for those two extended phone calls. Should have stopped being a salesman…except he was no more mature than she was and maybe just as messed up in the head.

                Like

          • The re-enactment of Psycho was a rumour started on one of the “Justice for Travis” sites. No one testified to that.

            As for the stolen gun, Jodi was never even considered a suspect by the police in Yreka. It was an old gun, small, and it wasn’t the only item stolen. The thief also stole a DVD player, cash, and some other items. There had been multiple such break ins in the same neighbourhood in the prior weeks.

            Also, Jodi lived with her grandparents at the time. She could have simply taken the gun and brought it back later. There was absolutely no reason for her to steal it. Alternatively, she could have purchased a gun. In fact, in AZ, there is no necessity of gun registration whatsoever. She lived in CA, and I’m not sure of the laws there. But she was able to purchase a gun in CA after the killing. So, why didn’t she do that beforehand? It just doesn’t make sense.

            Like

            • Heather

              Absolutely AA, helllo again, good to see you here 🙂

              One also can’t get away from the question of, why, if she intended to kill Travis, would she drive all that way to AZ where they have the death penalty, when in CA they don’t have the death penalty? 🙂 Surely it would have made more sense to have invited Travis to CA.

              I would have liked Kirk Nurmi to have put this to the dumb jury (who, because Jodi was an abused woman, she must die, regardless), however I don’t think it would have made the slightest bit of difference as their minds were made up before they heard any of the evidence, in fact, I recall someone saying on the jodiariasisinnocent site that the jurors are asked, by the (in my opinion, biased Judge), before the jurors were elected, if they had any problem with the DP in criminal cases, and I quite believe it, knowing that AZ is a Republican State. .

              Like

              • Hi Heather, yes the jury would have been death penalty qualified during voir dire.

                As for the venue of the “premeditated murder,” I suppose the argument could be made that Travis did not want to go to CA. Remember, he didn’t want anything more to do with her after their heated exchanged on May 26, 2008. And don’t forget that he’d been telling everyone else she was stalking him and slashing his tires in February 2008 — and he was so aggravated about that, he even called the police, but did not want to wait for them to arrive.

                Of course, that begs the question as to why he continued to communicate with her from February onwards. I certainly wouldn’t communicate with someone I considered my stalker who slashed my tires in a jealous rage (assuming I drove and had a car, that is). Under no circumstances would I engage in phone sex with that person which Travis did on May 10, 2008 (if I’m not mistaken as to the date). If that now infamous exchange of May 26, 2008 truly meant he wanted nothing further to do with her, why then did he continue to call her thereafter? If she arrived at his home on June 4, 2008 uninvited and unwanted and was a threatening stalker he was terribly frightened of, why did he pose nude for salacious photos with her and engage in sexual intercourse with her?

                Assuming he was just being nice (???) in not throwing her out immediately, and/or taking advantage of freely offered sex because he was “just being a guy” (???), since we learned from the phone sex tape that his ultimate fantasy of her whoredom was to tie her to a tree and have animalistic anal sex with her, couldn’t she have tempted him to go to a wooded area on the pretense of fulfilling his ultimate fantasy, and then, have shot him there? Instead of it being 5 days before his body was found, it could have taken weeks or months in a wooded area.

                Again, nothing makes sense to me. But, I wasn’t on the jury.

                Like

              • bill

                I agree that jodi was abused. There is more evidence for emotional than physical but I think when the time comes to stop it, the mind is racing and maybe the plans are not thought out clearly.
                Does anyone deserve to die?
                No.
                Neither does anyone deserve to be abused.
                Travis seemed to think he had every right to spew venom.
                That was his folly.

                Like

              • Heather

                Hi Bill, how refreshing it is to see someone else has it right. I was listening to the interview with Darryl Brewer and the message came loud and clear that poor Jodi was completely taken in by the Mormon religion and changed dramatically as soon as soon as she met Travis.
                The Mormons have to take responsibility for duping an innocent woman who was competely taken in by the Mormon cult. Its very sad that happened to her. The Mormons hit on vulnerable people for financial gain and abuse them every which way; I hold Them wholly responsible for Travis’ death.

                Like

              • Heather, it goes even deeper than that. Fenton Lawless, on one of Vladimir Gagic’s showed talked about this. Jodi is in her late 20s and happy in her relationship with an older recently divorced man (Darryl) with whom she owns a house. However, of late, things have become a little strained between the two. She really wants to get married and raise her own family but he isn’t ready to remarry and worries about having other children taking time away from his son. Jodi’s biological clock it ticking (as it does for most women of that age). Darryl’s ex-wife moves and therefore, he wants to move closer to his son.

                In addition, Jodi is working 2-3 jobs while pursuing a professional career in wedding photography. The economy is failing in 2006, and people are cutting back. Wedding photographers are really feeling the heat (I had a wedding photographer client who felt it around that time). Selling the house is proving difficult in the economic downturn. Hence, Jodi is looking for a supplement to her income. She discovers PPL and decides to give it a try.

                Jodi, a rookie in PPL, attends a conference in Vegas. A seemingly successful entrepreneur in PPL (Travis) is very taken with her. He pursues her, even inviting her to accompany him to the exclusive executives ball. This guy is just a couple of years older than her, he’s pursuing her heavily, and he’s talking about being a Mormon and the family values held so dear. Travis borrows a dress for Jodi from a friend so that she can go to the ball. At the ball, Jodi meets all these wealthy successful PPL entrepreneurs making six-figure incomes. Travis tells her he’s doing the same after just a few short years in PPL and he can help her. He also preaches some Mormonism to her and challenges her to read the Book of Mormon.

                Jodi goes back to CA and Darryl begins spending almost all his time in Monterrey, close to his son. Jodi feels abandoned. Travis continues to pursue her and she’s enamoured. Mormons (sent by Travis) begin visiting twice a week preaching the family values of the religion and engaging Jodi’s attention. They are talking about everything she wants in life. She moves out of Darryl’s bedroom into another. Travis surprises Jodi with a visit she doesn’t expect. She meets his friends again, the happily married Hughes, also successful in PPL. They are kind to her and it seems like all her prayers could be answered between PPL, Mormonism and Travis. Wow! She feels like she’s Cinderella whose prince has finally come. (I’ve been there and know the feeling.)

                Within two months of meeting Travis, Jodi is convinced that she should convert to Mormonism. It’s the answer to her spiritual longings, and also a wonderful community feeling for a girl who is not close to her family, and Travis has said he would only marry a Mormon. Travis, an elder in the church with special privileges who is also successful in his church (not just PPL), baptizes her himself. It’s a day of great job. Shortly thereafter, he sodomizes her. He tells her he has great physical desire for her and although Mormons don’t break the law of chastity, vaginal sex is the only real problem. Oral and anal sex are an acceptable workaround.

                The holidays are approaching and Travis, although interested in her, texting and calling daily, isn’t willing to call her his “girlfriend”. Jodi hasn’t experienced this type of player before. She’s not quite sure what to do. She’s given him the sex he wants, converted to his religion, surely she’s entitled to be called “girlfriend”. This bothers her and she decides to talk to Sky Hughes about it. Sky tells her Travis is a player and if he won’t commit, she should move on. She also tells her Travis has not treated other women well. Jodi is devastated. She thought he was perfect. She wonders if Sky could possibly be telling the truth. She confronts Travis. He tells her it’s not true and showers her with attention. He makes her his No. 1 friend on MySpace.

                Shortly thereafter, Travis agrees they can be boyfriend/girlfriend. There are red flags, but Jodi keeps looking past them. He’s a great guy. Everyone loves him. The months go by, and they even talk about her moving to AZ. She begins to plan her move. But then, she suspects he’s seeing other girls. Something just isn’t right. He’s being secretive at times while he’s with her. She looks at his phone and there it is. He’s cheating on her. She’s devastated. She breaks up with him. He begs her to move to AZ anyway, claiming he will regain her trust. She believes him. She desperately wants to believe in him. She’s in love. But Travis is still seeing other girls. In fact, he has been all along.

                Let’s just stop there for a second. This guy courts and captivates her, encourages her to break up with the old guy, persuades her to convert to his religion, baptizes her, sodomizes her, wows her with the PPL business to the point that she becomes irresponsible with her own commitments, pulls her into his Mormon world where there’s something to do 3-4 times a week, convinces her to move to AZ, cheats on her, apologizes, gets her to move anyway, hires her to clean his house in French maid outfits, engages her in every sexual fantasy he can even think of even the most demeaning where he pulls up, shoots a load on her face and leaves without speaking, and then, he cheats again. Can you just imagine how she feels? Her whole world has now been built around Travis. She’s lost, in a strange state, away from everyone she knows, unable to tell the Mormons she has befriended ANY of the truth of what their hero Travis is really like. This is a broken woman.

                Abusers break down women long before they abuse them physically. They isolate them, and they wear them down. Then, they physically control them. And that’s just one more reason I believe Travis abused Jodi.

                But without physical abuse, just think about it: Convert, baptize, sodomize, cheat and demean.

                Like

              • Heather

                Oh AA I have never doubted any of this. I think most of us have been through that and had abuse of some kind or another (I know you have), and I can put myself straight into her shoes. I trusted everyone at her age, believed everything any man told me. How I managed to get where I am today was just by luck. I couldn’t believe that men would just want me for sex, I was that naive, I had a sheltered upbringing and got married to the first man that came along.
                At 25 I did it again! After what is now many years of being on my own through being scared of my own naivety, I see and feel everything, and I’m on my own at the age of 62. I have friends and would rather it this way than fall into something I didn’t want. But, I’m open to maybe being with someone one day and I’m daft enough to marry again! 🙂 But this time it must be for keeps.
                I think what Jodi has suffered is tragic, I listened to the interview with Darryl and my heart wrenched for Jodi, she has paid an awful price for her naivety and was severely duped by the Mormons.

                Will Darryl be a witness after all? Can there be more investigation, can subpaenas happen? I followed the videos on youtube this morning, all of them (Not HLN) and at least the hung jury stays and another jury will be heard, but surely almost everyone will have their minds made up. How on earth this is supposed to work, I just don’t know.

                How that court has treated Jodi is so inhumane. Will there be a different Judge next time? I’ve read that she was crying after she knew it was a hung jury. How can she be allowed to show such bias?
                How can anything change at the penalty phase? Or is the penalty phase finished and the Appeal process starts? Will the same defence still be there for her?
                People like Gus Searcy seem to be speaking out. The truth just has to come out.
                Jodi Has to be set free. This case is just one hell of a mess.

                Like

            • AA: I posted earlier that I heard this story about “reenacting the movie Psycho” on HLN…..through none other than Nancy Grace who said this was mentioned in her journal…..that didn’t make it into court.

              Like

              • Did Nancy DisGrace actually show the lines from her journal which stated that? I don’t watch her show or HLN, in general. But I have not seen that particular excerpt from a journal published anywhere.

                Like

              • Heather

                Trialwatcher, ugh that’s Nasty Grace’s lies again to feed the masses, she’s so vile, as vile as she looks. I hope Jodi’s parents sue the pants off her.

                Ah so you were Marion! 🙂

                Like

              • AA…..memory ifsfailing me, unfortunately. I just recall NG making a big deal out of it but don’t recall if she showed lines from the journal. Heck….maybe she got it from one of the Travis support sites and claimed it as true and was from her journal. Anyone who would use The National Enquirer as a “reputable source”, would use just about any source to bolster her B.S. This was the “source” she used to claim that Jodi has a lesbian lover in jail and they planned to skip the country when she was found not guilty and have a baby together through artificial insemination. I watched it with my mouth hung open in disbelief.

                Yes, I do watch HLN just to see “what they are up to now”…..but often have to shut it off because it is so aggravating.

                Like

              • Kim

                The Psycho reference, along with other movie references, started early on during trial. A blogger on twitter has them all. NG did jump on that when mike walker was on her show

                Like

              • Trialwatcher, as I mentioned in another post, that rumour about Psycho came from someone from the National Enquirer who claimed Jodi was writing a “tell-all” book wherein she claimed that they were re-enacting scenes from Psycho.

                Like

            • Heather

              AA, I didn’t know that she bought a gun the following week.. you’re right, this doesn’t make any sense at all.
              Someone on here said she bought two knives, too, she thought she’d embellish it, you know how it is!

              The very fact that there was evidence that other things were stolen from her grandparents, it make a nonsense that she would go there too, to steal a gun, on the very same day the other person burgled the house, its madness. I expect JM prevented that evidence being admitted, ugh, that man makes me sick to my stomach.

              Like

              • kim

                On the stolen items, I was told Daryl testified she gave him a dvd player (1 was reported stolen from grandparents home along with gun) and dropped it off when she picked up gas cans. The remote was found in the rental car and that was testified too as well. I did not see all of his testimony so I cannot confirm this, but found it interesting that more wasn’t made of it.

                Like

              • kim

                And she testified she bought the gun afterwards because she was going camping with a few guys she did not know very well and wanted to feel safe. That testimony I did hear.

                Like

              • AK

                “And she testified she bought the gun afterwards because she was going camping with a few guys she did not know very well and wanted to feel safe. That testimony I did hear”

                This is interesting. I didn’t hear this testimony, what I did hear while Jodi was the stand was that she grabbed the gun from Travis’ closet.

                Like

              • kim

                AK, the second gun. The 9MM

                Like

              • Heather

                Are you beginning to think Jodi should never have got a 1st degree murder verdict, Kim?

                Like

              • kim

                Not at this point Heather. Before I go on I want to ask you, did you support a complete acquittal of all charges?

                Her attorneys could have made different choices that definitely could have helped her receive a lesser conviction, but who am I to criticize. I’m sure they did their best, it was a tough case. The self defense just did not make sense with the extent of the wounds. And the allegations of abuse and pedophilia just did not work with this defendant, this victim, and this jury. What I saw, and I watched 95% of the trial, the evidence fit the verdict. The issues everyone raise on here will definitely be part of the numerous appeals, as they should be. What I do want to say is, although I am not opposed to the death penalty, I have not been shouting from the rooftops the cruel things I’ve read in social media. At the conclusion of the trial when I made my decision I did not support her getting the death penalty.

                What I find interesting is the info AA has relayed about the woman who committed suicide and related facts of that situation. None of that, of course, was in the trial. THAT bothers me immensely. Although I’m an attorney my passion has been the investigative side of crimes, etc. btw, if you’re interesting in that side of things we have an unsolved murder in Cleveland OH that is very disturbing to me personally. If you are on twitter look for #JusticeForAliza. Mother of 4 stabbed 11 times after leaving her attorney’s office prepping for divorce trial that was scheduled 2 days later.

                Like

              • Kim, I agree it was a tough case and I am loathe to second guess, but for God’s sake. You have a highly problematic self defense claim, where self defense claims are difficult to begin with; and you have an interesting and viable third-party-did-it defense, which is one of the most effective defenses you can have in the first place. Why the hell would you go with self defense?

                The client’s a basket case. You can’t believe her, or maybe you can but you have to be really patient and persistent. Look, I’ve just been reading comments here, know only a little about the case, but it’s not a stretch to think she might have been there and saw the whole thing and how traumatic would that have been and then they let her go under pain of death if she tells, and so on. This may sound outlandish, but at least it doesn’t leave her in the position of trying to claim self defense with 30 stab wounds and a coup de grace to the throat.

                And it isn’t that outlandish if he had enemies. And AA brought up some very pertinent facts. And were his roommates Mormons?

                I’m sick about this.

                Like

              • Heather, I believe the police report of the grandparents’ burglary was admitted into evidence. That report did indicate that other items were stolen. Interestingly enough, it also indicated that Jodi’s hair was brown, not blonde. And remember, that was on May 26, 2008 — 8 days before she rented the car in Redding.

                Kim, Darryl did NOT testify that Jodi gave him a DVD player. That story was a rumour started on WebSleuths and I remember reading it there — although I rarely read that site at all. Darryl and Jodi both testified that after Jodi left his house, she discovered a remote control in her car. She assumed that either she had inadvertently picked it up from his house or that he had done so, when they went out to breakfast. She went back to his house to give him back the remote. A “smart” person on WebSleuths deduced that what must have happened, in actually, is that Jodi gave Darryl the stolen DVD player in return for the gas cans. However, after leaving, she then realized that she had forgotten to give him the accompanying remote control. Therefore, she went back to give him the remote that accompanied the DVD player.

                Does this demonstrate how ridiculous rumours started in this case and then, somehow, were twisted into something testified to?

                Like

              • Heather

                WOW, AA, I didn’t know that about the DVD player.. are these morons ever going to stop?

                I hope everyone reads Pitchforks post.

                Like

              • Heather

                AA, I seem to recall something about that, (the other items that were stolen)now I come to think of it, but not at the trial hearings, I don’t think. Why wasn’t more made of this at the closing arguments, about Jodi buying a gun AFTER she killed Travis, I smell a RAT named JM.

                I actually never stumbled on the trial until early February.. shall have to go back and watch it on YouTube.

                Like

              • AK, you said “This is interesting. I didn’t hear this testimony, what I did hear while Jodi was the stand was that she grabbed the gun from Travis’ closet.”

                She also testified to buying a gun for the camping trip with guys she didn’t know very well. But that occurred AFTER the killing of Travis, not before.

                Like

              • JMRJ, his roommates were indeed, Mormons. They were also involved in PPL.

                Like

              • In response to Kim:

                you wrote:
                “The self defense just did not make sense with the extent of the wounds. And the allegations of abuse and pedophilia just did not work with this defendant, this victim, and this jury. What I saw, and I watched 95% of the trial, the evidence fit the verdict. ”

                If you are only considering the “extent of the wounds” as to whether this was done in self defense…..it seems to me you are not understanding that Jodi does not REMEMBER why she stabbed him so many times, or whether or not she stabbed him at all except that she does remember dropping a knife on the tile floor and screaming. If you used your “mind’s eye” to look between the lines of her testimony, how could she have done this to a man so much bigger than she? It is my firm belief that he was the one that grabbed the knife in the bathroom after he was STUNNED by the gunshot wound and that she was able to knock it out of his hand and started stabbing him until she was SURE he was dead. He was the one who knew where he left the knife after cutting the rope. After being shot he probably coughed up the blood in the sink and the knife was nearby and he went after her…..but didn’t have the strength to fight with her and she was able to grab the knife.

                The “allegations” of abuse and pedophilia could not be proven because it is “undocumented” is the weakest reason to disbelieve it. But that is what the jury did……the jury used it to “prove” to themselves that it DIDN’T HAPPEN because neither Jodi or Travis “documented” it. It is obvious that the prosecution needed to “prove its case”, but he also should have been able to disprove the defense allegations. No one seems to be able to believe something unless it is seen and heard. ALV saying she “thought” Jodi meant she saw pictures of boys on the computer screen, was simply a MISUNDERSTANDING of what she remembered Jodi telling her and not a “lie” by Jodi, and especially not by ALV. This was not a piece of “evidence” ALV needed to make her evaluation of domestic violence. She was not there to prove whether or not Jodi killed Travis or was guilty of murder. She was there only to prove Jodi was abused.

                The “evidence fit the verdict” only if you BELIEVE the trumped up “evidence”. He did not PROVE his case, but the jury didn’t care. Hey…..”she stabbed him 29 times and slit his throat” is all they heard.

                Like

          • Okay, I found where this rumour got started. Mike Walker, of the National Enquirer, appeared on Nancy Grace and CNN and claimed that Jodi is writing a “tell-all” book from jail claiming that she and Travis were re-enacting scenes from the movie Psycho. It didn’t come from Jodi’s journal as someone else claimed. It was a rumour started by the National Enquirer. They also claimed that she was trying to find a sperm donor so that she could have a baby with her lesbian lover.

            “n a story newly released by The Enquirer, written by Stephanie Wilburn, the tabloid raised the question that Arias may have been inspired by Janet Leigh’s shower scene in the film. Mr. Walker alleged that Arias responded to the accusation, (via a friend), stating that it was Travis Alexander who was fixated on the “Psycho” scene.

            Walker stated that an “insider” who has visited Arias in jail reported that Jodi is now writing a book in which she stated that Alexander had a fascination with the Alfred Hitchcock classic. Purportedly, Arias now states that it was Travis Alexander’s idea to bring the knife into the bathroom to reenact the shower scene in “Psycho”.

            The source alleged that Arias revealed that Alexander was sexually aroused by the scene and wanted to recreate the event. Supposedly, he then got carried away, roughing up Arias and things quickly got out of hand, (resulting in Arias’s alleged need for self-defense.) ”

            Such a reliable source. Okay, let’s put that stupid rumour to bed, shall we?

            Like

        • Heather

          ”They were acting out scenes from the movie psycho”

          Kim, you state this as fact, then you refer to OTher things being speculation?

          You know, its this type of thing that gets, for want of another word, dangerous – all these ‘facts’, when really they are things from your own mind, are nothing more than Your interpretation, aren’t they?.
          I have see far too many of these supposed ‘facts’. It takes just one person to start what are in fact just rumours, they are more catching than a dose of influenza and spread like wild fire.. and people accept them and argue black is white they are true. See how dangerous this is?

          Of course, what they Should be doing is looking for the Real facts of the case. One would hope that they saw the trial and listened as intently as I did; I had an open mind, I was interested in hearing everything presented, but there are those who go on sites or worse, watch HLN and take whatever they say as gospel when the chances are that they are not that interested in the actual trial itself. This sort of person thrives on rumours, rather than looking at the evidence (which means watching every trial hearing) and thus able to make up their own mind, having opinions based on facts.

          The slashing of the tires (well, tyres, I’m British!) is another one, only it came from one of Travis’ ex girlfriends.. I would suggest she was biased as she was a witness for the prosecution! The same goes for Jodi getting in through the doggy door and watching them.. sleeping? That’s a new one! What really happened: Travis was using her for sex, telling her at times he loved her, but was cheating on her with more than one woman and what she saw when she went to see where he was, was a woman taking off her bra on a sofa with Travis.
          You see, Kim, Travis himself spread the rumour of Jodi stalking him/slashing his tires, purely because she was his dirty little secret; when you tell your friends these things (he told them he had ended the relationship or was wanting to at least), you really don’t want them to know you are still seeing her and having sex with her; who would have sex with their stalker? I mean, really. As Kirk Nurmi said, it makes No sense.

          ”So, while only the slashing of tires could possibly fit for the question of previous violence, the rest show her frame of mind.”

          Absolute nonsense, no rumours show her frame of mind, simply because they are either rumours or hearsay (from an ex girlfriend!) yet you state this as pure fact? Again, see the danger in doing this?

          Like

          • Heather

            My apologies, Kim, I was ‘speaking’ to Lindsey! One can get lost when many people have posted. Sorry about that!

            Like

          • I would really love to respond to all the posts here but there are too many. (my mailbox received over 150 posts that I am still reading). But in regard to the claim that they were acting out the movie Psycho……I believe that was “revealed” on Nancy Grace when she somehow got hold of all of Jodi’s journals that were not admitted into evidence. In it Jodi speaks of their desire to act out the movie Psycho because Travis was fascinated with it. As far as I recall, this was NEVER brought up in trial. So repeating as “fact” what one heard on the NG show is revealing that people are confusing what they heard in trial with what they heard on HLN. It also reveals loud and clear (to me, anyway) that the jury had also been watching HLN.

            And, yes, Heather…..it is unbelievable how people twist the testimony of witnesses as “fact” when their testimony is to be believed or not believed….but cannot be stated as “fact”. In the case of the testimony that Jodi slashed his tires (Mimi Hall, correct?), “hid behind the Christmas tree”, “crawled in through the doggie door”, ” , etc, were all told to Mimi Hall by Travis alone. Those who believe this word for word (Mimi-Travis) conveniently ignore the defense’s cross examination questions and answers, and Jodi’s testimony about what “really happened” in those cases, is conveniently ignored by the biased minds of those who believe she is guilty of premeditated murder from the very beginning of the trial. it is obvious that the jury ASSUMED this to be fact as the defense did not do a very thorough job of cross examination of her other than to point out that she did, in fact, “hear” this claim from Travis alone. It is as obvious as the noses on our faces that Travis was spreading these rumors about “Jodi did this, Jodi did that” to all his friends to make it seem that he did indeed want to dump Jodi because he did not want his friends to know that he ENCOURAGED the relationship out of his sick need for deviant sex.

            It is obvious to me that Travis was a sex addict…..and “most likely” had fantasies about children and would have eventually, or perhaps had, molested children. This is what he feared the most…..that Jodi would reveal this. Perhaps THAT is what that letter was about where he threatened to expose Jodi’s “secrets” and “lies” to the world because perhaps she told him she was going to expose him. He had to establish her as a liar if she was going to do that.

            My “theory” as to how Jodi could have struggled with Travis in a bloody knife fight is that after she shot him in the head accidentally, he was not “incapacitated” yet, but was certainly “stunned” and probably disoriented. I think HE WAS THE ONE WHO GRABBED THE KNIFE while Jodi ran down the hallway because HE knew where he had left it. Since he was probably in a foggy state from the gunshot wound, she was able to knock the knife out of his hand and grab it and then started wildly defending herself by stabbing and stabbing and stabbing while they were wrestling on the floor, and he was struggling to get the knife back. The “overkill” was nothing more than that……her utter fear that he would get the knife back and turn it on her. This , to me, is the only explanation as to how she “overpowered” him and was able to stab him so many times and not have any stab wounds herself.

            This so reminds me of the case in Texas….the so-called “Blue eyed Butcher”, who had been abused by her husband (and HAD reported it) and she grabbed a knife while he was asleep (after tying him up to the bed in his sleep) and stabbed him over 200 times. She claimed she was terrified that he would get up and kill her and kept stabbing. Then she dragged the body to the backyard and buried him in a shallow grave and stayed at the grave all night because she was CONVINCED he would get up and come after her again. Surely that was an irrational fear…..but in a crazy sense, very rational. In fact, after initial conviction on first degree murder the case was overturned and she got five years and mental help.

            Lastly, because I have no time to write a “book”, if I had been in a life and death struggle with a man and I had to stab him 29 times until I was sure he was dead, I would have been in a “fog” afterward also and probably would not remember what actually happened……like a nightmare where you can’t remember all that happened in the nightmare. I am 100% convinced that Jodi suffered from disociative amnesia as testified to by Dr. Samuels. I am also 100% convinced that Jodi told the truth and the whole truth as she “remembers” it on the witness stand, regardless of her previous lies before trial. Neither Jodi or all of us will EVER know the complete truth.

            The bottom line is that there was so much REASONABLE DOUBT in this case that it is unbelievable to me that the jury did not see this and believed all the lies (and “misrepresentation of testimony”) by Juan Martinez.

            I am sure lots of posters here will be responding to this post….but hey, I have to get back to work.

            Like

            • Oh, one more thing: it disturbs me that people believe that once you lie about ANYTHING you are branded a “liar for life”. I would like to challenge those people as to whether or not THEY ever lied about ANYTHING? (and please don’t offer up the baloney that they were just “white lies”).

              Like

              • Heather

                Ohh trialwatcher, THAT is soo true! It disturbs me, too, I mean, how can they be so, so STUPID as not to realise that, they should look at themselves first before judging others; in fact, by not doing so THEY are lying by omission!

                One thing that depicts a hater, is that they don’t want to know, nor do they care about finding out the truth; they are FAR more interested in calling those with common sense and intelligence, Stupid and worse.

                Its a real treat to read a post from intelligent people!

                Its criminal that the haters, and other people, look to HLN, (who really deserve to be sued for brainwashing people and trying to pervert the course of justice.) They Should know what they’re about; its NOT reality, nor is it news, its warped entertainment, just lies, and these haters take it as gospel and add their own rubbish to it to make it more exciting. Its a mindset and its frightening how many there are and how little they care about someone’s life.

                Seriously wondering if they do it to rile us for nothing other than their own warped enjoyment, or is it a Republican mindset? Same thing, maybe..

                Like

              • Heather: you wrote:
                “Ohh trialwatcher, THAT is soo true! It disturbs me, too, I mean, how can they be so, so STUPID as not to realise that, they should look at themselves first before judging others; in fact, by not doing so THEY are lying by omission!”

                This issue is a particular peeve I have with many people who ALWAYS say something like “a drug user ALWAYS LIES”. This is simply NOT TRUE. I have known MANY drug users/abusers, (by virtue of the fact that I have been single all my life and have hung out in bars for my social life) who are completely honest about their drug use and/or abuse. I have found them to be at least ‘HONEST’ regardless of whether they are high at the time or sober. Now if someone is trying to get them arrested…..OF COURSE they are going to lie about it. Likewise, Jodi lied AT FIRST because she was not yet able to deal with the fact that she did this horrific killing and she still really doesn’t know if she did the stabbing or not, but has been convinced by her accusers that she must have done it.

                It makes me so sad when I saw her after verdict interview where she is still BELIEVING everything said about her and making excuses for those who accuse her as though “well, yeah, I can understand how they think that way”. I just wanted to SCREAM AT HER to STOP showing us her ability to see things from another’s perspective…..that is what has gotten her in all this trouble in the first place…..BELIEVING everything Travis said to her about herself.

                Like

              • Heather

                You have the same pet peeve as me, trialwatcher, its the mentality that drives me to SCREAM and mutter to myself, how Could anyone Really believe That! Me too, I’d also like to challenge them and have, but I’m learning fast that I’d have more luck in winning the National lottery! But having said that, I feel compelled to try.

                If there’s one thing I can’t abide, and that’s injustice, ANY injustice– and I’ve had people say to me, ”Why are you so concerned about someone in another country?, You don’t even live here! You must be Jodi’s twin, you’re as crazy as she is.”

                I then think I’d better make the dinner before I end up as crazy as they are! 🙂

                Like

              • Heather, you wrote:
                “and I’ve had people say to me, ”Why are you so concerned about someone in another country?, You don’t even live here! You must be Jodi’s twin, you’re as crazy as she is.”

                It is amazing that people think you can’t access the live feed over the internet and determine for yourself whether a case was proven or not…..just because you live in another country. This reminds me of the ridiculous criticism oft heard on the Piers Morgan show. When they can’t refute your argument they turn to “but you don’t have a right to an opinion because you come from Britain”.

                Like

            • AK

              Trialwatcher- great post. I too agree about dissociative amnesia. As a graduate student, dissociative amnesia is a recognized phenomenon. I wish they had a physicatrist, (MD opposed to PhD) testify on her behalf. A lot of people there say: “Cmon, she remembered what she drank at Starbucks 4 years ago, but she cant remember what she did?!”. Yes, this is entirely possible (REASONABLE DOUBT) given the crime scene, one can easily infer it wasn’t clean by any means, and there was a lot of rage. When you have anger, there’s a bunch of neurotransmitters which are released, I’m not going into details here, but yes, this is a documented phenomenon. It also poses a reasonable explanation as to why in the interrogation videos, she wants to see the pictures. She freaking doesn’t remember!

              Like

              • So that’s the explanation for the missing gun and knife – fugue state. It might be true, but I have to tell you that is about the toughest sell you could have to a jury. Makes you want to try something else you can make a better argument from.

                Like

              • Unfortunately, I don’t believe they had a different argument to present. Likewise, I don’t think the jury bought it at all.

                Like

              • AK. you are assuming it was “rage” and “anger” that she was feeling instead of FEAR. Same “neurotransmitters” at work?

                Like

              • AK

                Yes, same neurotransmitters at work. It’s not so much what kind of feeling it is, but rather it is how strong the stimulus (in this case feeling) which controls the neurotransmitter release.

                Like

              • Thank you for explaining that, AK.

                Like

              • AK: you wrote:
                “Yes, same neurotransmitters at work. It’s not so much what kind of feeling it is, but rather it is how strong the stimulus (in this case feeling) which controls the neurotransmitter release.”

                Ok…same neurotransmitters for “anger”, “rage”, “fear”……but I guess I was also asking why you think that “anger and rage” were the case, and not fear?

                Like

              • AK

                trialwatcher: I don’t think I said she experienced rage or anger? it is quite possible she could experience fear too.

                btw: I also got banned on the jodiariasisinnocent website. After the parents’ interrogation videos came out, I became more skeptical of Jodi and whether she did have a mental issue. I made a post about that, and I guess ever since then I got banned. I still am undecided on the mental issues. I still feel strong though on how the evidence does not support premeditation and the interplay between the jury and media.

                This is totally unrelated: I do browse the jodiariasisinnocent website, and a recent comment was made something about “the truth will come out, and Jodi being innocent, by someone who claimed to know Travis”. Has any one read this? AA- I see your comments on there too, so you may be familiar with it? I really hope that comment had some credibility to it. Nonetheless, I wonder if it was a pro Travis supporter, who wanted to fool us. No idea. Anyway, I like this forum better, it’s less emotional and more objective than the jodiariasisinnocent website.

                Does anyone know if there will be a appeal? Or what Jodi’s current MO will be? There’s so many people posting, I just feel that there should be some type of organized effort by all us who feel that she deserves a fair trial.

                Like

              • AK

                I went back to my previous post: It should have said “emotions not limited to anger but also rage, and fear”. Thanks for pointing that out.

                Like

            • Heather

              Oh trialwatcher, what a great post! Extremely informative, I commend you for taking the trouble to put this idown! Thank you very much! But, and as you know (!) its a very big BUT, once the haters get a bee in their bonnet, they would say black was white and wouldn’t be prepared to accept the truth of this case, in fact they wouldn’t know, nor would they recognise the truth if it fell on them; haters love to hate! Anyone would think they had watched an entirely different trial! 🙂

              Like

            • Heather

              I would like that, trialwatcher, I shall find out for you what happened at the site, you will be wanted there, you have a lot to offer. Yes, if you could ask him about sending me your address, it’d be great 🙂

              Like

            • Heather

              Trialwatcher, I was upset and as angry as hell when I saw the verdict that I couldn’t even cry.The tears came a while later when it had sunk in and I couldn’t stop them. I didn’t think it was possible to find her guilty of 1st degree murder, however, my friend did, not because he thought she was guilty, but because it was in the US, and he wasn’t at all surprised when I told him.
              The haters have asked me, how old are you ?! I replied, old enough to see that you are way out of line, or something like that. Old enough to know bullshit when I see it!
              Ther is so much reasonable doubt, I’m flummoxed that others can’t see what I can.

              Like

              • Heather, until I found this site and jodiariasisinnocent.com I was worried something was wrong with me or that perhaps I was gullible to believe Jodi Arias’ testimony and the lack of evidence to support the verdict. I thought to myself: “am I nuts, or what”? Why does it seem that I am the only person who thinks the woman is not guilty of murder?”

                It is not like I haven’t watched trials before where I was convinced of the guilt of the defendants…..but most trials I have watched I have always found the jury to have decided it correctly. Whether that was the O.J. trial, Michael Jackson, Dr. Conrad Murray, Drew Peterson, Casey Anthony, and others I have forgotten at this point…..I think all of those juries came to the correct verdict EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE.

                I have always thought of myself as a person who looks at both sides as objectively as I can, and while I am sometimes prejudiced to my own beliefs I can see both sides. When one side deliberately twists the truth to their own liking, I can see through it, whether it is the defendant or the prosecution. Frankly, I thought Jeff Ashton was the MOST OBNOXIOUS and deceitful prosecutor I ever witnessed…..but now Juan Martinez takes the prize!

                This was not the JODI ARIAS TRIAL…..this was RETRIBUTION for unpopular verdicts of the past. There is just no other explanation for it.

                Like

              • Heather

                Marion, yes, retribution for Casey Anthony; the haters can’t bear it that their hate didn’t get her a conviction, so they’ll make certain Jodi will have trial by public and media and they can enjoy it this time–its sick. I couldn’t think of a prosecutor worse than Martinez and feel very sorry Jodi had to have him, I wouldn’t wish him on my worst enemy. I hadn’t been aware of Casey’s case as this trial is the first I’ve come across and that was by accident. To say I’ve had my eyes open wide is the understatement of all time.

                I was called for jury service once, it was for grievous bodily harm, harassment and forgery or whatever the official name was. The jurors made me the foreman, (well, in my case, forewoman!)
                The first day at Crown Court .we had to wait to be called, I took a book.

                When I first saw the defendant, I was a bit alarmed, he had dreadlocks, a big man, black, who came from St, Lucia and was behind bars–in the courtroom, and I had to severely admonish myself for forming an opinion based on how he looked, he looked a pretty fearful figure and of course the bars surrounding him made him look worse. His partner, on the other had was the complete opposite, a petite and ordinary white woman.

                She claimed he was harassing her, we listened to the phone call on tape. I decided that, from the way he spoke it wasn’t menacing, it was his culture, the way they speak. I can’t recall the rest of the case, how it went as it was a long time ago now, but there was something he wrote that was in question. We were allowed to pass notes to the judge. I asked for a handwriting expert, I remember that.

                I couldn’t find him guilty, instead I thought his partner had gone to court to get her own back; I couldn’t give anyone 5 years in jail unless I was certain beyond a shadow of a doubt, I knew he had a very young daughter and thought of how it would affect her, so I Voted innocent, believing he was.. not everyone agreed, I told the judge and he said he would accept a 10-2 verdict so I worked on the others with another juror.

                I just wasn’t prepared to send anyone to jail unless I was as certain as I could be from the evidence. I met his brother there and they both gave me a lift home. A few years later I happened to meet his brother again, he told me that his brother had died suddenly of a heart attack in Saint Lucia, he was only in his early 40’s.

                I remember thinking how pleased I was that he was able to spend the few years he was to have left with his daughter; sending someone to jail on anything other than feeling certain he was guilty based on the evidence alone–not what he looked like, his demeanor, etc. would have been very wrong, unlike some of the haters, who refer to the way Jodi looks, dead eyes, etc. that somehow it belies her guilt and which seems be what they base their decision on and salivate wanting her to get the death penalty, .

                Anyone who had suffered abuse, killed someone (this is what she admits to), and has spent the past 5 years in jail, having been pronounced guilty BEFORE being tried, what do these moronic masses expect ? I think Jodi looks amazing considering she is still in jail. What these people who hate her fail to understand is that Jodi has come a long way in 5 years and is far from the person she was then, and damned right she wouldn’t let Martinez bully her, good for her.

                Like

            • Trialwatcher, if you look at the prosecution’s motion in limine which I linked to above, to preclude testimony of the expert witnesses, you will see that on page 9, Dr. Karp (one of the original defense experts who had to back out due to cancer), in her report, stated that Jodi told her Travis had admitted to fondling young boys and having desires and experiences in sexual experiences with young boys. In addition, he told her that he confessed this to a bishop, but not his bishop. My understanding is that LDS bishops are laypeople without any particular training. If so, this may not have been handled appropriately.

              In regards to Susan Wright (and all the other abused women who have killed their abusers), my biggest problem with the defense in Jodi’s case is that this was never brought out during testimony. If you research other cases such as Wendy Maldonado (a documentary video is available on YouTube), Barbara Sheehan, or so many others, abused women who kill their abuser don’t just shoot or stab once. They shoot and shoot and shoot or stab and stab and stab or bludgeon and bludgeon and bludgeon until they are absolutely positive their abuser will not be able to come after them again. To me, that perfectly fits the legal definition of a heat of the moment crime of passion: manslaughter. It does not fit first degree murder.

              Like

              • AA: I cannot find a post by you that shows the link you refer to abut Dr. Carp’s findings. I had no idea Jodi told Dr. Carp about the fondling of boys and that Travis admitted to this. I suppose this is what Jodi refers to in her post verdict interview about evidence concealed by Martinez?? Can you please repost that link?

                Also, I have asked this in a couple of forums but no one has answered. Has anyone access to the FULL 45 MINUTE INTERVIEW? All I have seen is edited clips….even on the myfoxnews site. What is going on with this? have you seen the full interview? do you have a link to it?

                It is my belief that this is why Travis wrote her that text on May 26th and called her “evil” and “the worst thing that ever happened to me”, because she was probably going to reveal all this. PLEASE PROVIDE THAT LINK AGAIN TO DR. CARP’S REPORT. thanks

                p.s., I have asked the operator of this site to give you my email address. I hope he does and we can talk privately.

                Like

              • Kim

                The post verdict interview should be on YouTube by now.

                Like

              • I believe all posts with links are moderated, trialwatcher, so if I repost it, it could take some time. Search for “motion in limine” on this page, and you will find it.

                The full post-verdict interview has finally been aired on Geraldo’s show tonight. I haven’t seen it yet. Prior to this, only clips were aired.

                I got your email address, thanks JMRJ. I will send you an email.

                Like

              • AA: I did find your post about Dr. Carp and the “motion in limine”. It is unbelievable that this didn’t make it into trial. What happened eventually with Dr. Carp? did she recover, or did she die of cancer? I wonder if an appeals atty can present her testimony if she has recovered.

                About the interview……I did not catch Geraldo Rivera last night. I guess I will have to search on YouTube as Kim suggested.

                I did ask site admin to give you my email address. I did hear from Heather….but perhaps you have been too busy over here to email me??
                I cannot keep up with this page…..and answering all the posts I would like to answer. I just can’t spend ALL DAY on the computer…..got to get work done. So I do hope you email me in next day or so.

                Like

            • Heather

              I think that testimony came from Lisa Andrews, if I remember correctly.
              Your theory about Travis getting the knife seems to make sense, although, as you say, we will never know exactly what happened that day, except that the gunshot came first.

              I was thinking, 5 days went by and not only were Travis’ room mates coming and going, and his friends who found him in the shower (have you a theory of how he ended up in the shower–a dead person would be almost impossible for Jodi to have put him in there, the position he was in because of the size of the shower and he was a big man?) I don’t think Jodi testified to that, in fact I don’t recall hearing how he got into the shower at all – but the next person there was Flores and someone else..they could easily have put the bullet ontop of the blood and do other things and no one would be able to prove it, he’s pro Travis and he wants Jodi dead too. he has also lied on oath so I wouldn’t put it beyond the realms of possibility.

              I might have guessed the other murder was done in Texas..they’re as blood thirsty as AZ. Stabbed her husband over 200 times? Wow! Yes I can understand the overkill, even so, its impossible to grasp the enormity of such a terrifying experience. .I think anyone would overkill to make sure he wouldn’t just get up, I agree, and I’m sure I would be in ”fog” too, I’d defy anyone not to be.

              As she got 5 years and mental help, there’s hope yet for Jodi who has done 5 years in jail already; to find someone guilty and put them in jail before they’ve even had a trial, is really appalling. Here one would have the option of bail.

              Gosh Marion, 150 emails? lol .:D and I’ve just added to them!

              Like

              • At this point in time, I have 287 alert emails in my mailbox every time someone posts here. When I read them and click on “reply” it brings me to this page but does not show me the post I am trying to respond to. I have to scroll and scroll until I find it. It is very frustrating and time consuming.

                Like

              • Heather

                I agree, Marion, I’ve been feeling the same myself, its hard to find it and when you do, sometimes the ”reply” isn’t there. Also its difficult to do a full response particularly if its a long post when you can’t see it to refer to. aaargh!!!

                Like

              • I’m sorry, I know it is frustrating. I’ll try to put up another post about this tomorrow so people won’t have to scroll through so much. Sorry.

                Like

      • Bobby Juarez taught Jodi Arias MMA fighting & sword fight. When they lived together he was an aspiring actor & developing these skills for acting parts. Contrary to Jodi’s claim that he committed suicide years ago, his last steady job was on the series Lost. His current girlfriend says that she also spars with him regularly, so yeah, Jodi has skills in fighting & with blades. She blinded Travis with the camera flash and the rest is history.

        Like

        • Exactly where did you hear that Bobby Juarez taught Jodi those skills? And where did you hear Jodi say he committed suicide?

          Like

        • Heather

          Jennifer, How many arms would THAT have needed, picture it, she takes a photo with the flash.. what, it would BLIND him???, Hpw long for IF what you say is possible? Its not like headlamps on a car you know, it would be a split second and she would be holding the camera, then what, she picked up the knife, I presume? Are you seriously expecting someone to believe that he just stood in the shower and let her?

          Would YOU? Or would you try to get the knife? I think the answer is a no brainer, don’t you, Jennifer? Please, be realistic.

          Like

    • Heather

      kim. sorry to have to enlighten you but Martinez had No Evidence of premeditation and, what’s more, he Knew It.

      I find your last sentence disturbing.

      Like

      • Kim

        12 jurors agreed with Mr Martinez. Neither your opinion nor mine matters. I’m sorry you find my last comment “disturbing,” but not exactly sure what part of it disturbs you. Because I agree with the verdict? I am not screaming for her death, as are many.

        Like

        • ljeanner

          Kim, you are mistaken, and it is called an appeal.

          This is what can happen when defence lawyers and advocates speak up and behalf of people who may have been wrongly convicted — which sometimes means innocent, but can also mean that their trial wasn’t fair for one or for a multiple of reasons.

          Like

          • AK

            Ljeanner- You have elegantly phrased what I wanted to convey.

            Like

          • kim

            Yes, there will be several appeals. I understand our system, as I am an attorney who works in it and I have worked on several appeals in my career. The court bent over backwards in fairness to this defendant, which it should have given the significant penalty. I watched the entire trial, and although my opinion my differ from your opinion, this defendant was rightfully convicted. I would have also respected a M2 conviction.

            Like

            • Are you a prosecutor? Or insurance defense?

              Like

              • kim

                Neither. Worked in a legal clinic, pro bono, for awhile, went into transactional work for international corps, and recently started my own firm to get back to working with and helping people, especially children. Licensed in multiple states, was a social worker in my “prior life”.

                Like

              • Well, what do you think of the fact that no one produced the knife or the gun? Shouldn’t the defense have done that if they were going to argue self defense? And does it bother you that the whole scenario has a woman stabbing a more powerful man to death during a struggle? Doesn’t it feel like something is missing?

                Like

              • kim

                That was one of the biggest problem with the defense IMO. Stating it was self defense, using Travis’s gun, but it conveniently disappeared? She claimed the knife was in the vicinity because they used a rope in their sexcapades, but no knife/rope or pieces of it either. There is no question as to the “who” did it based upon the defense’s own claims.
                As far as overpowering him, that’s where I think she may have shot him first. My big issue is I’ve worked with victims of domestic violence and her history, actions, journals, and demeanor (especially her demeanor) do not correspond with what my education and experience have taught me over the years. No one will ever know for sure what happened in that bathroom. Are you now interested in going back and listening to testimony from day 1? 🙂

                Like

              • I most emphatically am not interested in reviewing the whole thing. I got drawn into that Casey Anthony case and it was a real time sink.

                Not that I want to be cavalier here. This is life or death and by anyone’s account it’s a very ugly event. You’d have to admit this is a natural fit for a lesser murder or manslaughter, and a stretch for pre-meditated murder, without even getting into the significant questions that weren’t answered, like where the hell is the gun? You’d think the prosecution would be very uncomfortable with having to argue that a woman with no commando training attacked a much stronger man with a knife with homicidal intent and succeeded in killing him, but some of these prosecutors are idiots and have learned the lesson that they can argue just about anything and get a conviction, and sadly this is all that matters to them.

                I don’t know what sexcapades you are referring to. Was this the Psycho role playing? Did she say that? They were both the wrong generation to be doing that and I don’t think she can be relied upon for anything, which is not to say that she’s guilty and in fact it might mean just the opposite. There could have been someone else there. He could have begged to be killed after being disfigured by the gunshot wound and that would explain how she could overpower him, because she really didn’t – he let her. Wanted her to.

                It just bothers me and I don’t want to think about it anymore. I’m already at the point where if she kills herself I’ll be quite upset.

                Like

              • AK

                JMRJ: Jodi claims they were having sexual intercourse. Apart from this, about a couple hours before Travis Alexander was murdered, there are photos of each of them in sexually explicit positions. They are time stamped photos, brought in as evidence. They were initially deleted (although I am not sure which ones: the sexually explicit vs the blood puddle photos), and later recovered by the forensic team. http://lindapariscrimeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/collage_zps00e64932.jpg

                Like

              • I don’t know what those photographs mean. I don’t see any “blood puddles” in them. God, do I have to go over this stuff? I’m not picking on you, just tired.

                Like

              • AK

                Sorry, not trying to disgust you by any means. You mentioned earlier that you didn’t follow much of the trial. I was just bringing those pictures to light.
                He is alive at 5:29, but seems to be bleeding profusely (which is what I meant by the “blood puddle” @ 5:33. If you can’t see them in the link I posted, the same photos are widely available on the internet with better resolution. This leads us with two scenarios, 1) murder was extremely “fast”. An inference we can make from this, is that there may not have been a struggle? 2) Or he wasn’t dead in the last picture of him, where he is on the ground… I honestly would go with number 2, because I don’t know how else so much blood would end up anywhere without a struggle (as demonstrated by the crime scene photos). A lot of unanswered questions.

                Like

              • Kim, I honestly find it interesting that having worked with domestic violence victims, you did not relate to Jodi being one. I’m a domestic violence survivor (I prefer that term to victim) and it was actually Jodi’s demeanour on the stand that dragged me into this case. I saw mention of the case on Facebook and a woman who I highly respect and who lives in Arizona was speculating that Jodi could be a narcissist. I paid little attention. A few days later, the same woman, having watched the trial changed her mind and discussed how she now believed Jodi is a victim of domestic violence. I became interested.

                Reading up on the story, I was, at first, unable to believe the domestic violence aspect. But, watching the trial, I not only believed it, but related to Jodi more than I ever expected to. Numerous women I know who are domestic violence victims feel the same way as I do. And many of us have a similar demeanour with a very flat affect.

                Like

            • Heather

              There was a photograph of the rope, kim. (think I have addressed the right person this time! 🙂

              Like

            • Heather

              Kim,

              I am absolutely astonished that, as an attorney yourself, you say ”the court bent over backwards for the defendant”? I wastched all the trials, too, and am interested in what you mean by that.

              I am also perturbed/shocked as to why you think she was ”rightfully convicted”, I thought it was only the moronic masses who felt like that, and the jurors, of course who had, in my opinion, made up their minds from the beginning, but not an attorney. I would have expected any attorney to be able to see that Mr Martinez had no evidence of premeditation at all, and see beyond his mad rantings which in my opinion were to designed confuse, amidst all his shouting and demands–telling the jurors what to think, in effect, as is his usual want; I was certainly confused, also deafened by his awful voice droning on and on – about nothing. Well, he had to make it look like he was saying at least something relevant to premeditation, didn’t he?

              I would really like you to tell me how you have concluded premeditation, kim ?

              Like

            • Heather

              Hi kim. I forgot to say in answer to your post, yes I wanted her to be acquitted and for many reasons, such as changes of story from Flores and Horn, plus there was nothing to say it was premeditated, plus this was/is a witch hunt, plus she was telling the truth–of what she knew.
              I was very shocked when the verdict came, I didn’t see it coming.

              Like

          • Heather

            I second AK on that. A good post.

            Like

        • Heather

          Oh dear, apologies once again.. I was speaking to Lindsay! So sorry about this, my mistake entirely.

          Like

        • Heather

          Kim, I can’t find the post I was disturbed about, as there are so many posts here, It may very well have been the verdict because you are an attorney, I will have to check. It also may be how you worded it.

          I find it more than a trifle odd that the jurors came back with a unanimous verdict, that not one single juror saw that there was no evidence at all, not even a hint of one, that Jodi premeditated the killing of Travis Alexander.

          My thoughts are:
          That the jurors were all mormons (unlikely)
          That AZ is a Republican State (very likely)

          As I have asked you in my previous response to you, I would be very interested indeed to see know how you concluded premeditation.

          Like

          • kim

            Heather, you are right these posts are so difficult to follow! First of all I want to thank you for not jumping all over me for my opinion. I appreciate your questions, as I have posed similar questions to others who share your opinion and I am always interested in listening to an opinion adverse to my own. And I can see your passion, which I absolutely respect.

            Again, IMO, the State’s biggest hurdle with the facts Mr Martinez set forth (gun, gas cans, CD, cell phone off, hair color, etc,) to show premeditation was the fact there was an interruption in the stream of events; the time the 2 of them spent together. Those pieces of evidence sewn together show her state of mind when she left CA. I’ll go back to the premeditation aspect in a second, but what I think the jurors biggest problem was her credibility. She said she didn’t plan on going to Mesa. But Daryl testified he knew she was going to Mesa and that’s why she borrowed gas cans. The return of the gas can at WalMart, the gas receipts in Salt Lake, all of these things and others chipped away at her credibility. When asked by Mr Martinez if she returned gas can to same store she emphatically said “yes”, describing the location again.

            With her credibility stripped (her testimony, especially her testimony that witnesses contradicted (including some of her own witnesses) along with the 3 different versions of what happened that day over the past several years) ultimately must have given the jurors the confidence to disregard her version of what happened in the bathroom, i.e. the argument/heat of passion. Again, I am stepping into how I believe they came to their decision.

            With the premeditation element, given her state of mind when she left CA along with the testimony of the manner in which Travis was killed, premeditation was formulated based upon that testimony, the physical evidence, the injuries, the number of injuries he suffered, the timing between each injury infliction (the time between each allowed her to either stop or continue with the next as premeditation does not require a significant amount of time, see jury instructions), and the time stamps on the photographs. That information in addition to her lack of credibility (my assumption is jury did not believe she was abused, nor did they believe her accusations of pedophilia) IMO was basis for M1. I’m not saying she was convicted because she is a liar, I am saying that because of her lack of credibility throughout the entire process gave them reason to not believe her version of what happened that day. Jury instructions permit jurors to disregard all/some of a witnesses testimony if they determine testimony contained lies.

            I keep jumping back and forth from this to work, so I hope at least you can follow my thought process. Again, our opinions don’t matter at this point, but I do believe this was a very toxic relationship and I agree he was a jerk to her. I don’t believe the “battered woman syndrome” claim because their relationship does not contain the elements of battered relationships (control of money, children, physical locality, etc.). Even if I did believe the physical attacks she described, those would be assaults, not part of a syndrome. I do not condone violence of any kind, but the relationship with a batterer is significantly different than the relationship she described.

            No case is as straight forward as a CSI/Law & Order episode, but the evidentiary rules were followed and applied (yes, circumstantial evidence can be used to convict a crime of this magnitude, that was all in the JI). What I meant by “judge bending over backwards” is that she made several discretionary decisions in favor of the defendant, that in say, a felony 4 case may not have been permitted. Surrebuttal witness being one example that comes to the top of my mind.

            Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts.

            Like

            • Kim, thank you so much for clearly laying out your thought process. You did a great job, especially since you are working in between.

              I’ve listened to Darryl’s testimony a few times — which the jury did not have the luxury of doing. I think he was confused with Martinez’s rapid fire and confusing questions when he answered “yes” to the question about Jodi going to Mesa. He had previously testified that he knew she was going on a long road trip ending in Utah.

              I think the claim of pedophilia was a grave mistake on the part of the defense. It appears there could have been more credible testimony from Dr. Carp in that regard. However, when she backed out due to cancer, the defense should have decided to omit that claim. I fear it may have incensed the jury. Alyce LaViolette’s contradictory deposition that the photographs were on Travis’s computer — not printed images — only confused matters further. This damaged Jodi’s credibility, in my opinion.

              In regards to “battered women’s syndrome,” I don’t know when exactly you last worked with domestic violence victims. However, you seem to limit your views as to whether it’s real or not to one spectrum: women who reside with their abusive partner and have children with them. That’s very outdated thinking (I mean no offense here — if you research and update your understanding, you will see that it has changed). We have come a long way since Lenore Walker’s groundbreaking work in recognizing that intimate partner abuse occurs in multiple different types of scenarios. I understand your hesitation in accepting abuse and calling it assault, instead. However, that is very much part of intimate partner abuse as we understand it today.

              Since I can only speak from my own experience, I’m a domestic violence survivor but I do not have children. I remember reaching out for help and being told by one advocate “You’re the first domestic violence victim I’ve ever met who doesn’t have children.” I didn’t have children because my ex-husband had a vasectomy in his twenties, long before I ever knew him. He also didn’t control all the finances — although he quickly took control of finances after his arrest. Yet the fact that I had some control prior to that point and had been able to transfer some funds into a personal account, and the lack of children in our marriage, placed me in a position of suspicion also.

              In the Jodi/Travis scenario, for me, the manner in which he *did* control her, his jealousy, her emotional reactions, his abusive texts and emails followed with expressions of love and sometimes adoration, very much fits the profile of an abused woman. In the past, women who endured relationship abuse while not residing with the abuser have been disbelieved. Today, we know that not every abuse situation fits into one rigid category. And not every woman reacts identically to others.

              In effect, the entire “battered woman syndrome” created three decades ago by Lenore Walker has been discredited and replaced with updated thinking in regards to understanding the abused woman in the context of her life. There is actually very little empirical research on battered woman syndrome, but today, far more on topics such as: How do victims evaluate the seriousness of actual and threatened violence and abuse? What options do abused victims perceive that they have to deal with violence and abuse? What do victims actually do to deal with violence and abuse? What are the traumatic and related mental health effects of being exposed to violence and abuse? From the literature, while a number of reactions are common among those who have been exposed to traumatic events, no single profile adequately characterizes women’s experiences following domestic violence. Battering and its effects can not rely on a single construct such as “the syndrome” any longer.

              If you’re interested, Mary Ann Dutton has written some amazing pieces summarizing various literature and why “they syndrome” is now considered outdated.

              Like

              • kim

                Thanks AA, I want to read your entire response, but first wanted to clear something up before I forget. On the “with children” for the BSW, I did not intend for that to be a requirement. What I was trying to lay out is that there is a relationship where control is primary. When I worked with victims some of my colleagues would deny same sex couples the right to claim they were being battered/abused in a domestic situation. All of the cases came directly to me because of my passion to help anyone who asked for help. The control can be with friendships, financial, clothing, family, children, etc. so many different ones. I apologize if you went into this more, but wanted you to understand that I am aware of the research and up to date on it. I want to continue my read 🙂 Thanks again for taking time to respond to me!

                Like

              • AK

                “Alyce LaViolette’s contradictory deposition that the photographs were on Travis’s computer — not printed images — only confused matters further. ”

                Does this mean there was pedophilic images found on Travis’ computer? I was under the impression nothing was found. And that Travis’ computer actually belonged to Deanna?

                Like

              • Heather

                Re: Nothing was found on the computer: I believe that something was definitely there, perhaps showing porn and pedophilia, but, who was in the house after Travis had been found? Det, Flores.. and another officer.

                I read from a reliable source–not Nasty Grace, (heaven forbid), that the defence were arguing with Martinez because they could only go so far when they looked on Travis’ computer.. and it said that Martinez wouldn’t allow any of it to be shown as evidence.

                A Fair Trial? My foot.

                Like

              • Hi Kim, thank you so much for your response. It’s so nice to discuss this with rational people, even if some of our views oppose one another. What a breath of fresh air!

                Bless you for all your work with domestic violence victims. That is one of THE most challenging areas of law, especially with the rate at which victims return to their abusers after receiving assistance.

                In regards to control in the Jodi/Travis relationship, I believe it did exist. In no particular order, here are the things I noticed. He encouraged her to date other people, but became angry when she expressed any interest in another man at all. Yet, he dated other people and did not keep it secret from her. He object to her friendships with certain people informing her they were “bad” for her. He disapproved of many of her friends, especially her ex-boyfriends. He disapproved of her family. This is an element of control. He encouraged her to move to Mesa, and was angry and violent when she moved back to CA. He continued to have a “hold” on her in that he sold her his car allowing her to make payments to him. He often texted her late at night, or in the middle of the night, sometimes angrily, waking her from her sleep and causing her panic attacks. He was angry if she did not respond immediately when he texted or called her. Yet, it was okay for him to not respond if she reached out to him. This is an element of control. While she lived in Mesa, he “employed” her to clean his house, but criticized her frequently and asked her to wear a “French maid” outfit — degrading her to a sex object. He frequently texted her late at night with a secret code word to come over and have sex with him. He both borrowed money from her and lent her money — which in conjunction with the sale of the car — comprises an element of financial control.

                While in the company of other people (for example, Gus Searcy), she became emotional and upset when Travis called and yelled at her. During the year and a half she was “with” him (in one respect or another), her personality changed. She called her mother sometimes being nice, happy and upbeat. Later in the same day, sometimes only 10-15 minutes later, she called crying hysterically or in an angry outburst. Her mother wondered if she was bi-polar, as a result. Her old boyfriend Matt called her mother and asked her to get some help for Jodi because she was frequently expressing suicidal thoughts. Arguments observed by the Freemans seemed to shake Jodi up more than they should have if they were simply normal “couple” arguments. Matt described telling Jodi she had to end things with Travis and her responding that she couldn’t because he wouldn’t allow her to.

                He encouraged her to convert to Mormonism and, as an elder with the church, on his way to an elevated level of priesthood, he baptized her. She was a bit of a lost soul, having endured an abusive childhood, an abusive teenage relationship, a subsequent relationship with a guy who cheated on her, and then falling into a serious long-term relationship with a much older recently divorced man who did not want to marry her. She was in her late twenties and, like many women of that age, began feeling her biological clock ticking. Mormonism represented an entirely different way of life with family at its center. Travis recognized that she was lost and presented this wonderful blissful subset of society where she would have friends who call each other “sister” and “brother” and multiple weekly social activities centered around the church. Knowing little about the church which has a very steep learning curve, Travis instructed her that anal and oral sex were permissible. He was the elder and she respected him as knowing more than she did and went along, but she was conflicted.

                Travis shows the characteristics of an abuser in that some of his friends (although they disappeared later) claimed he was known to have anger issues at times in his early years. He was hypersexual with Lisa, although she did not encourage it, and maintained a secret sexual relationship with both Deanna and Jodi. Meanwhile, he was texting and flirting with multiple women (10-11 at a time), and begging them to come over, using the excuse that he was feeling suicidal. He told one woman who suffered from anorexia that if she didn’t come over, he would kill himself. According to Jodi, he became suicidal and self-harming with her when he didn’t get his way. He cheated on all of his girlfriends. He began smear campaigns against Deanna and Jodi, telling different people they were stalking him. He presented to others as the pillar of his community, a saintly man. Yet, behind that facade was a deeply troubled man. His friends, the Hughes, observed something and told him he abused women emotionally in their email exchange. He even admitted therein that he was a bit of a sociopath. (Abusive men often admit the truth at times. For example, my ex describes himself on Facebook as “a delightful mix of insolence, arrogance and narcissism” and his license plates read “Mr Wrong”.)

                I began to believe when Jodi was on the stand describing receiving text messages in the middle of the night and feeling what I would describe as a panic attack suffered frequently by a woman experiencing PTSD. But sometimes, the messages were nice. Sometimes, they were very angry. I related and also felt the description of his Jekyll and Hyde personality in relating to her was very descriptive of a controlling man of whom she was afraid.

                Like

              • AK, my understanding is that nothing was found on Travis’s computer.

                Alyce, however, testified during a deposition that the images of young boys *were* found on his computer. This contradicted Jodi’s testimony that they were printed pictures. Alyce later testified that she misunderstood. However, that was, in effect, contrary to her previous statements, and therefore, Martinez impeached her.

                Like

              • kim

                AA I finished reading. Thank you for sharing some of your life and personal experiences and I’m sorry you had to go through that, I know from personal experience how frightening it can be.

                The problem I had with the emails/texts etc is that I did not see the pattern of verbal abuse/adoration you describe. There were clearly some instances of it but there were thousands and thousands of communications with no issues at all. We were also not privy to all of them The fact that they did not live together was not an issue for me. The men (or women) who I am familiar with that abuse tend to have been abusers before and after the current victim. We didn’t see that either.

                I think her experts may have done her a disservice. The PTSD, from my understanding of it, is part of the overall abuse when presented as part of a criminal defense. The way the defense presented it, it was an explanation of why she didn’t remember anything after the gunshot due to the trauma of the killing.

                I agree there is no “checklist” of items to determine if someone is abused, or is an abuser. IMO had she excluded the pedophilia/abuse claims she may have been convicted of manslaughter.

                Like

              • Kim, thank you so much for your kind words. I really appreciate that.

                I don’t know if you’ve yet had a chance to read my additional response about the patterns that I noticed which, to me, signify abuse. When you have an opportunity, I welcome your thoughts on that.

                We did not see all the email/text communications that Alyce LaViolette discussed. In fact, I suspect there were a great deal of them that we were not privy to which may have shown more of an abusive pattern. In addition, my ex-husband was clever enough to NEVER put anything in writing that was abusive. Then again, we did live together.

                I had no reason to believe that my ex-husband had ever been abusive before. I only discovered that one ex-wife (the only one I knew of) had an order of protection against him after he was arrested for trying to kill me.

                Gus Searcy has said there are other victims who were too frightened to come forward. He was not allowed to say that on the stand. But he has spoken of it in interviews — not that he has given many.

                I have to agree with you on PTSD being presented in this case as part of the “fugue” instead of her “state of mind”. I waited with baited breath for days on end for Alyce LaViolette to explain why an abused woman would murder in such a violent fashion, inflicting so many wounds, and that testimony never came. That phenomenon is very well known and occurs in almost all cases where abuse victims kill their abuser. Was the defense not aware that would be the nagging question in every juror’s mind? The closest we got to that was when a juror asked a question. Seriously? Her defense team waited for the jury to ask? What if they hadn’t asked? And then, given such a golden opportunity to follow up with further questions in that regard, the defense simply ignored it. Alyce was on the stand for 6 days and while her stories were intriguing and interesting and I genuinely found her appealing, surely her purpose there should have to explain the overwhelming question of why Jodi would have stabbed Travis so many times and slit his throat.

                I could go on and on about the defense. There were so many times Jennifer Willmott began a line of questioning and seemingly lost her train of thought. There were many other instances where she seemed to have a Plan A, which was objected to and sustained, and she shuffled papers around frantically looking for a Plan B which she obviously hadn’t prepared. Isn’t that the mistake of a rookie attorney? There were other occasions where she was on a seemingly “winning” streak and she simply stopped halfway. Yes, I know the rule is “if you’re winning, sit down” but you need to wait until you’ve actually “won” by making your point first. Then, both she and Kirk Nurmi asked questions of witnesses that they clearly did not know the answer to. I really began to wonder at times if they even went to law school because surely they would have learned some techniques in moot court!

                In response to your last statement, I partially agree and think the defense should have focused on a manslaughter verdict from the onset. I am honestly not sure if that was Jodi’s decision or Nurmi’s, since she said that she was not happy with the defense strategy decisions but “he was the boss.” That’s ludicrous to me. The client is ALWAYS the boss, but perhaps she is making a case for ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, the defense should have known, and advised their client accordingly, that the jury was never going to swallow self-defense in a case where she slit a man’s throat. If she had not slit his throat, that defense may well have flown. Keeping Jodi on the stand for 18 days discussing the minutiae of her life story without discussing the homicide in point, and keeping experts on the stand for over a week at a time discussing fugue and domestic violence, without getting to the core issue (why was there so much overkill?) was most likely annoying to the jurors. I’m sure they tuned out days before Jodi or any of those experts testified. I do believe they could have woven in domestic violence without the over-emphasis, however. We really didn’t need to know about all her other boyfriends, other than that she maintained friendships with some of them. Her childhood was completely irrelevant. But I have to agree that the pedophilia claims should have been omitted.

                Like

            • Heather

              Thank you very much for your lengthy but very welcome response to me, especially taking the time to do it inbetween your work, I appreciated it.

              I should like to respond further but this will have to keep till tomorrow now, because,although you are in the midst of work, its 1am here! I swore I would have an early night! This trial has rather taken it out of me, I now also have a nasty tooth abscess–as if I needed it right now, bad timing! I appreciated your speaking about my passion for justice, some people wonder why, but its the way I’m made, its me and I feel compelled to do whatever I can to help the situation if I see the need, which as you know, I do it this case.

              Like

        • Well, just because 12 jurors AGREED WITH MR MARTINEZ, does not mean she was guilty of first degree murder. Nor does a “not guilty” _verdict_ mean that the person is or should be deemed “innocent”. This is the conclusion after most verdicts……that the juries are always ‘RIGHT’, until they aren’t according to popular opinion…or HLN. It is truly amazing how HLN nows says they “respect” the wisdom of juries…..unless they think it is a wrong verdict. Bah!

          Like

      • The point is that the JURY found evidence of premeditation. Martinez didn’t make that call. Twelve Nevada citizens made it. Jodi’s lawyers did their very best, but the jurors were the ones making that call.

        Like

        • Heather

          Jennifer, I think it safe to say that the only ”evidence of premeditation”,the jurors ‘had’, was in their own minds – they wanted the death penalty.. And Martinez most certainly did ”make that call”, I have to disagree with you there, did you watch his closing catastrophe?

          Like

        • Not to be picky, but they were not Nevada citizens. They were Arizona citizens. You are correct, however, the jury made the call. I happen to believe the case was overcharged to begin with, and when Jodi offered a plea deal of second degree murder, a prosecutor’s office anywhere else would have jumped at the deal. Instead, the Maricopa county prosecutor’s office chose to spend millions of dollars both prosecuting and defending a 4 month trial.

          The big “winner” was HLN in millions of advertising dollars. I guess it could also be said that Juan Martinez won a victory and his name is now well-known should he choose to run for political office. I guess Dr. DeMarte, the prosecution’s expert, “won” in having so little experience but being able to add such a high profile trial to her resume. I’m not sure Dr. Hayes, the prosecution’s rebuttal witness won much, but she can also add the case to her resume. And I guess, the lawyers, jurors, alternates and released jurors, judge, Detective Flores, Dr. Horn and the Alexander family can all write books. The family has slightly better cause to sue Jodi for a wrongful death action — although what they expect to gain from an indigent woman who will be sentenced to either natural life, life with a possibility of parole after 25 years, or executed, is really anyone’s guess.

          In my opinion, the losers were the defense expert witnesses who have all been harassed, as well as the Arias family, whose name will now always be associated with a convicted murderess, along with any other poor soul who bears that last name. I would also have to include Deanna, Travis’s ex-girlfriend, a good Mormon girl, who admitted on the stand that she broke the laws of chastity with Travis, which may inhibit her potential for marriage — should that be something she is interested in. And, strange as it may seem, Travis, himself. If the prosecution had accepted the plea deal Jodi offered for second degree murder, his name would have remained untarnished. Jodi would still be a convicted murderess serving decades in the AZ penitentiary. Travis could still be thought of as a saintly fellow, killed by a jealous ex-girlfriend, and no one would ever have been the wiser about his fantasies of “corking the pot of a young girl,” and his “unhealthy communication patterns.” That seems to me as if it would have been a win for everyone except Jodi. But the prosecution refused the deal. Odd.

          Like

          • Heather

            AA, Only odd because they were only interested in killing her.. is what it amounts to 😦 More proof is the withholding of evidence that may have saved Jodi, that is what I would like to believe, but it appears I’m smoking Opium …)
            Its hard to figure how the haters missed how many times Martinez objected and, more importantly, when..

            Like

  11. Edward Hamilton

    I have been following this trial from Australia, and have noticed with excruciating dismay how horribly corrupt, morally bankrupt sexually oppressed and brutal this cult of mormonism is.
    How easy is to argue a case against this abomination and it’s right wing supporters of female oppression?
    The church is a shambolic collection of narcissistic men and victims,
    The female professional with enough nous and bravery to state the blatantly obvious has been threatened and discredited.
    We have been ‘treated’ daily to images of extreme violence alongside female genitalia. That is a clear message to the insanity of the braying mob.
    ”We are god’s police, and all women are whores and deserve to die.”
    Seriously? This is the 21 Century and we are still fighting for women’s rights?
    For country that hates muslim extremists, it’s bit of a puzzle to me.
    Do you think no-one is watching, and that women’s right’s advocates have fallen asleep? Is everyone in Arizona sheepish? (deliberate wordplay).
    I am astounded by the dumbed down level of discourse, outrageous courtroom behaviour and total disrespect for women on display to a worldwide media, it’s laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. This is a pocket of tribal behaviour more fitting as a museum piece.
    This is an age of a metamodern paradigm, and I will bet my bottom dollar on some revolutionary action worldwide. Not about this case of course, but it is a primary example of metamodernism in action and an indication of the universal need for social change.everywhere if we are to survive as a world.
    It’s no longer a ‘local’ argument.
    I’m feeling the need to speak publicly about the need for an intuitive argument for our collective worldwide good, I don’t know about you.
    But I might publish this argument so please do not copy.
    Thank-you for an opportunity to witness ‘metamodernism’ in action.

    Like

    • Heather

      What an excellent post! I totally agree with you and thank you for bringing up such extremely important aspects of this Farce of a trial. An extremely well written and well thought out post. America needs to wake up instead of behaving like they are still in the Middle Ages. Thank you..

      Like

  12. Edward Hamilton

    I’m not a lawyer but work in tandem as a professional, stand back and stop looking at trees.
    Analysis also needs a meta approach.
    The very nature of law is women unfriendly, it’s inherently male law.

    Like

    • If it was more women friendly there would be a lot more executed child molesters. Just saying.

      Like

    • Heather

      I can see that, Edward Hamilton. In my opinion you’re very much on track, moreso than some lawyers.

      Like

      • Edward Hamilton

        Thanks Heather, I left the same comment at OccupyHLN, I
        This just not ok or ‘righteous’ in any sense of the word, it is blatant sexual assault and domestic violence vindicated by right wing fascists with no self reflexivity.
        It’s more than embarrassing, it’s criminal.
        There are more narcissists in this motley crew than you than you could poke a stick at.
        I have worked in child protection all my life and this horrible excuse of a church has a lot to answer for.
        My argument is based on years of arguing with these ridiculously idiotic ‘bishops’ regarding the safety of women and children.
        They are more interested in recruiting new victims than saving current ones.
        It’s astonishingly primitive.

        Like

        • Heather

          I like the way you think, Edward, you say it as it is, its so refreshing. I would love you to join our ‘family’ in the jodiariasisinnocent site as you have much to offer.

          Like

  13. Edward Hamilton

    Oops too many words, apologies.

    Like

  14. Heather

    No, Edward, you didn’t!!! 🙂 It was perfect!

    Like

  15. Rik

    This case is really rather simple but certain dynamics are clouding things.

    A gun matching the murder weapon was taken from the defendant’s grandfather’s house where the defendant was staying. The only evidence that the victim owned a gun is the defendant’s claim which can easily be dismissed as simply another self-serving lie based on the lack of any gun paraphernalia whatsoever, the defendant’s story that she climbed a shelf to retrieve it which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and her consistent and long record of dishonesty regarding the killing.

    If the defendant takes a gun to the victim’s home, which I just demonstrated can be fairly concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s enough to find premeditation.

    Of course, there’s other evidence that supports planning such as gas cans, license plate upside down, etc., but it’s not really needed.

    As to those who think premeditation wasn’t, or can’t be proven, in this case ask yourself the following: If this same trial had had a male defendant and a female victim would you still hold that position?

    Let’s be real here people.

    What drives some of the more fierce Jodi supporters I won’t hazard to guess, but it’s certainly not the facts or her credibility.

    Like

    • AK

      “If the defendant takes a gun to the victim’s home, which I just demonstrated can be fairly concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s enough to find premeditation”

      The problem is there was no gun, to confirm, whether in fact the defendant had actually brought it into the house. Without having the gun, there is still room for reasonable doubt. It came through the evidence that Travis was also dishonest at times through his relationships. This wasn’t just through Jodi’s claims. It was corroborated with other witnesses. While you acknowledge Jodi’s pattern of lying, (which cannot be refuted), at the same time you seem to turn a blind eye to Travis’ character. It may have been a illegal gun or he may have not anyone to know about it. Jodi knew about because she cleaned his house? Or better yet, she was just nosy.. These are highly plausible situations, where the reasonable doubt comes in. How do you weigh “lies”? The number of lies, or lies for significant situations…etc.

      Rik- this was a good question. “As to those who think premeditation wasn’t, or can’t be proven, in this case ask yourself the following: If this same trial had had a male defendant and a female victim would you still hold that position?”

      If there was a male defendant, it would be “natural” for society to think that he would be guilty given the preconceived stereotypes of males vs females. However, the sex of an individual does not dictate premeditation. It is the actions of the individual before a crime takes place.

      Like

    • Rik, that’s why I’m saying she should have produced the gun, or had a really, really excellent reason why she couldn’t. Not producing it invites the inference that she can’t produce it because it’s her grandparents’ stolen gun, which of course you and probably many others have made. And although that is not a mandatory inference, it’s a permissible one, and a fair one. Even if she was a reliable and truthful person otherwise, it would still be a permissible and fair inference.

      Not having the gun or a really good explanation for its absence was disastrous for the defense here, I think

      Like

      • Rik

        AK, you don’t need the gun.

        There are only two mutually exclusive narratives or possibilities. A jury can conclude–or as JMJR puts it, infer–through the weighing of evidence that Jodi stole and brought her grandfather’s gun, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Travis’ character or honesty is not germane. Weighing one’s veracity can be done in many ways, not least of which is history, benefit, supporting evidence or lack thereof, and credible competing narrative/s.

        Reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty, or lack of any doubt whatsoever. I believe in Arizona it can be understood as “firmly convinced” which may be a better way of expressing it.

        JMRJ, I agree. And if she had produced the gun, we all know there’d be no trial, cause we all know where she got it.

        Like

        • Rik, being justified in making an inference does not mean that you ‘know’. And as far as reasonable doubt goes, that’s where this gets dicey for you. If the fairest inferences from a number of different items of evidence all point to guilt, and none of the fairest inferences from any items of evidence point away from guilt, then I think you’re dealing with a “beyond a reasonable doubt” situation. But if the better argument from any item of evidence points away from guilt then I think you have reasonable doubt about overall guilt.

          The problem on the pre-meditated murder here is that the evidence for the ‘shot first’ scenario’ is far better than the ‘shot last’ scenario. While I think a conclusion of pre-meditated murder would still be viable under that circumstance, many rational people could doubt it: you have a non-fatal gunshot wound leading to a struggle that explains the large number of stab wounds.

          But the coupe de grace to the throat would still leave her guilty of lesser murder or manslaughter. That’s probably where this belonged.

          Like

          • Rik

            My remark to you, JMRJ, was to be understood outside of the legal framework, because as far as I’m concerned I am certain, beyond any doubt at all, that Jodi stole the gun and brought it. Anyone who thinks the stolen gun is a coincidence, to me, have their eyes wide shut.

            As for pointing to or away, there’s nothing that supports Jodi’s claim of a gun being at Travis’. In fact, there’s evidence to the contrary: the undisturbed shelf and the lack of any gun paraphernalia. Jodi is also a self-serving and repeated liar. On the other hand, we know a .25 was stolen from her grandfather’s only weeks before the killing–a burglary that seems anomalous in its nature–and was used in the killing. If you like, other evidence of preparation and plotting, such as gas cans, license plates, cell phone, bolsters the view that the gun was taken.

            Whether Jodi killed him with the gun is irrelevant. Going with the gun, which was used in the commission of the crime, shows preparation.

            I should add that I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that a witnesses credibility is to be taken into consideration when weighing the evidence. As such, anything, to me, and in a legal framework, that Jodi claims must be given no credibility until proven otherwise. Her history in this case demands such.

            Like

            • AK

              Rik- if you are not giving her any credibility, you display a bias against her, presuming she is guilty.

              I direct you to the jury instructions: http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Final-Jury-Instructions-Jodi-Arias-is-Innocent-com.pdf

              “The law does not require a defendant to prove innocence. Every
              defendant is presumed by law to be innocent. You must start with the
              presumption that the defendant is innocent”

              Like

            • AK

              “I am certain, beyond any doubt at all, that Jodi stole the gun and brought it”

              Rik- how are you convinced beyond any doubt that Jodi stole the gun? (Yes, she lied about many things, credibility destroyed..etc.) Yet, there’s few things in this world we can say with absolute certainty. This is not one of them.

              I honestly, would like to hear your viewpoint.

              Like

              • Rik

                AK, because of everything essentially. All the evidence, her lies, and her absolutely dreadful testimony. She really hurt herself on the stand–not that I thought she could hurt herself anymore than she already had from all her interviews and behavior pretrial.

                I also think that Jodi is disturbed, has some sort of pathology, and may lack impulse control which in a way excuses her, but murder can’t be excused really even if biology damns you.

                Like

              • AK

                Rik- “aberrant biology” is an excuse for murder. Thats why our law doesnt allow us execute people who are insane.

                Like

            • Heather

              Okay Rik.. you are ”certain” but you.. ”may be wrong”.. you can’t have both in a critical judgment.

              Did you know that you sound biased?

              Like

              • Rik

                Yeah I know I sound biased because I hold an opposing view to many here. It’s okay. I was just trying to show that a 1st degree verdict can be legitimate.

                And AK, yes, you’re right about biology, but I don’t think Jodi rises to that level. Personally, if I voted 1st degree I would have a hard time giving her the death sentence. That whole business makes me a bit uneasy.

                I’m off for the weekend.

                Thanks all, it’s been fun.civil and educational.

                Like

          • Heather

            JMRJ, Jodi only thinks she must have slashed his throat owing to the fact she has no memory of doing it. I think this leaves room for reasonable doubt, because, like you, I am not satisfied that the flatmates aren’t anything to do with it.
            I honestly don’t think Jodi would have done that, at least not unless she had to, and what I mean by that, is if they were in a certain position, him ontop of her for instance and she thought she was going to be killed.
            Or, perhaps she was so fearful that he wouldn’t be dead, which is very possible, he was a large man.

            Like

          • JMRJ, I have always thought this case should have been charged as second degree and a plea deal of manslaughter negotiated. Jodi did offer to plead to second degree murder, but the prosecution refused.

            Like

        • Heather

          Hi Rik,

          I don’t think it would have mattered one way or the other, there must be hundreds of .25 guns all looking the same, and I daresay the triggers are very sensitive; its very believable that she stood there shaking with fear, so it wouldn’t take much for her finger to have pulled the trigger and I firmly believe this is what happened.

          Like

          • Rik

            Of course it matters. If Jodi brings a gun it belies her story and demonstrates premeditation which is why she claims Travis had one.

            Like

            • Well, Rik, she may have claimed Travis had one because Travis had one. But the evidence as it stands certainly permits the inference that she brought the gun from her grandparents’ house. Obviously, if she could have produced the gun and it turned out not to be the one from the grandparents’ house that inference would be foreclosed, it would corroborate a critical part of her account and the proof would have shifted decisively away from premeditation.

              So if she was telling the truth it is certainly very unfortunate for her that she couldn’t produce the gun. OTOH if she was lying then she wouldn’t want the gun produced, which is why it looks bad that it wasn’t.

              Like

            • Heather

              No, because, well, think of yourself going to commit a murder, you’d let yourself in, like Jodi did and pump bullets into whoever you wanted to murder, wouldn’t you, when they had their back to you? Perfect opportunity. Jodi didn’t.. this is because she didn’t go there planning to kill him.
              I would bet my life that she did not go there with a gun, think about it, a low calibre gun isn’t going to kill anyone. And, stabbing? Well that’s messy, yep, a gun is quicker and a hell of a lot easier, there would be no struggle, not much fear for your safety, simply because they wouldn’t be able to do anything, they’d be dead. Its all well and good wanting to make this into a mystery, but the simple truth is she didn’t go there with a gun, any gun, AND, if I wanted to kill someone I would bring a more powerful gun with me! That’s logical. Anything else like a .25 would be inviting danger.

              Like

            • Heather

              Rik:

              The only reason I said it didn’t matter, was that all .25 caliber guns look the same – am I right, here? (being British I have never seen a real gun.) But more importantly, if you were going to kill someone and had planned it, why would you risk only stunning them, the .25 calibre wouldn’t be powerful enough, and you would find yourself in danger of losing your life. Wouldn’t you bring a more powerful gun and fire a load of bullets into their head when you arrived, when their back was facing you?

              Why choose to stab him to death when she (supposedly) came there with a gun? Your theory.

              Notwithstanding this, the week AFTER Jodi killed Travis (if indeed she did at all), you tell me why she wouldn’t buy a gun to kill him stone dead if she planned to commit murder?

              Doesn’t sound like premeditation when put like this, does it.

              Like

              • Heather

                Rik, my mistake, it isn’t your theory, your theory is that she stole the gun from her Grandparents’ home, thus premeditating the murder.

                Like

      • Heather

        JMRJ,

        Thing is, JMRJ, whether she shot him with a gun, isn’t in dispute, she admits to killing him, shooting him first before stabbing him; whether she slit his throat, well, the ‘jury’s out on that one fo me; there are 5 missing days, anyone, flarmates or otherwise, could have gone into the place, as far as I’m concerned.

        What I think is important here, is, had she gone there with a gun intending to kill him, why wouldn’t she have just pumped 6 bullets into him when she arrived, she let herself in, he had his back to her, he was at his computer? This to my mind, shoots the gun puzzle out of the window, thus not showing evidence of premeditation.

        Like

      • JMRJ, I understand your theory here. Where I have a problem is that the prosecution’s theory was that she premeditated the murder by staging a robbery to steal a gun from her grandparents’ home. Then, she drove to Travis’s house (making multiple stops along the way to visit friends), spent the night with him, had sex in the afternoon, took provocative photos, took some more photos of Travis in the shower, and then stabbed him with a knife and slit his throat. Ultimately, after he was already dead, she shot him in the right temple with a gun that would not normally kill a person. Isn’t that bringing a gun to a knife fight?

        I have so many problems with this theory. First of all, her grandparents had far more powerful guns that she could have stolen. Secondly, if she staged the robbery, she created a paper trail of the theft with the police report. Why not simply take the gun without staging the robbery? Chances are her elderly frail grandparents would not have noticed it missing for some time. Moreover, if her intention was to kill him with the gun, why not shoot him while he was asleep? And finally, why inflict fatal wounds with a knife if the intention was to kill him all along?

        Like

    • Heather

      Rik,
      If this same trial had had a male defendant and a female victim would you still hold that position?

      Honestly? Yes. That’s because I wouldn’t like to judge anyone without seeing all the evidence, and, talking about evidence, the State refused some evidence to be submitted, this evidence would have made things a lot clearer for Jodi, but Martinez didn’t want that. And premeditation can’t be proven, or JM would have done it. He was desperate to kill her.

      If you like, I am one of the more fierce supporters, but only because I am well balanced and can see how it was, can imagine how it was, and can put myself in someone else shoes. I pride myself too, on reading people and there was no way that Jodi lied on the witness stand, despite what other gladly choose to believe to support their blood lust for death; a death of an innocent, talented, well spoken and very beautiful woman, and people are cheering? There has to be something very wrong with this picture.

      The gas cans were no more than a red herring; JM Had to say they proved premeditation, well he had to say something, didn’t he? All the other was waffle, so much so he lost his thread, jumping from accusations to devaluing the defence witnesses, well he couldn’t praise Dr Horn the ME, could he, he was found to be a liar, along with Flores and Chris and Sky Hughes; why would anyone need to lie???? Only one reason, and that is to do What Martinez wanted and get paid for it.

      The shelf:

      It was proven. I saw it online, I happened to glance at HLN, and it was demonstrated. Jodi wouldn’t have needed to have put all her weight on it, she just needed to reach the shelf and it was done in an instant.

      Ask yourself, Rik, if you were on your way to commit murder, would you leave a paper trail? Jodi did, she paid with her Debit card = traceable.

      Like

  16. Kim

    Heather, I did not post the psycho reference

    Like

  17. This is probably going to seem ludicrous but I’m beginning to think someone else actually broke in and did this. Did anyone check to see if Travis Alexander had enemies? If he admitted to “fondling young boys” did anyone try to find out who they might have been and check out, say, their father?

    Jodi’s story has the characteristics of a false confession: nothing can be verified, she “doesn’t remember” a lot, no identifiable gun or knife.

    Maybe somebody really did break in and do this. Just hard to accept that it was her. And these abused women are great at taking everything on themselves and deciding that the best thing to do is die.

    Really just a thought at this stage. I don’t know enough to have a well formed opinion on it.

    Like

    • I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all. Many have speculated as to the same theory and suspected Jodi is covering for someone. If they weren’t Mormons, one could easily think this sounded like a drug-related crime. However, there was no other DNA found at the crime scene.

      There was an “anonymous” tip given to the police early on by a woman who assumed her husband might have killed Travis. She was experiencing marital issues and had asked Travis if she could move in to his house. She later committed suicide under suspicious circumstances and her husband was incarcerated for some other violent crime.

      In addition, there was a former roommate of Travis who moved out suddenly and apparently had major disagreements with Travis.

      The other strange part of all of this is that the roommates were home and in and out of the house during the 5 days before Travis’s body was found. The police officer and the detective on the scene said the house reeked of decomposition as they walked in. But the roommates never noticed?

      Nonetheless, Jodi was the early and only suspect, it seems. Therefore, the investigation was centered around her.

      According to Dr. Karp’s report (which she heard from Jodi) Travis apparently only told Jodi and some bishop about his fondling of young boys.

      Like

      • kim

        AA on the multiple person theory, when looking into the “reflection” of Travis’s eye, the defense expert outlined Jodi. Several of us were looking at that for weeks before, and I swear I saw at least 1 different scenario within the reflection. I saw what expert saw, but I also saw what looks like a man next to her. It gave me chills when I finally saw it. My question is why would she take the fall for this? Especially knowing this is a DP case? That doesn’t make sense to me.

        Like

        • Heather

          This doesn’t surprise me in the least, kim,why would she take the fall? Conscience. Jodi is a very sweet person, I can tell this even though I haven’t met her. Even though she doesn’t remember much of what happened after the shooting, she accepts that she slashed his throat. I have always had a feeling she didn’t do it.

          The verdict is a travesty of justice.

          Like

        • Kim, I only ever saw Jodi in that “eye” reflection, to be honest. I know that others thought they saw a second person and made multiple YouTube videos on the subject. But it doesn’t fit that the other person was there while Jodi was still photographing Travis — unless Jodi was working in tandem with that person, which I suppose could explain why she escaped unharmed. She had no one else with her when she visited Matt and Darryl, so it would have to be a person she picked up in Arizona. But then, where did that person wait while Jodi and Travis slept, had sex, etc.? No, I don’t think that makes sense.

          Jodi’s original story — insane as it sounds — that intruders suddenly barged in, might be more credible in that scenario.

          Why would she take the fall? I think there are some possibilities here. If the murderer threatened her family and/or friends, she may have decided to do so. Also, she was suicidal prior to the date of the killing, and it appears she still is. Perhaps she simply has no more will to live.

          Like

          • AA, actually the most likely thing is survivor’s guilt, especially if she had to beg for her own life and he/they let her go. And I don’t think the “in tandem” idea is necessarily correct. In fact I think those photographs seem to tell a story where there was a very sudden event that changed everything. That would fit with someone bursting in, or someone the victim knew who wouldn’t have been out of place until he suddenly became a homicidal psychopath.

            I’m sorry but this should really have been explored, investigated and argued. Much better than the self defense thing.

            And you can use her many lies and inaccuracies to your advantage: with people calling her a liar all time, well, then why do you believe her confession?

            Much better defense strategy there, I think.

            Like

            • Very interesting JMRJ. I wonder if that would have worked.

              I totally agree that some sudden event occurred which changed everything. Whether it was Jodi’s testimony of Travis becoming angry and her actions resulted from her fear because of past acts of violence, or the theory of someone bursting in, I guess we’ll never really know.

              Like

              • Well the point is it had a much better chance of working under the circumstances than “self defense”. Very bad judgment by her lawyers, and I’m very sorry to say that but it’s true.

                And of course what you often find is that a theory “works” because it also happens to be true, or much closer to the truth than competing theories.

                Lawyers get intimidated by “confessions” and also they expect too much of their clients, and also have as much trouble as anyone else imagining that their client is really innocent and doesn’t know a goddamn thing, and so they’re not “lying” to you they’re just trying to please you, or help you and all they can think to do is tell you what they think you want to hear.

                And then there’s this whole “the client decides” thing, which is fine most of the time except there are circumstances where the client can in no way make an intelligent, informed decision and indeed this might easily have been one of those times. And if that’s true we have a major disaster on our hands.

                Like

              • I mean, self defense was a really lousy gamble here, and I just naturally assumed that was all they had, because I didn’t know much about the whole thing.

                I’m sorry, I’m upset.

                Like

              • JMRJ, your thoughts are so interesting. I worked for a couple of criminal attorneys for a while in the 80s. I don’t recall them ever having to deal with a confession. They always said they didn’t ask and didn’t want to know.

                Jose Baez was, of course, successful in his representation of Casey Anthony, because his entire defense was based on “We don’t know who killed Caylee. It could have been George, her father.” I didn’t follow that case, at the time. However, after hearing your thoughts, I can’t help but wonder if the defense team in Jodi’s case could not have created reasonable doubt as to who killed Travis.

                I’m not sure if they would have been successful in finding anyone who would testify that Travis had enemies though. With Ashley Reed dead (the woman who called in the anonymous tip about her soon-to-be-ex-husband, Dustin Thompson), within the close-knit tight-lipped Mormon community, it seems no one was talking.

                In fact, just the other day, on May 7, a gentleman posted on the JodiAriasIsInnocent site that he was the person who sent the emails to Lisa, one Travis’s girlfriends during the time he was also seeing Jodi (or friends with benefits with Jodi). He said he had a great deal more to say and that if Jodi was convicted, he would come forward for her “appeals hearing.” Of course, there is no such thing, but he apparently does not know that. Also, Gus Searcy (another PPL person and a friend/mentor to Jodi, but not a Mormon) said there were many more people who knew Jodi was being abused, but they were too frightened to come forward.

                I’m sorry you’re upset about this too, but I really respect that you have feelings. I’m so glad I found your blog.

                Like

              • Actually, good that you brought up the Casey Anthony case. One advantage Baez had was that he had an identifiable alternate villain – George.

                In this case, Jodi Arias’ lawyers would have had to implicate persons unknown. Big difference.

                Though maybe they could have named that husband. I don’t know. Lots of work. Could have wound up in the same place, because so much credibility attaches to the accusation the state makes.

                This is a grim business. It’s not made any easier by prosecutors who figure “hey, I can make this stick and it’ll be good for my career” when it’s so easy to make things stick. That Martinez character blusters and bloviates because he can, because he has the power of the state behind him.

                This case is very troublesome. I’ve had a very troublesome case for similar reasons, though that didn’t prevent me from thinking this girl, Jodi, was at least guilty of manslaughter. I have to say I appreciate the commenters who come over here and lay a few things out I otherwise wouldn’t have known.

                This is crazy. She might not have done it at all and it seems no one really looked into that. What a tragedy.

                Like

              • Kim

                JM there was some physical evidence Jodi was there, bloody palm print, and her hair in his blood. Also pic of her standing over his bloodied body that was inadvertently snapped by Jodi.

                Like

              • She might very well have been there. The scenario is this other person(s) either bursts in or is known to the victim and then when he/she/it starts the homicidal conduct what is she supposed to do? So he/she/they/it massacres Travis Alexander for their own reasons while Jodi is there, she’s just terrified and frozen and of course figures she’s next, and begs for her life and they spare her on the condition that she’s not going to tell anyone. And she escapes with her life and then immediately is overwhelmed by guilt and dissociates and whatnot. Quite plausible after experiencing something like that.

                But was this looked into? Did they check for someone else’s DNA or whatever? It’s amazing, but maybe they didn’t. They had their man and that’s that. Why bother trying to figure out other things when you already have something you can make stick?

                Horrifying, I know. I’ve unfortunately made a habit of being horrified by what the system sometimes does.

                Like

              • AK

                Re: DNA

                With DNA sequencing you need to know what you are looking for. ie: You can swab all your “suspects” and then you go collect the DNA at the scene, and try to see if any match up. All his friends/roommates were swabbed, but I’m unsure of the husband whose wife later committed suicide. See the Flores report. My understanding, is you cant analyze the DNA left at the scene and say “hey, there were four people here”. You need have the suspect’s DNA first and then compare to what was found at the crime scene.

                Like

              • Kim, can we be 100% certain that was Jodi standing over him in that one picture? I’ve never been convinced of that. It could be anyone. All we see is a foot.

                Like

              • kim

                AA the problem with us questioning if it’s her foot is again, she said she was only one there. So many problems with questioning these things when she testified the way she did. And JM, I don’t know if every roommate was Mormon, someone may have answered that for you already. So much for my “final” comment, huh? I am enjoying the legal discussion.

                Like

              • Right Kim, I know. She testified that she was the only one there so then, it has to be her foot. Unless, that is, she’s covering for someone else. She doesn’t remember that part of what happened (where her foot is shown). This whole thing is just crazy.

                There were two roommates, by the way, and both were Mormon and also involved in PPL, according to the police report.

                Like

            • Heather

              JMRJ

              ”And you can use her many lies and inaccuracies to your advantage: with people calling her a liar all time, well, then why do you believe her confession?”

              I totally agree with you.

              Like

              • kim

                Heather and JM, wanted to share this final item that bothers me. Listen 2 these 2 voicemails. 1 she made 6 hours after killing Travis and the other last Sunday, May 5th, coordinating her “post conviction” interview with a local reporter (I’ll give you this JM, clearly another example of zero client control by her attorneys, what attorney would allow this?). It says a lot about who she is, IMO, calculating. You may have to copy the link into your browser, they won’t automatically link you.
                .

                It seems most of you disagree with my thoughts, so I want to thank you for listening to me. Have a great day.

                Like

              • Kim, that voicemail from Sunday seems to be bothering a lot of people. Maybe I’m weird, but I see it differently. I often sound like that. I have a tough time leaving a voicemail, so I typically rehearse, erase and re-record a few times. By then, I sound rather flat and matter of fact. I think it’s my PTSD because I don’t remember being like that before.

                It’s truly amazing that her attorneys allowed her to give that interview. Apparently, they are trying to withdraw — although I doubt the judge will allow them to until the next phases are complete. Perhaps that upset her and she simply wanted to be heard. I don’t know.

                I really hope you don’t leave. While we don’t agree on everything, we do agree on some things, and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your points.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA all phone calls out of the jail are recorded and I would think all attempts at recording, if re-recorded would be available. She may have rehearsed prior to call without recording too. The sad thing about the penalty phase is that interview, if allowed to be played, I think will hurt her. My experience with courts/judges, they want to see remorse. After the verdict and jurors released you can see her turn to Willmott and say something. Looks like “remember I have that interview”. I’m sure her attys were furious with her, as the more she speaks the more damage control is required of them. I’m obviously not going anywhere lol unless someone throws me out!

                Like

              • One other thing, I often do things that might be considered crazy when I’m in a state of stress. I get stressed over little things and have panic attacks. One day, I blew a fuse in the kitchen while getting ready to cook dinner, and flipping the circuit breaker didn’t fix it. The apartment was without power. I knew I had to call maintenance, but the thought of doing so really scared me. I was remembering a time when I blew a fuse while living with my ex and he became incensed with me about it — all because he had to go and flip the circuit breaker. So, when that happened, I began frantically cleaning in the dark using a flashlight. Then, I put make up on. After that, I called my fiance in a panic. Finally, I called maintenance. My behaviour doesn’t make any sense — not even to myself. But I just don’t react “normally.” I don’t want to admit there’s anything wrong. I want to “cover it up” so to speak.

                I think Jodi was incredibly stressed after whatever happened on June 4, 2008, and her call to Travis was her attempt at covering up what had happened.

                Like

              • I just thought of something else — can’t sleep tonight AGAIN. In regards to the message Jodi left for Troy Hayden, don’t all calls from jail have to be made collect? If that’s true, then, Jodi must have called someone else asking that person to call Troy on a 3-way call. I mean, a voicemail message couldn’t authorize acceptance of the charges. Isn’t it possible that she rehearsed the message first with that person? Sure, the jail would have a recording of it that they could release, I guess. But I think Troy released the recording, not the jail.

                I was thinking about this because when I had to call anyone about something difficult regarding my own case, I always rehearsed. And I ended up coming across very flat — as was pointed out to me. I was told by several people that my messages were completely unaffected. However, when they spoke to me in person, I was much more emotional. I just think that for Jodi, having to leave a message about the possibility of the jury coming back with first degree would have been incredibly difficult and so, to even talk about it, she would have had to rehearse, rehearse, rehears.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA her friend Donavan said she buys calling cards from commissary, that’s how she makes her calls.

                Like

              • Oh wow, I hadn’t though about that Kim. Thank you. You are so smart.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA I think Heather made the comment about the confession. I didn’t quite follow itthough. I’ll look for new post JM put up.

                Like

            • Oh yes, Kim, you’re right about the calls being recorded. I forgot about that.

              Did you see the entire interview? It was shown on Geraldo’s show on Fox News tonight. Seeing the entire interview makes me even more sympathetic towards her as she discusses various evidence not presented which could have supported her claims of abuse (photos of her with bruises, and a witness who saw her with bruises and who she told about the abuse). Also, she pleaded to domestic violence victims that they should document the abuse, which she didn’t. Nonetheless, I do think Martinez may use excerpts from it, if that’s allowed. She didn’t apologize to the family during the interview so that will hurt her. I just really don’t understand why she wanted to give that interview, especially knowing that the media has never been her friend. She may well be her own worst enemy.

              Like

          • kim

            AA, one of the scenarios shows 3 or 4 people. This goes to the blood atonement theory (which I personally find hard to believe but others obviously know more about the Mormon faith than I do) and you can allow your mind to see 2 or 3 other people and one is holding a gun to Jodi’s head while she is kneeling. She would not be in the position that the expert showed her to be in. I wish I could email you our pics. I became frustrated with the theory and felt that my mind could let me see anything I wanted it to see after “viewing” 4 different scenarios.

            Like

            • Wow Kim! I had no idea there were photos potentially showing that many people. That is frightening, especially in light of the whole “blood atonement” theory. I’ve seen several people discuss that theory. I really didn’t know much of anything about Mormonism. I’ve been reading a little lately, and while I’m the type of person who does not like to criticize any religion or lack thereof, I must admit it sounds rather cultish and exclusive. There seem to be so many functions/trainings in a week that members are required to attend, and then, the meetings with bishops bi-annually to maintain temple recommends, the pressure to marry and procreate young and work hard, well, it just sounds like a Mormon will not be able to live any kind of life that doesn’t focus around the church.

              I have read though that Mormons (other than the fundamental Mormons) did away with the whole “blood atonement” concept in 1978. My impression of Travis and his friends (at least those I’ve seen snippets of on TV because I have not watched all of them) is that they seem to be a sort of subset of Mormonism in that area. They’re all involved in PPL as well. Perhaps they retain some sort of fundamentalist beliefs?

              Like

            • Heather

              Holy SHIT, Kim!

              As AA said, all she saw in one of the photo’s, was a foot, I agree, it could be anyone’s foot, I thought that a long time ago when I first saw the photo. Which photograph are you referring to where you could see 2 or 3 other people, the one with Travis’ eye reflection? Or another photograph?

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, yes, the eye reflection. Again, I look at it and I can see 4 different scenarios, 1 her alone, 1 with 2 people, 1 with 3, and one with 4. Mind playing tricks? I don’t know but the first night I saw the 2 figures I freaked out, made me feel like I was there that night. I know, that sounds silly, but it definitely gave me chills. IMO it was clear there was another man there, but it seems because there are so many ways one can interpret it it becomes too speculative? When defense brought in the expert to discuss the photo I thought for sure that’s where he was going with it, which would have blown up in their faces at that point in the trial since she had already testified she did it in self defense. Maybe her attorneys could have still brought this up and argued she was still protecting someone, but she seemed to be controlling much of her defense. The person who pointed out the multiple person version of the picture (who has supported Jodi since the trial began and still does) then backed off of that theory because she said the expert had much better equipment than what we can see.
                I wish I could get the pic to you!

                Like

              • kim

                I’m leaving for the day, going to be a busy next couple of days with mothers day and graduations but I will check back later.

                Like

            • Heather

              kim, You could ask them on this site, JRJM, if he could give you our email addresses, I would like to see these pictures too.

              This is rather scary; as Jodi said when she spoke about the intruders, she was kneeling with a gun pointed at her head, did you know this?

              Like

              • kim

                Heather, yes, I recall what she said about intruder holding gun. I would be more than happy to send you what I have, let me know. The problem with this from a legal standpoint is that she testified as to what happened. JM, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any court would reverse a decision of a jury if she now went back to the intruder version, barring anyone else coming forward and saying “it was me”.

                Like

              • Heather

                I don’t think they should invite that again, kim; after all this, even if it had been the truth, the jury wouldn’t buy it. There are other things, such as getting Dustin Thompson on the stand, for one.

                Like

              • Kim I almost have to laugh though it is not a laughing matter. You finish a trial and get the verdict and then the defense moves to re-open because…ugh.

                Honestly, I don’t think it could be done, I don’t think it’s ever been done so far as I know, but if they could somehow get Jodi to come clean and what she gave them was inconsistent with her guilt, then I think they should try, because it might hurt later on if they didn’t. At least they would make a record for the direct appeal. I mean, you can move to set aside the verdict before sentencing and this is routinely done. Is “newly discovered evidence”, that is, Jodi has now REALLY told the truth and it really was intruders and she feared for her life if she told a ground for moving to set aside the verdict, as opposed to just “against the weight of the evidence” and so on? Probably uncharted territory there.

                And, maybe she was raped. That would also explain a lot of her behavior about this if indeed it was some male intruder(s).

                Can you imagine how awful something like that would have been? And then to wind up on the hot seat yourself? I don’t even like thinking about it.

                Like

              • Kim

                I agree, JM, it would have to be very unusual circumstances to make it work on appeal. I meant to ask you, what type of work do you do, criminal defense? As I think I told you, since I’ve just started my own practice I’m trying to get back to criminal law. I miss the courtroom, which is why I started doing some pro bono work. The transactional work pays the bills but its not my passion. Did I read you’re in ny? I’m licensed there as well.

                Like

              • I’m in Rochester, New York. For now. Bad situation for me. I do some criminal defense, used to do more.

                I have to go to bed. Ugh.

                Like

              • JMRJ, she was anally raped by Travis that afternoon before he was killed. She testified that she gave him a CD containing photographs taken on their many trips together. He was unable to get it to work and became very angry with her. He then raped her. Of course, according to Martinez, a woman can consent to sex after the fact, and then, it’s not considered rape. I found that argument completely bizarre. Many rape victims basically surrender and allow it to happen, but that certainly does not mean they are consenting.

                Like

            • Heather

              Yes, kim I should like to see them, I’ll try to get in touch with the person who runs the site and have him give you my address.

              Like

              • Kim

                Sounds good heather!

                Like

              • So Kim, on this whole timing thing, AA reports that a roommate testified (?) that he came home at 6 – half hour after the massacre began – and that ‘Jodi wasn’t there’. Travis’s dead body neither he nor anyone else noticed for another five days.

                Nothing wrong with this picture, right?

                Like

              • Kim

                JM Travis travelled a lot so it was not unusual for him to be away. It was a large home, about 4000 sq feet. I don’t recall the testimony of what time roommate returned home.

                Like

              • Well, AA says apparently the roommates never testified but one of them has been on HLN and another one was ‘never found’.

                This is the kind of thing you have to look into. I mean someone does. The defense if no one else, but then they probably had no money to work with.

                You look into it anyway, of course. There’s a lot of stuff lawyers have to wind up doing and not being paid for.

                Like

              • No, it wasn’t the roommates that were never found. They were both interviewed by Detective Flores. In her interview, Jodi said there was a man who wasn’t found who had seen her covered in bruises and knew that she was abused by Travis.

                Like

              • Kim, while you’re right that Travis traveled a lot, his CTR ring and watch were on the counter in the kitchen, and his laptop was in the den. He never went anywhere without his CTR ring.

                Like

          • Heather

            AA, my theory about the eye reflection.. could it be that whilst Jodi was photographing Travis, Dustin came in to the place? That would explain away the other person there while she was photographing Travis. The door to the house was always left open, so he would have just been able to walk in.
            I don’t think Jodi’s fragility can take much more of this, AA, she has had this from 2008. I doubt that anyone could. Being a Cancerian she would be affected emotionally very deeply, and has been during the what is now getting on for 5 months of this trial, and now some more next Wednesday and probably more after that.
            The whole thing is inhumane.

            Like

      • Well, shit! If you have promising areas of investigation like that why the hell are they running with whatever SHE said? She’s told 10 different tales and prally none of them is correct, including the “I killed Travis” thing.

        False confessions happen all the time. They’re especially likely when there’s all this pressure, and I would submit especially likely when you have a pliant suspect like many abused/raped women are.

        This idea could easily explain a lot of stuff, like that she was there and witnessed the whole thing, and begged not to be killed herself, and then has survivor’s guilt, or overwhelming guilt because she just ran away while a man she once loved or still loved was hacked to pieces.

        You’d be amazed at what that guilt aspect does. It can lead to amnesia and denial and dissociation and, you know, all that psychobabble stuff that sometimes is BS but sometimes is very real.

        Plus as you point out there was a lot of other weird stuff here. How the hell do the roommates not notice? I mean, there were roommates? I didn’t even know that.

        Jesus what a mess.

        Like

        • Interestingly enough, JMRJ, that was basically the gist of Jodi’s story for a couple of years — the intruders! She denied being there at all until she was arrested, then told the intruder story until she changed that to self-defense.

          There are so many inconsistencies in the police report with the roommates. Neither of them ever testified which is odd. One of them claimed he did laundry the same day Travis was killed. He then changed his story to say he did laundry the Saturday after Travis was killed. But he didn’t notice the blood (which can be clearly seen in photos) on the washing machine? And, he had to have taken out Travis’s laundry, but he didn’t find it odd that there was a camera in there, which also happened to be Travis’s new prized possession which he had bragged about to all who would listen as it cost $1500?

          Both roommates had their girlfriends over for entire evenings, possibly all night, but neither they nor their girlfriends noticed the smell of a decomposing body for 5 days? One roommate thought he noticed a funny smell when he got home on the fifth day, but didn’t pay any attention to it. Yet the police and EMT described the stench as overwhelming and permeating the entire house when they arrived?

          One of the roommates was perfectly able to describe the exact colour of Travis’s comforter and the exact colour of his sheets and how many pillows were on his bed. A straight guy paying that much detail?

          The girlfriends prepared food in the kitchen and saw Travis’s ring on the counter which he never went anywhere without, along with his watch. The roommates noticed Travis’s laptop AND cell phone in the den. But even though Travis missed church on Sunday, no one wondered why he’d left all these things behind?

          I really wish Travis’s dog could talk. He might be the only one that could tell us what actually happened.

          Like

          • AA, this doesn’t happen to me often because I love lawyers, but why the fuck would these people go with a self defense argument with all those wounds on the victim, including the slashed throat, when they had a viable “somebody else did it” scenario with evidence to support it? This just pisses me off, not least because “somebody else did it” has a better chance of succeeding in the first place.

            Why would they do that? Because she “confessed”? Who gives a shit?

            I’m a little upset.

            Like

            • kim

              JMRJ if she “told the story” that most in favor of the M1 conviction believe, that she went there to change his mind about who he was taking to Cancun and just lost it when he said no, she may have very well been convicted of manslaughter. Not sure if you know this, but one of her attorneys “specializes” in representation of sex offenders. I don’t know the timeline of when she started to talk about his alleged pedophilia to her original counselor (and I have to admit I have not seen anything in writing confirming Jodi told this counselor he was into that sort of stuff) but because it was part of her self defense claim I’m thinking that came along with this attorney. Jodi testified first significant abuse came after she observed him with pictures of little boys.

              Like

              • Kim I don’t know that much about it. I saw the CNN thing about shot first/stab first, and I knew HLN was all over it because that’s their profit, and a few clips about text messages and I didn’t see her at all although I heard her name everywhere.

                It’s just a monumental error of judgment, at the very least. It’s a much quicker trip to reasonable doubt with a third party did it defense than self defense, especially with the severity and number of wounds.

                This is upsetting.

                Like

              • Kim, with all due respect, you’re getting a little ridiculous here. The trip to Cancun was scheduled for June 10, 2008. He was killed on June 4, 2008. The trip was already ticketed by PPL for a group discount, as there were so many going. He wouldn’t have been able to change his companion’s name at such a late date.

                Did you listen to the phone sex tape from May 10, 2008, and their subsequent chat, at all? In that tape, she knew he was going to Cancun and that he was bringing someone else. She wasn’t bothered by it at all. She knew all about his relationship with Mimi Hall, including that it wasn’t going well, and that although he thought Mimi was the one for him to marry (in his message from God), Mimi was only interested in being his friend.

                I posted the link above to Martinez’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Certain Elements from Experts’ Testimony. In that motion, he excerpts from both Dr. Samuels and Dr. Karp’s reports with reference to pedophilia. It is interesting to read.

                Like

              • kim

                Now now, I didn’t say I espoused to that belief, I said “most who support the M1 conviction” 🙂

                Like

              • Oh good, Kim. I’m glad you don’t believe that nonsense. I apologize. The way you wrote your post, it came across as if you also believed it.

                Like

            • I’m not an practicing lawyer, just a person who went to law school and worked for law firms for many years. But my only thought is that Jodi wanted to go with self-defense, and from what I was taught in law school, you have to go with the client’s strategy or withdraw — which isn’t a possibility when you’re a public defender with a trial date set. We’ve recently learned there were disagreements between Jodi and the first chair, Kirk Nurmi, in regards to defense strategy. Could that have been the source? I guess we’ll find out when his book is published!

              One thing I’d like your take on, JMRJ. In his closing arguments, Nurmi made a statement that really bothered me. He was arguing that it didn’t matter whether or not the jury liked Jodi or not; their job was to consider the evidence — which I have no problem with, of course. However, he then said “9 days out of 10, I don’t like Jodi Arias myself.” I sat there thinking WTF???

              Like

              • Well, he’s trying to get the jury to identify with him so they’ll believe him. I understand that, I just don’t understand going with a lame defense when you had a good one.

                And “the client makes the decision” is a lot more nuanced. You have lots of opportunity to reason with the client and press them to change their mind. The client – especially the innocent ones – have no clue.

                This is just mind boggling. And now they’re going to try to kill her?

                I’m so upset. I know I’ve said that too much, but sheesh.

                Like

              • Heather

                AA, THAT Was risky for Kirk Nurmi to say that ; he was gambling on the jury having a sense of humour and take it the way it was meant–care for Jodi when so many people hate her for really no valid reason at all 😦 and from what I’ve been reading online, people haven’t, they took it literally – even though he was smiling when he said it, all They heard were the words.

                Jodi smiled, she saw the funny side of it, so did I, I saw what Nurmi was trying to achieve, to soften the jury and make them think; neverthless, in retrospect, I was very surprised he took that gamble, considering its a Republican State=very serious folk.

                Like

              • Heather, when the odds are so long an otherwise reckless gamble can make sense. That’s a feature of criminal defense.

                Like

              • Heather

                Gosh AA, could the type be any smaller?! It was hard to read.

                Like

              • Heather, you couldn’t enlarge it? I could with my browser. I can’t read small print anymore at my age.

                Like

              • Heather

                AA, Better late than never with this response, I guess!
                I don’t know how to enlarge anything! 🙂 I’m not that clever with the computer!!! I’d be only too pleased to oblige if I could.
                I agree, my eyes won’t take it, either.. so annoying, isn’t it! Hope you have somehow managed it, all I can think of is using a magnifying glass! 🙂

                Like

    • Heather

      Someone bursting in, if Dustin WAS there, he may have taken the knife and the gun, which would explain why Jodi wouldn’t know where to find them; wouldn’t there be DNA on them too?

      Like

  18. Heather

    This says it ALL..

    Unraveling Justice

    Posted by Vladimir Gagic on May 09, 2013
    Print
    Comments (22)
    More Sharing ServicesShare Link

    By Pitchforks:

    In the immediate aftermath of the Jodi Arias capital murder trial Guilty verdict, spectators outside the Phoenix courthouse who made up the banner-bearing “mob” – ironically, Nancy Grace’s term, repeated in her HLN commentary at least 3 times immediately before the verdict – remarked that their faith in the criminal justice system had been restored.

    Restored from what? And to what? One Guilty verdict, assuming it is not 100% wrongful, has no significant impact, positive or otherwise, on the integrity of the criminal justice system. That people should be attributing such importance to one obscenely media-hyped case, a case that but for the arbitrary prominence that the media ascribed to it is no different from myriads of cases in the US, is truly disturbing. It speaks loudly about the general public’s distorted notions of what constitute significant news events, and how their perceptions have been grossly warped by the media.

    What these misguided trial groupies really mean is “This is just compensation for Casey Anthony.” Two years ago, when Anthony was acquitted in Florida in her capital murder trial, the reaction was exactly the same: the verdict was received as extremely significant in the vast machine that is the US criminal justice system, but for a different reason, the opposite reason – that it made people “lose faith” in the criminal justice system. Just as now, this reaction was wrong-headed in the extreme. Apart from the fact that the outcome was unremarkable given the real evidence – not the irrelevant litany of smut and ridiculous conjecture propagated by the tabloid media and swallowed as gospel fact by every perimenopausal woman watching cable TV – it broke no legal precedents nor established any new guidelines as to procedures of judicial practice.

    Do any of those whooping, whistling and air-punching punters congregated outside the Maricopa County courthouse have any idea what is actually happening in the criminal justice system, how it is being tainted by prosecutors, judges and law enforcement departments being so aware of today’s media scrutiny and reporting of their minutest decisions and performance styles that they are either overly-concerned with not arousing public disapproval, or motivated by a lust for fame and resultant promotion or political advancement? These tendencies have intensified over the past thirty years because of government and media exaggeration about increases in crime rates, and the accompanying misinformation that society has become “soft on crime”. The criminal justice system has been falling over itself to convince the public that more criminals are being swept off the streets and that the incentives to commit crime are being greatly diminished by harsher sentences. The fact that the latter correlation is not borne out by statistics does nothing to assuage the impetus towards putting more people in prison for lesser crimes and for longer terms.

    How many of those on the courthouse plaza, chanting “Justice for Travis!” in unison after the verdict was announced, understand that “justice for all” is being greatly undermined by a lucrative private prison industry insinuating itself into state budgets, with states guaranteeing private prison corporations full capacity for periods as long as twenty years, so that US incarceration rates are outrageously high, and sentences disproportionately long compared to other countries? The US incarcerates six times more people than the world average, with 25% of the world’s prison population situated in the US even though America constitutes only 5% of the world’s population. The motivation to put people in prison in the US now has less to do with making society safer than it has with lining the pockets of private prison executives. This situation began to take hold in the late 70’s and early 80’s, since when there has been a dramatically steep climb in the numbers of prisoners in the US, as well as a drastic lengthening of prison terms.

    These two broad effects, media scrutiny of the criminal justice system and the move towards increasing numbers of private prisons, in turn affect the minutiae of criminal proceedings, corrupting the processes of arrest, charging, collection of evidence and trial. Such conditions increase the incentives to plant evidence or use coercive and even illegal interrogation methods on the part of law enforcement, for police officers to lie in court, for prosecutors to hide evidence, influence witnesses’ testimony, and overcharge crimes, and for judges to collude with prosecutors, all with the aim of assuring convictions and obtaining the longest sentences because the imperatives and the rewards are so great.

    And putting the icing on the judicial cake is the increasingly widening and insidious contamination of any impending or future jury pool by a tabloid media that peddles simplistic, boiled-down fairy tales with good and evil archetypes, urging their audience to cheer and fawn at the heroes and heroines, and hiss and boo at the monsters and witches as in some tawdry, childish English pantomime. Murder trials have become a form of immature escapism onto which people project their personal insecurities and prejudices, attaching their anonymous and perhaps unacknowledged private anger and frustration – that in reality comes from their own lives – to a publicly embraced cause célèbre Like children who appropriately play and fantasize through their fears, anxieties and confusions in order to integrate them, these adults are inappropriately playing out emotions that would be better expressed and employed in their personal lives, not through the media-mythologized personal tragedies and misdemeanours of other heretofore anonymous individuals with whom they have no meaningful connection. Unlike for children, where imagining and role-playing in stories helps them to think, develop, mature and separate fantasy from reality, for adults, such misdirected and excessive investment of one’s negative psychic energy in media-distorted stories only serves to stunt emotional flexibility and grossly limit understanding of the complexities of human nature.

    The public has been brainwashed into thinking that the criminal justice system does not do enough to punish offenders, so it is necessary for the media to take over and prosecute them in collaboration with the public. Members of the public are cajoled into thinking that each one of them is individually important, not only in making sure the defendant is punished – before he or she is tried, as well as after, but also in “supporting” the victim’s family and friends. Suddenly, anonymous individuals all over the country experience the adrenaline rush of feeling significant, that they can “be there for the family” and make sure the defendant gets his or her “just deserts”: character assassination, humiliation, ridicule, sexual exposure, negative interpretation of everything they have ever done in their life, from removing a cardigan to having the gall to be born with odd-looking eyes.

    Such public prosecution by the masses is absolutely necessary and justified because years of detention before trial, separation from friends and family, loss of income, undergoing police investigation and public parading in a courtroom are not sufficient to expose and punish a person while they are supposedly not yet determined to be guilty. A person must be destroyed before they get to trial, just in case they “get off”, and to make sure that as many people know about their awfulness as possible so that hopefully, the jury members will know what the “facts” are and make the “right” decision. The public is complicit with media networks that saturate the airwaves and cyberspace with details about the defendant, however unsubstantiated, particularly during a trial, so that jurors who go home at night are unlikely to avoid “inadvertently” hearing or seeing something that has “need-to-know” value. Even sequestered juries get family visits, and who knows when a hushed, private moment might not be advantageous for a little “updating” about what “everyone” thinks……….and expects. And if the defendant is acquitted because the jury is a bunch of “village idiots”, there will be the satisfaction of knowing that they can never live safely again in society. Lest they forget and need a reminder of their correctional-officer-substitute status, along with a boost of hate-serum, the public can rely on HLN to nudge them periodically with references to “what happened in Florida” and nostalgic montages of highlights from trials past, or clips from incriminating interviews of the defendant.

    But these inconvenient, intrusive and complicated matters don’t concern Mary-Lou, the fine upstanding middle-aged citizen in shorts and T-shirt, milling on the courthouse plaza with her new trial-following buddies who she “met” on the In Session chat-room. They hover as near to Jane-Velez Mitchell and her padded microphone as possible, watching in hushed reverence as she interviews one of the ubiquitous Hughes clan, the leaders of the “close friends of Travis” – as well as the public Travis Alexander adoration cult – who have insinuated themselves, their flimsy feeling stories and subjectively interpretable video clips onto every show during HLN prime time. David Hughes declares vehemently, to the obediently-nodding affirmations of the devotees, that when the verdict was read Jodi had “no emotion” and that she was “smirking” at the jury as each one confirmed their decision. When Mary-Lou gets home and watches the verdict-reading and Jodi’s close-up on TV she will choose not to notice Jodi’s open-mouthed gasp on hearing “Guilty”, nor see her tear-welled eyes, lip-biting and quivering chin, glancing frightened and questioning at each juror in turn as they repeat “Yes.” Jodi is a monster – HLN and the Hughes have taught Mary-Lou that, so she is blind to Jodi’s nonexistent human reaction.

    What is important is that Mary-Lou and her friends get a chance to declare their elation and allegiance to Travis’ family on camera – supporting this innately unremarkable group of victimized, bereaved but glamorized strangers with whom they have no connection whatsoever except via the unctuous tones of “Dr” Drew coaxing them to share their good vibes and despising ridicule of Jodi through their flat-screen TVs. They were so afraid they were going to get another “Casey Anthony”! Justice has finally “unfolded”…….. for Travis!

    Any one of these “Justice for Travis” faithful could find themselves one day on the wrong side of the law, or in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps fitting the criteria or profile of a certain demographic group and be subjected to police corruption, deprivation of rights and distortion of interrogation-room statements. If they end up at trial they will be no more immune to media exposure and humiliation than the mugs who end up daily on Nancy Grace’s Facebook page for humping a sofa on the street because they forgot to take their meds, getting a bit sloshed while celebrating their son’s 19th birthday with him at the bar, or turning a blind eye to their daughter smoking a joint with her friends in the basement – with the music turned up a bit too loud.

    These naïve and jubilant citizens are clinging to their misguided notion that the Jodi Arias Guilty verdict is a victory for the country, rather than what it really is: a common and banal, though gruesome story of interpersonal violence turned deadly, transformed into a carefully orchestrated and manufactured fake media epic, manipulating the masses and raking in billions in ratings-generated ad revenue. Until now commitment phobia, porkie-pie telling and the penetrability of doggy doors have not been social problems that anyone has marched on Capitol Hill about, but somehow these issues have gained more priority in the minds of a segment of the population than some very real threats to societal order and civility and to fair and due process.

    The Jodi Arias murder trial is very significant, but not for the development or improvement of the criminal justice system. Nothing in the criminal justice system has been restored or edified. This trial has been significant only for its embodiment and encapsulation of a sick form of brainwashing and media-requisitioning, for its sucking of thousands of duped television and social media followers into a vortex of excessive and misdirected sympathy and emotion, and for its creativity in distorting and making up stories that evolve into unsubstantiated urban legends gracing every checkout magazine rack. Yes, this trial has been a landmark – in perpetuating the ongoing contamination and insidious destruction of the American criminal justice system. Mary-Lou and her friends have made their small but important contribution to this endeavour.

    Perhaps this inane and dangerous syndrome can be succinctly summed up in a Twitter reply I received, just after the verdict, to a tweet I had posted a month before. I had responded to someone who was dismissing the effects of the tabloid media, and the person bided their time till they could throw a triumphant retort in my “face”:

    Pitchforks (April 9th): “That type of nonjournalism DOES matter in that taints future jury pools & incites general Pitchfork mentality against due process”

    Reply (May 8th): “ha…guess it won’t matter now for that murdering nutbag Jodi Arias…hahahaha”

    So while Lou Ann and her internet trial-sisters hug and shed tears of joy, clutching their battered and dog-eared “Justice for Travis” posters, their rights and freedoms are trickling quietly down the drain, and maybe their young adult son has been stopped by the police while driving to get a pizza and is now sitting in a windowless room being yelled at by a police officer while another one tells him calmly they have a lot of evidence against him…. He is coming close to signing a false confession, just so he can get out of there and get an aspirin for his thundering headache. He doesn’t know that he could have left hours ago, he doesn’t know that innocent people need to do that thing that Nancy Grace condemns as suspicious – “lawyer up”……… he doesn’t know what his rights are, but he just needs to get out of there and home to mom, so at this point………..

    But wait, we can’t go home yet – Jane Velez-Mitchell is coming our way, microphone thrusting, and she wants to know how we feel about the verdict! The answer is obvious, we have been well trained:

    Justice has unfolded! Justice for Travis!!!

    Pitchforks can be found at babelbooth.com, followed on Twitter @PitchforksPosts and on Blog Talk Radio at Routing Out, and be sure to like the facebook page.
    Tags:
    Casey Anthony
    , CNN
    , Jodi Arias
    , Nancy Grace
    , Nancy Grace

    Like

  19. Heather

    My thoughts exactly: ( and THIS is the ”American Way”.)

    A person must be destroyed before they get to trial, just in case they “get off”, and to make sure that as many people know about their awfulness as possible so that hopefully, the jury members will know what the “facts” are and make the “right” decision.

    Like

    • ljeanner

      And so must all the lives of those who defended the defendant be destroyed scream the masses: “We’ll show you what happens when you support (or let) free an evil killer by threatening your life, killing your career or harassing your family.” Absurd!!! Trampling on their own constitutional rights to make sure one killer gets the needle. It truly boggles the mind.

      Like

  20. Kim, in reference to your comment above about the woman who committed suicide, her name is Ashley Nicole Reed (married name was Thompson). Her husband was Dustin James Thompson (a friend of Travis). She allegedly committed suicide on March 3, 2010 from a gunshot wound to the right temple (sound familiar?). The autopsy report did not detail the caliber and was very short. Many medical professionals commented that the entrance wound is not consistent with a suicide (the gun was held downwards) and the measurement of the entrance wound is suspicious (it was front to back).

    It was just a few weeks after Ashley “killed” herself that Jodi changed her story from the intruders to self-defense. Suspicious?

    In Detective Flores’s police report, he details receiving an anonymous tip from Ashley (which they traced to her cell phone) on June 11, 2008 that Dustin may have been involved in the murder. He and another detective interviewed her the following day, but did not confront her about the anonymous tip. She was in the process of divorcing Dustin at that time. She had a restraining order against Dustin.

    Subsequently, Detective Kaufman spoke to Ashley again. She confirmed that she had called in the anonymous tip because her husband was acting strange during the time Travis was killed. She also admitted that she was very close with Travis and had asked him if she could move in with him while she separated from Dustin. They decided it might look as if something inappropriate was going on and she moved elsewhere. She moved out during the weeks leading up to Travis’s death as their house was going into foreclosure.

    They did not interview Dustin at all.

    I don’t mean to be a conspiracy theorist here and perhaps one had nothing to do with the other. However, Dustin, an abusive man, had motive to kill Travis and his wife suspected him. That should, at the very least, have been investigated thoroughly.

    Like

    • Investigated thoroughly? No shit, Sherlock.

      Like

      • Right? It really leaves you wondering. A married woman with an abusive husband (who we can then reasonably assume was also jealous of other men) is very close friends with Travis. She is about to divorce her husband and wants to move in with Travis, but they decide against it. She moves out from the marital home, and a few weeks later, Travis is found dead. Two days later, she calls in an “anonymous” tip that her husband may have been involved. When the police speak to her, she says her husband was acting “strange.” But nobody even talks to him? They simply focus in on Jodi!

        Like

        • Kim

          How do you know no one investigate this man?

          Like

          • Kim! Sounds like someone did investigate him. How else would AA know all that stuff? What she said was, all by itself, enough to make a pretty solid third-party-did-it defense here. Enough to get an acquittal, if they’d gone that way. They probably didn’t because Jodi called self defense, and they figured because of the confession that was what they had to do. But remember what Baez did in Casey Anthony’s case? She lied, and lied, and lied they all said. So, I think believing she was innocent, he turned that around on them. He did such a great job. There are things you cannot change and shouldn’t bother trying, and if you don’t maybe you’ll come up with something better. Only the prosecution can get away with ramming a square peg into a round hole. If the defense tries to do that they’re going to lose.

            It sounds like Martinez bullied that peg into a round hole here.

            Like

            • Well, they investigated the “anonymous” tip by interviewing Ashley, his wife, but they didn’t interview him, Dustin Thompson. The information I posted is in the police report (other than Ashley’s subsequent suicide which occurred much later).

              The first time Jodi ever “confessed” was when she took the witness stand during her trial. She had never confessed before then. And she “confessed” to killing Travis in self defense. Prior to that, her story to the media had been about the two masked intruders who killed Travis and let her go. Her plea was not guilty at that time from 2008-2010. In 2010, she changed her plea to self-defense.

              Like

              • Heather

                I’m thinking of another possiblity, that Dustin walked into the house unexpectedly, he and Travis argued… and he killed Travis. Jodi just happened to be there.. and so was threatened with her life if she ever spoke about it.

                This scenario might be a bit far fetched but there is So much possibility, given the situation you’ve just described .

                Like

              • AA, last night I saw for the first time the interview in which Jodi talks of the “intruders”. You know……it sounds like it is true….just by the emotional way she was relating it…..not the calm way when she was first interviewed and denied being there. It could be that she is still trying to protect her family. I don’t know…..I just had a feeling about it when I saw that interview last night. what do you think?

                Like

              • Kim

                Trialwatcher, how did you get in touch with blog operator? I want to send the pics I have to heather and want to give her my email, if she’s interested. On your last comment about her story of intruders I wanted to ask you if you heard people comparing that story to Travis’s robbery story, part of which was shown as evidence? State showed it in rebuttal for different reason and kept sound out, but he describes being held at gunpoint. Thank you

                Like

              • Kim, click on “about us” or “contact” to get his email address.

                I think the video you are referring to was the scene where travis is telling a story to his friends about a “robbery” and Jodi is laying her head on his lap? I don’t understand the connection you are making? I don’t remember what he was saying in the video except that someone was pointing a gun at a woman’s head and Travis thought she was just asking to be shot. This was shown on HLN a lot…..but without audio.

                Like

              • Kim

                Trial watcher, thx for info! The video was taken while he described his near death experience while being robbed. It’s been awhile since I’ve heard it but he describes how a man and woman robbed him leaving a diner and gun was held to his head. There were comparisons made between his robbery and her intruder story. I can’t recall what if any other similarities there may have been.

                Like

              • Kim, I remember that video. I believe it was actually a dream Travis had that he was describing, not an actual event.

                Like

            • Heather

              JMRJ, Oh he did. Sounds like you didn’t watch the trial, but it shook me rigid, anyone could see what a dirty game he was playing – it stood out a mile. This is why I shall never understand how anyone could even like him, let alone have any adoration for him, saying how wonderful he is, wanting his autograph, etc. but its all over the hater sites. I continue to shake my head with the shock of it all.

              Perhaps you might like to watch the closing argument, its on youtube. I remember thinking when I watched it (how will I ever forget), that by his voice, Martinez didn’t believe what he was saying/shouting/ranting.

              It seemed like he was acting, to me, seeing himself as the great performer. The stage was His.

              Like

              • Heather

                He even got lost in his own claptrap, jumping quickly from one thing to another while yelling, ”She’s a LIARRR”

                It was hard to follow him, my thoughts are that he waffled to confuse, for he hadn’t a thing to say that would prove premeditation.

                As is is, the jury had already made their minds up right from the start of the trial, which I suspect, Martinez knew.

                Like

              • I have too on other sites. That just goes to prove how difficult it must be to get witnesses to stand up in a televised court room. If you state a rational comment you get victimised and scrutinised for it and that is just on a blogg. Its so sad!

                Like

              • Heather

                Tanya, Yes, it is, and the defence witnesses were marvellous, but I imagine it was even more difficult for JM; ontop of that he wanted his witnesses to lie, and had to find them, and look what he got.. Tot Doc, Hughes, Horn and Flores! He must have had to pay them double ..

                What I find really hard to get my head around, is how the people who are so fond of saying that Jodi lied, failed magnificently to see the lies, from not only the witnesses for the prosecution, but from the prosecutor himself, and how he suddenly changed his initial claim that TA was shot first, to being shot last – and say they adore him!

                Like

              • JMRJ,
                From seabird,
                Along similar lines to your thinking, I, too have considered that it is possible that Travis was comitting “Suicide by Jodi” if you will.
                That night, she was on her way to Utah, to get acquainted with a potential new beau. Sky Hughes had one of her sons play match maker, and set up this rendeveux. But Travis called Jodi while she was on the road, and “guilted” her into changing her route and driving to see him in Mesa BEFORE continuing on to Utah.
                I thought it rather strange for this to be of such urgency to him.

                However, the facts had already piled up about how every aspect of his life was in a shambles. He had borrowed $7,000 that very morning he died, from the group’s plastic surgeon, Dr. Carl B. Haitt. Travis was losing his Condo. The Hughes were losing patience with his falling dedication to PPL, of which he was under Chris Hughes, causing Chris to have less income. Then, these several years later, Dr. Geffner, the psychologist expert on Jodi’s case, demonstrated after the fact, Travis’ risky activities with women. Dr. Gettner created a chart that tracked Travis interaction via late night sexting, with twelve different NAMED women, most of whom were unaware of the others, some were Mormon.

                Outsiders found it strange that none of the women Travis dated wanted to marry him after knowing him for a while. By the time his compaq computer was forensically examined after his death, it was discovered to be loaded with all sorts of porn, viruses, and cleaning programs, all dispite the prosecutor loudly proclaiming there was nothing of interest to be found on this laptop. But when the defence finally was able to exam said laptop with Brian Neumeister, a real expert, so much porn, viruses, cleaner programs were found, Brian said it wasn’t the elephant in the room _it was the aircraftcarrier in the room.

                Martinez tried to intimidate Brian by proclaiming none such was on the laptop, but Brian, incredulous, said:
                “Juan, that’s just a lie.” “That’s sliming.”
                To which Martinez challenged: “Sir. Are you calling me a lier?”
                Brian: “YES”

                The significance of the porn was not the porn itself. It was that when Jodi testified that she had walked in on Travis, Martinez called her a lier. He actually built his case on “Jodi is a liar.” Proving that there was tons of Porn on that computer validated Jodi’s statement as truthful.

                When Travis would call Jodi, as he still did, it would be way late at night – 2:00 am to 4:00 am, this guy was getting very little sleep –

                All the women; he was sexting them at night. One was married and had 2 kids, and she and Travis were working out a plan so she could come over at 1:00 am and “rape” him.

                All the porn, and how to absorb all the guilt. Long story, short, Travis had sunk about as low as possible. Everything about him was false by now. He was an embarrassment to his church. Two visits to the Bishop and Travis had to know the end of the line was in sight. He had already lost his Temple Recommend. Travis had asked several women to go on the Cancun trip before he convcinced Lisa to go, as just friends. So much for Jodi killing him over the Cancun trip amd jealousy.

                Jodi would have been Travis’ last and best friend. This had to be scary for Travis. How could he be in control, if she could have just left him if she wanted to. She loved and protected him from himself as much as she could. She even tried to protect him (his image) after his death. She literally sacrificed herself to protect Travis. That’s the reason her journals systematically “edified” Travis, unfailingly. She never wrote anything to de-edify Travis. This was a strict part of her Mormon training.

                By this point, Travis must have broken just about every Mormon oath that Joseph Smith “borrowed” from the Schtish Rite Free Masons. This is where Mormons still teach, the blood of Christ is not enough to atone certain serious sins. “Who among us would not kill his brother to save his brother’s eternal soul?” The sinner’s blood was required to be spilled upon the ground (down the drain?)

                Who knows? What went on in that bathroom on that night might have been about catching THE LAST FLIGHT OUT to planet KOLOB.
                May he rest in peace

                So it is believable to me, that given the limited options Travis had left in the wreck he had made of his life, he might as well go out like a Roman Candle by orchestrating his own Blood Atonement (making him eligible for planet Colob) and involving Jodi. Perhaps he needed her to be there with him out of his own insecurity. In his pictures, he did not seem to look at the woman he was with through the eyes of the protective male. To me he would be scrunched down, and looking up at the woman, his eyes pleading: “I don’t know what the heck is going on.” “Will you be my mommy?”

                Perhaps Travis’ luring Jodi to come to Mesa, before Utah,
                threw off the Hughes’ expectation that the coast would be clear in Mesa.

                Like

            • Heather

              Marion, I think AA is probably on the jodiariasisinnocent site so I’ll try to answer. Flores didn’t investigate Dustin Thompson because he ”wasn’t around”.at the time and they never bothered after that as all Travis’ friends pointed to Jodi.. Its in Flores Report. You can find it by going to the jodi is innocent site.
              I find it a bit frustrating because of the time difference; when everyone’s awake, I’m asleep or should be!
              Where in the US are you, Marion? I presume you are, you could be anywhere, of course! 🙂

              Like

          • From the police report, it states that they did not interview Dustin Thompson that day due to time constraints, but he said he would be available for interview if they wanted to do it later. There was no further supplemental report that an interview was ever conducted.

            Like

            • Heather

              We know corruption was alive and well.

              I find it difficult to believe they wouldn’t have interviewed someone – if it benefitted the State.

              Martinez told the defence the computer was clear and they found nothing, but when the defence checked through they found something that would have been vital for Jodi. They were arguing about evidence being found on that computer that Martinez blocked them from submitting; looks like he won 😦

              Like

            • Yeah, well that’s par for the course. They already have their man, why bother complicating things by investigating anything else? Pathetic, really, but all too common.

              Like

              • That’s terribly disappointing. We, as a society, rely on police to conduct thorough investigations.

                Then again, I’ve never seen a prosecutor behave as Juan Martinez did yelling and screaming at witnesses, firing off rapid-fire complex questions making it difficult for them to answer, calling them liars, and throwing things. Back when I worked for criminal defense attorneys in the late 80s, I went to court for some of their trials. Most prosecutors verged on being slightly boring. Defense attorneys were the animated lawyers in any trial I sat through.

                Like

          • Heather

            It says so in Flores’ report, Kim..

            Like

        • Heather

          Yes, AA, the friends of Travis told them to..
          The scenario you have very well described, I think, is highly probable.

          Martinez would have seen to it that Nothing was done/evidence/interviews given, in support of Jodi; he would have gone to the ends of the earth to brainwash the jurors (not that they needed much, if any), to see that Jodi received the death penalty verdict.

          It wouldn’t be prudent to say on here what I feel about that disgusting piece of dirt.

          Like

    • Kim

      Thx for sharing this AA, I want to read more.

      Like

      • That’s about all I have. I assume you did read the police report, right?

        Like

      • Heather

        This maybe be viewed as a ridiculous suggestion, Kim, but..
        as an attorney, would it be possible that you could do anything?

        Like

        • kim

          Heather, not sure what I could do. I’m flattered that you asked me that considering my agreement with the verdict. That tells me you do see in what I wrote that I am a truth seeker and not afraid to look at all sides, so I thank you for that! I’m no where near AZ, I’m on the east coast. I have no problem sending you the pictures I have, but again, you may see something totally different from what I see. If she could somehow show she was swayed by her attorneys to change her intruder story that could go into her appellate issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, but again, very tough to overturn. I started my own practice last year, which has allowed me to focus on what I want to focus on, but not sure how I could help here. JM, any suggestions?

          Like

          • Heather

            Hi kim,

            Thank you for your reply to me. Well, I guess it was a desperate shot in the dark, but nonetheless a worthy one. I wondered, being as attorneys know each other (yes?), (well I know dentists do, the same as hairdressers and probably other professions), you might be able to do something, not sure what ..?
            What I see, (rightly or wrongly), is, that on the one hand you think the verdict correct, (although you say you didn’t want the death penalty) Life in jail, maybe? but now that you have read new information, that possibly your view of the verdict is changing.

            You seem open to possibilities, which I deduced, again,rightly or wrongly, that you are in doubt–reasonable doubt?

            Also Abused has written some pretty powerful stuff, I see you agree. So this is why I reasoned that, as you’re an attorney in the US, perhaps there could be something you could do.

            Like

            • Kim

              Heather, unfortunately I’m unaware of any of my criminal atty contacts living in AZ, but I’ll keep thinking about that. My opinion is based on what was admissible in trial. That being said the other info AA shared has definitely peaked my curiosity. The problem with that info is, similar to all the inflammatory anti Jodi comments from all those on NG, it wasnt given to the jury to reflect upon. I want to look at some of the pre charge info again that may not have been testified about during trial.

              Like

          • Heather

            Kim, I think the jurors would see the intruder’s story as a desperate attempt, seeing that she has already testified that was untrue. That could only be done if the defence found new evidence to support it, I feel.

            Like

          • Kim, I see you as a truly wonderful person. I’m so impressed by the fact that even though we have some differences of opinion regarding this case, we are able to have an intelligent discussion about it, without any mud slinging or anger. As I said before, I was so impressed with the manner in which you presented your view of the evidence you watched from the trial in a factual manner. You are, indeed, a truth seeker.

            By the way, I saw your comment to Heather about Aliza Sherman, and have been reading up on that case. I hadn’t heard of that one when it occurred. It gives me chills. That could have been my story. During my divorce, my ex and his attorney (who reminds me of Juan Martinez in his manner), tried everything they could to discover my new home address where I moved after he shut off water in our house, which I’d been awarded temporarily as part of the order of protection I was granted. The judge ordered me to disclose both my home and work address. I refused to disclose my address to him because I’m in an address confidentiality program in my new state. The judge struck my pleadings and barred me from participating further, granting him a default divorce, which was mostly based on fraud.

            I briefly had an attorney towards the end who, prior to my pleadings being stricken, provided information to the court in the presence of his attorney about my work schedule and the approximate area in which I work. Shortly thereafter, a few days before my scheduled deposition, a man placed his hand under my jacket at a train station as I was going home one evening and implanted a tracking device on me. Of course, the man ran off dumping his hat and shirt in the garbage within the train station, and I could not prove he had any connection to my (then) husband. Was it a coincidence? It could have been, but I don’t think so. I know I was a walking target at that time.

            So, Aliza’s case chills me to the bone. It’s so obvious to me that her husband did it. 22 police calls for domestic disputes. Seriously? 22?

            Like

            • Kim

              AA thank you, I appreciate your comment and I feel the same. It is nice to have a healthy discussion without name calling, that does nothing but breed hatred.
              Thx for reading up on the Aliza Sherman case. Tomorrow for Mother’s Day our community has organized a walk in support of finding justice for her from her home to the Cleveland clinic where she worked. She has 4 children, the youngest is a senior. Did you have the chance to view the surveillance video? The gait of the person makes me think it could be a woman. At her funeral her son stood up and told everyone it is not his father, people are obviously thinking he was involved. It’s so obvious, if her husband was involved it was such a stupid move! No real leads being reported and not much coming from police dept. I’ve given info to some national investigative reporters who I’m hoping will put pressure on police. Had to be someone close to her who knew she would be at her attys office. Thank God you got out of a horrible situation! So frightening.

              Like

              • No, I haven’t seen the surveillance tape. I will look for that. Wow, so they suspect a woman did this, not the husband? Was he having an affair? Could it have been his mistress? Sure, it’s obvious that he was involved and stupid, but violent men are often tragically stupid unfortunately. Look at Drew Peterson, for one example.

                My situation isn’t resolved as yet. When the judge struck my pleadings and barred me from participating because I refused to disclose my current address and work address, he basically got whatever he wanted in the divorce. He did not include the business in the assets and claimed that I had taken funds. He charged his legal fees to my account and made numerous other charges to my account for the business we owned before I realized he had stolen it. As a result, I didn’t even get a 50% share of that account which I would have been entitled to. By not including the business and claiming I took funds, his (un)equitable distribution chart left me owing him $20,000. In addition, he sneaked in sanctions against me that the judge had not previously awarded for having to bring motions and attend hearings to compel me to disclose my address. That total came to $11,000. So, he has a $31,000 judgment against me which, of course, gives him another opportunity to track me down and find me to collect it (as his lawyer threatens), and all he has to do is domesticate the judgment here to Maryland.

                I appealed, but I’m sure you know how long that can take. Maryland filed its own amicus brief in support of my issue that I should not have been ordered to disclose my address while participating in their address confidentiality program. I’m really hoping it was enough to overturn the judgment. But, if they remand the case for trial, I will be in much the same position I was before, unable to afford representation. Going to Florida to represent myself is not an option for me as I believe he would kill me, and since I don’t drive, it would be very unsafe. I realize it’s not standard but I simply prayed for the appellate court to grant me relief by overturning the judgment. I don’t even care about all the assets — even though I bought them all. I just want to be able to live my life in peace.

                Domestic violence is a terrible thing.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA not everyone sees it as a woman but something about it to me and several others think it is. There has to be more video out there, the pice dept seems to be dragging its feet.

                How awful your situation with the courts is! Speaking from personal experience you cannot put a price tag on piece if mind. That’s what I said after my divorce, it cost me a lot financially but the piece of mind was worth it. Stay strong.

                Like

          • Suggestions? It depends. If you want to have a normal life, file this away and don’t do anything. Even if you wanted to do something, she already has counsel in Arizona, maybe contact them but lots of nutcases probably contact them all the time with the notoriety of the case.

            I don’t know. This is a pickle. It’s not my fight. I mean I can blog about it, and it’s become pretty interesting but if it helps your thinking on this I don’t think there’s anything I can do other than what I am doing, which is blogging about it.

            Like

    • Heather

      So, could it be, AA, that after she shot Travis, stabbed him, left, and Dustin came there and slashed his throat, was Dustin a Mormon? The door of the house was always open.
      Could he have walked in at the time of the killing? It would explain why Jodi put herself took the blame for everything, she could have been threatened with the same..

      And another ”could”, could Martinez have blocked Dustin from being a witness? After all he blocked a lot of other evidence that the defense said would have helped Jodi.

      Like

      • Yes, that’s always possible, Heather. It’s also possible that Dustin came there to attack Travis and when he discovered Jodi there, he hit her and then, let her go, making her swear that she would never tell. Dustin was a Mormon then and, of course, the throat slash fits with blood atonement. It’s possible Travis was having an affair with Ashley and Dustin found out about it. It seems very suspicious that Ashley was able to get out of that marriage and then, committed suicide. She and Dustin had no children together which is generally an ongoing source of struggle after divorce from an abuser.

        I’m really not sure if Martinez could have precluded Dustin, but I doubt it was ever brought up. Once Dr. Samuels and Kirk Nurmi persuaded Jodi to go with self defense, instead of “the intruders” story, they didn’t need any other potential killers. Did you see Jodi’s entire post-conviction interview yet? She was very emphatic that the self defense idea was that of Kirk Nurmi, not her idea. In light of JMRJ’s comments about the difficulty of convincing a jury of self defense, I find that rather perturbing.

        Like

        • Heather

          AA I didn’t know Both Dr Samuels and Kirk Nurmi persuaded her to go with self defence. I saw one interview where Jodi said that dying meant freedom, is that the one? It wasn’t very long. I wonder what the defence will do on the 15th, it should be interesting.

          Yes, its worrying about the self defence plea, now I come to think of it I’ve heard somewhere that a self defence plea isn’t easy. Something very wrong here, Jodi must have told Nurmi everything, well as much as she can remember, and they went with SD? I wonder why.

          What happens on the 15th? And after that, I’m not familiar with the procedure, I know its called a sentencing phase, and what happens there? Will they have a new jury? Will they bring in any new evidence ?

          Like

          • Kim

            Heather the interview is about 45 min long, you may have only seen clips so look on YouTube or AZ fox10 website. Wednesday is to determine off aggravating circumstances exist in commission of crime. Same jury, if they all agree there are these circumstances, decides lwop or DP, then I believe judge sentences. AZ is different than Ohio, but I think that’s the process. I haven’t seen all of it yet.

            Like

          • Wow, Dr Samuels made that pretty clear. If you didn’t catch it, neither dd Dr. DeMarte or the jurors in their questioning.

            Like

    • Wow, AA……where did you get this info? That is VERY SUSPICIOUS. After seeing Jodi’s interview where she claims it was intruders…..this just bolsters my suspicions about this.

      I had two friends once who lived across the street from me and the guy was a drug addict and his wife called me because he was threatening her and asked if she could come to my house. I did let her come by and it caused an argument between me and her husband. Three nights later, my apartment was broken into and things stolen. (“things” he knew were there and where they were). (upshot to this story is that I consulted a psychic who told me the man’s name and appearance and it was spot on the same guy, name included. This psychic has since passed away and boy do I wish I could have consulted him again in later years. (he gave me the best “reading” of my deceased parents ever, just blew me away. He was a medium and didn’t charge for his services).

      Like

      • The vast majority of that information is in the police report and Detective Flores’ supplements thereto. Of course, there is no detail there about Ashley committing suicide. Someone on the JAII site discovered that information. There was a great deal of violence surrounding friends of Travis which is interesting. Another wife of one of his friends was badly beaten.

        That’s a sad story of what often happens when someone tries to help a domestic violence victim. Do you know if that woman ever got out of her relationship?

        Like

        • Yes, she did……they did get divorced…..but she continued to see him because they had a child together. He eventually went into rehab, but he fell off after that ….then he went back to rehab, and on and on. He was a very good looking man and had been a lawyer before he became addicted to cocaine. I saw him again about 8 years ago and he seemed to be doing well….but I never challenged him on the burglary to my house because I had no proof other than the psychic and my instinct all along that it was him. Drugs do awful things to good people…..he was essentially a good person unless he was desperately seeking cocaine and did really stupid things. She never admitted to me that he had hit her…..but his violent outbursts seemed to tell the story.

          Like

  21. Hmm JMJR, assuming this is accurate, it seems the defense kind of pushed Jodi into the strategy they used. This might upset you further, sorry. http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/22222919/2013/05/11/arias-told-fox-10-she-has-no-mitigating-factors

    Like

  22. Kim, regarding the phone call hours after: if this was done by someone else, we don’t know if she was still under their control 6 hours later. Maybe he/they raped her. Maybe they hadn’t decided whether they were going to hide the body or leave it there yet – it wasn’t found for 5 days! Maybe they were telling her what to say.

    What’s clear is that this guy Travis had lots of potential enemies and this scenario, which after all was the first thing she said, didn’t get enough attention.

    Like

    • Kim

      JM she drove to Utah that night to meet Ryan burns, another man she had met recently who she seemed to have some interest in and he seemed interested in her. That was her original destination she said. Can’t remember what time she arrived though, Ryan testified to all of that, but she had to be on her way based upon timing. I think she was 12 hrs late & said she fell asleep on the way.

      Like

      • If I’m not mistaken, I believe the phone call to Travis was made much later that night at about 11 or 12 o’clock. Travis was killed at approximately 5:30 based on the photograph time stamps. One of the roommates got home shortly after 6 o’clock and Jodi was no longer there.

        I believe she drove aimlessly for quite some time. She didn’t arrive in Utah to meet with Ryan Burns until the following morning between 10 and 11 o’clock. Others have pointed out that she took a very strange route through the Hoover Dam (where she went through a checkpoint) when there was a more direct and much faster route she could have taken. Mesa to West Jordan, Utah should have been about an 11 hour drive whereas it appears to have taken her 16-17 hours.

        Like

        • There was one other strange part to all of that. The car rental agent testified that the car smelled of cigarette smoke when she returned it after she returned back to California. But she has never smoked. One could explain that by having passengers in the car who smoked while in Utah, but they were all Mormons, and smoking is forbidden.

          Like

        • AA, wtf? A roommate testified that he got home shortly after 6 and somehow noticed that “Jodi wasn’t there” but failed to notice the dead body of his roommate for five days? How is that possible? Who is this roommate?

          Like

          • Yep, JMRJ, one of the many WTF moments in this case. Travis had a master suite slightly separate from the rest of the house, complete with bathroom. And yes, the roommate Enrique (according to the police report) came home shortly after 6 p.m., went to his room, and then, went out again. The other roommate returned approximately 3 hours later. Both roommates came and went over the course of 5 days, often having their girlfriends spend the night, but they did not notice the smell of a decomposing body. Yep, WTF!

            Like

            • I’m not buying that she could get out of there by 6 no matter what, even if she’s guilty and did it by herself. That’s pretty close to impossible, the guy was still alive at 5:30. Do all that and make any effort to clean up and you’re out the door in a half hour? You’d be covered in blood and so on.

              Nope, not really possible. That leads to a lot of questions about the roommates.

              Like

            • Well, then, he either didn’t know that ‘Jodi wasn’t there’ or something else is going on. He might know that he didn’t see Jodi. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t there where he wouldn’t see her.

              BTW I put up another post cause the commenting here might be getting a little unwieldy with all the scrolling you have to do. So if you want to switch the commenting to that post it might be better.

              Like

              • It’s truly bizarre, isn’t it? By the way, the roommate didn’t testify at all, neither of them did. This was all in the police report. One roommate said that he saw Travis on the phone when he got home that day which is impossible because Travis was dead by then. The other roommate claimed he did laundry that same evening. But he didn’t notice blood on the washer or dryer? There is something going on with those roommates.

                Like

      • Well, the likelihood is that all you have to verify the time is her word and his. They could be mistaken, he could just be going along with what she said, and so on.

        Iohno.

        Like

        • Right. But the roommates never took the stand. One of them has been on HLN with either Nancy Grace or “Dr.” Drew. The other roommate, along with the roommate with whom Travis had ‘difficulties’ and who moved out in the middle of the night — never found. I would really like to hear what they had to say.

          In her post-conviction interview, Jodi mentioned a man who had seen her bruises “head to toe” and knew they came from Travis. The defense team neglected to find him. She also claimed there were other photos of her with bruises along with her sisters. None of whom testified. I’m not even sure all of that would have been admissible, but it seems like it could have been. \\

          Something is wrong here. It doesn’t smell right to me.

          Like

        • Ryan Burns testified for the prosecution. There were phone records of when she made the call to him the night before. Also, after she arrived at his house in Utah, they went to a PPL meeting and were with other people. So, the times are supported otherwise.

          Like

          • But the phone call from the night before doesn’t demonstrate how long she was at the crime scene for. And when was the ‘PPL’ meeting, whatever that is?

            I can see she might have been on the road some hours later, but not half an hour later. And when she did leave was anyone with her? Like one of the other men that might have been involved?

            She won’t ever be able to tell you, and even if she did there would be no reason to believe her, unless what she said was confirmed by something else independent of what she said.

            We’re considering the possibility that she was there, she witnessed what other(s) did – which would have been a horrific thing to witness – and then at some later point she was let go. The subsequent few hours are important to account for, and she probably can’t do it.

            So is there some other way? That’s the question on the table.

            Travis is photographed in the shower, alive, at 5:30. There’s a fake phone call to Travis’ phone at about 11(?) from Jodi. Where was she and what were her circumstances at that time? If that question can be answered it should be, and of course no answer that she can give is worth anything.

            What time did she arrive at Ryan’s? What is the evidence for that? How reliable is that evidence?

            When was the ‘PPL’ meeting?

            You seem to know a lot of details, so give!

            Like

            • PPL is PrePaid Legal. It’s a multilevel marketing program, much like Amway, etc. Both Travis and Jodi were independent consultants for PPL, as is Ryan Burns, the roommates and most of the other people Travis knew. It is sort of like having insurance should one require the services of an attorney.

              It’s somewhat ironic that even though Jodi was a consultant for PPL, she did not have an attorney while being interrogated by Detective Flores.

              Jodi made phone calls at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the killing. We have unreliable statements of the roommates that they returned to Travis’s house — one at 6 p.m. and the other at 9 p.m.

              Enrique said was the roommate who got home at 6 p.m. He noticed that the front door was locked which was unusual because Travis always left it unlocked. He also noticed that furniture downstairs had been moved around and that there was a floor cleaner in the middle of the living room. He then hung out in his bedroom until his girlfriend Kim arrived and they left to go to the temple. His girlfriend noticed Travis’s CTR ring and watch on the kitchen counter, which was unusual because Travis always wore them. In the following days, Kim fed Travis’s dog assuming Travis was out of town. However, on the date of the killing, they noticed that the dog was free and loose and there was some sort of gate preventing the dog from going upstairs, which was also unusual.

              Zach is the roommate who got home at 9 p.m. He also noticed the floor cleaner and the moved furniture. In addition, he noticed that the banister felt slick as if it had recently been cleaned.

              Phone records show that Jodi was in Kingman, AZ (which is right on the Nevada border) when she made phone calls to Ryan Burns and Travis that night between 10:30 and 11 p.m. Kingman is 3.5 hours from Mesa.

              She arrived in West Jordan, Utah between 10 and 11 a.m. the next day and met up with Ryan Burns — that was Ryan’s testimony. They went to the PPL meeting at noon and were seen by others — so that’s fairly reliable. Jodi followed Ryan to the meeting in her rental car. She was pulled over by the police because her rear license plate is upside down. She testified that she believed skaters did that while she was in a Starbucks earlier that morning.

              That’s the timeline we know of.

              We know that Travis was still alive at 5:29, and he may have still been alive at 5:32, but he was injured and bleeding profusely by that time. If we believe that Enrique came home at 6 p.m., then Jodi was gone by that time. In order for Jodi to have reached Kingman by 10:30 when she made the phone calls, she would have had to have left Mesa by approximately 7 p.m.

              One possibility, I suppose, is that Jodi shot Travis accidentally, he lunged at her, and she then left. That’s all she clearly recalls. And then, someone else did the stabbing and throat slashing. Or she shot and stabbed him, and then left, but someone else did the throat slashing. With that throat slash being part of the Mormon blood atonement ritual, it makes me curious.

              Like

              • Well, I can believe she left by 7 or 7:30, barely, but we don’t know if she was alone. In fact we don’t know if she might have been accompanied by someone else for another 15-16 hours until she met up with Ryan.

                That’s not based on the roommate who says he came back at 6, that’s based on the phone ping in Kingman, Ariz. And 3.5 hours might easily be reduced to 3 depending on how fast you drive.

                And that’s three plus hours to come up with this plan to call Travis’ phone, either by Jodi or some other person she was with who did the actual killing.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA the physical evidence, her hair mixed with his blood and palm print on wall by where was dragged contradict shot only, I would think.

                Like

              • Yeah, I agree she had to be there through the whole thing. The only question is whether she was by herself or whether there was some other person or persons there. If the latter there’s a whole different scenario. It might be one where she’s a participant, or it might be one where she is not, in which case she is a victim herself, although she lived to tell. I don’t see anyone doing what she is alleged to have done at 5:30 and getting out of there by 6. No freaking way.

                Like

              • Kim

                JM what I don’t get is I don’t see Jodi as the type of person who wouldn’t, knowing her life’s on the line, talk about who else was there. During testimony she testified about a married woman who either Travis was interested in or visa versa. JM asked for her name, Jodi initially said she didn’t want to ruin marriage (paraphrasing) but when asked again immediately and without hesitation gave the name. Again, my perception of her is based upon her media interviews, her testimony, her demeanor during testimony and throughout trial.

                Like

              • Well, Kim, here’s how it might be and maybe you can relate. She has witnessed a gruesome killing of her boyfriend. Maybe she was raped or threatened with rape. She is stunned to the point of apoplexy, terrified for her own life and of course is spared only on the condition that she never tell anyone.

                I think especially if she was raped, she would feel a strong obligation to honor that pact at all costs. After all, he didn’t kill her and he could have. It’s like Stockholm syndrome, only more intense because of the rape.

                But of course this entails all kinds of other problems, like dissociation, which is consistent with her behavior.

                They should have investigated all this years ago, before they even arrested her.

                Like

              • Indeed, JMRJ, and again, the car rental man testified that the car smelled of cigarette smoke, so it’s definitely possible that someone else was in that car.

                Kim, that evidence could also point to Jodi being involved in a struggle with the real killer, I suppose.

                Like

              • AK

                “Kim, that evidence could also point to Jodi being involved in a struggle with the real killer, I suppose”

                Thats a good point. No wonder why you people are lawyers.

                Like

              • Kim, I gather that you do not like Jodi at all, am I right?

                What about this: Jodi was warned to never say a word about the real killer. She was told that if she did, her family would be harmed. Perhaps that message has been repeated to her since that time while she’s been in jail.

                According to Gus Searcy and to a man who posted on the JAII site on May 7 as “Danites Revenge”, there are many people with more information about Travis and this entire situation. But they are afraid to come forward for fear of repercussion. I really think we don’t know all the details.

                Like

              • Kim

                AA of course I don’t know Jodi, what I don’t like about her is all that I have said in my prior posts. I find it such a horribly sad situation. I see she has intelligence, talent, and is an attractive woman.

                Like

              • Indeed, Kim. I really wish she had never met Travis Alexander. Who knows where she would have ended up? It makes me sad.

                Like

  23. Might be better if everyone started commenting on the new post, since they won’t have to scroll through so many other comments. This format doesn’t appear to be all that great for lots of comments.

    Like

  24. AK, I’m going to answer your questions from above on the new post.

    Like

  25. Well, I have not read through every comment on here but I am going to voice my opinion any way! I have found this trial to be absolutely shocking! Juan Martinez is a vile bully! I do not believe he has played by the rules. I am more than sure that he has used: deceitful underhanded tactics, lies, manipulated and probably hidden evidence! He certainly has a huge ego, and an anger problem! Nancy Grace is unbelievable, she isn’t that bright; how did she get through law school? What a nasty piece of work! She has no right to sway public opinion! I am not stating that Jodi is innocent but she deserved a fair trial. We are supposed to live in a developed and civilised world! We are educated; we should have moved on from this behaviour. This has not been a fair trial. It is a trial by the media! If witnesses can not testify because of death threats, what on earth does that say about the American Justice System. There are many comparisons between Medieval England and the Witch Trials within this case! Yes some one lost their life, this is a fact! But the way it has been handled by the media and American society is morally offensive. Just because Jodi committed a crime, it does not condone the behaviour of every body else in this trial, the media and the general public! I am also from England and after watching this trial I am proud to state that I am; this would never happen here.

    Like

    • lissajrobinson

      Amen to that Tanya. I am from Canada. We are very similar to England although we have had some incidences of media “infection” but predominantly it is not a problem. Getting facts incorrectly, yes, but not influencing a trial. I thank our lucky maple leaf (was going to say stars, haha).

      Like

  26. Heather

    John, I Thought I’d seen it ALL.. I thought I was unshockable now., just shows how wrong one can be!! Is this a taste of the jury? No wonder they voted DP.. its positively frightening. An email I received today:

    Hi Anonymous,

    Anonymous has commented on: “Is Jodi Arias a Sociopath?”

    Subject: She DID show a pattern by age 14, according to her parents!
    The writer of this article is analyzing ONLY what came in at trial. The
    Police interviews with BOTH of Jodi’s parents detail her Sociopathic history.
    Her father tells of how they discovered her “other side” when she was age 14
    and they discovered she was growing Marijuana on the roof of their house. Her
    parents called the Police on her. Presumably this criminal record did not
    come in at trial because it was a juvenile offense, and sealed. Father said
    from that point forward (age 14) that they knew she was living a double life
    but that she was very secretive. The mother’s interview with Police is also
    telling. She describes how “strange” her daughter was from a young age, and
    also the mother is in horror at how Jodi acted so ‘normal’ after Travis’
    death. The mother was freaking out in the Police interview room, obviously
    terrified at what a monster she birthed. Also, Jodi stalked and treated every
    boyfriend before Travis like an object. She also was constantly engaged in
    thrill-chasing, high risk sex with all her boyfriends before Travis (which
    again is a big Socio trait). So, yes, she played the “goodie two shoes” role,
    but it was a pile of Sociopath manipulation BS for a LONG LONG TIME before
    Travis Alexander.

    Like

    • Well, I think some of that explains why her parents didn’t get up there to testify, now that I have been reminded that the police interviewed them and elicited damning comments from them. Could have done more harm than good to call them after they were cross-examined. How could they run away from those bizarre comments to the police? You wonder what they were thinking. Well, lawyers would, but it’s always amazing to me how people have such faith and belief in the police, even in a situation like this where they are basically trying to kill your daughter.

      Like

  27. Heather

    In that case, John, we’re ALL Sociopaths because no one was a model teenager!!! LOL

    Like

  28. Heather

    John, don’t you just love the bit about being ”constantly engaged in thrill-chasing, high risk sex with all her boyfriends”

    Ye Gods, she would have been worn out! 😀

    Like

    • Yes, at certain times of my life that type of girl might have sounded very appealing; but there is this rather dramatic downside, isn’t there?

      Like

  29. Heather

    It permeates through the haters’ sites, they love the drama.. its so sick.
    Proves how they’ll stoop to any depths to vilify a woman and get her killed 😦

    Like

  30. Cate Ellington

    In re to Mary Ann Duttons paper on why Battered Womens Syndrome and it’s criteria is an outdated construct, it’s important to understand the totality of that research paper and how taking an opinion from a research paper and trying to make it relevant to the Arias case- is not an appropriate this to do.
    For one Dutton argues that BWS is problematic for defense cases where PTSD is not relevant. Well, we know in THIS case, the defense case claimed PTSD existed. So that issue makes Duttons research irrelevant to the Arias case.
    But IMO, the most important aspect to this whole attempt at trying to discredit Demartes use of Walkers 6 criteria, is a moot point becs it was the DEFENSE and Alyce LaViolette that spent an inordinate amount of time building up the argument that jodi specifically was suffering from BWS and Alyce often referenced Lenore Walkers research as being seminal and critical to her education and approach to cases. They used the specific term BWS over and over again whilst Alyce was on direct. But of course it ws discussed in general terms without getting into the actual CRITERIA Walker uses.
    It wasn’t until the states expert Dr DeMarte began articulating why BWS was not an appropriate identification for Arias in any way and that despite Alyces testimony Arias doesn’t even meet half of the criteria required for a determination she has BWS. that the defense suddenly wanted to destroy the integrity behind what BWS is and it’s definition was laughable. Nobody who watched the trial closely who doesn’t have a vested interest in innocence, missed exactly what Jennifer, and Alyce tried to do with the characterization of Jodi as a battered woman.

    This was a research paper that has obvious merit. But it has no relevance to what happened in the Arias trial given the defenses use and reliance of the term all throughout direct.

    Like

    • Well, hello Cate. It’s been a long time since people were commenting on the whole JA thing around here. Welcome.

      Speaking for myself, I tend to agree that PTSD/BWS was a lousy strategy, as it almost always is, although when the death penalty is on the table there’s the desperation problem for the defense.

      My focus – for what that is worth – was on the proof of the facts of the crime. I don’t buy that JA killed TA at all. I think her original story, which she maintained for about two years, that two other people broke in and killed him had the ring of truth. But anyone at the scene of a horrific murder who survives it has a lot of explaining to do, and the chances are no one is going to believe any explanation given. Just the way it is.

      That being the case I would say that a good investigation under such circumstances is of paramount importance so you don’t wind up charging and convicting another victim. The investigation here was terrible, mentally lazy almost beyond belief. They had JA lying to them early on, never got over it and never looked any further. Presence at crime scene + lying to police = guilty of whatever we want to charge you with. It’s an IQ challenged line of reasoning, but in the Salem witch trial atmosphere will tend to be very effective.

      There’s a very, very good chance she didn’t kill him at all, which is tragic.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo