Jodi Arias Shoe Print Evidence (Updated)

Apparently, according to a (probably biased, but this seems factual) blogger who was following the trial as it happened, there was a shoe print in blood on the floor, and this evidence was never typed or analyzed or otherwise investigated.

This is yet another indication that no significant investigative work was done once they had their man.  It doesn’t matter, they think.  We already know who did it.

You can add the shoeprint to four other items of proof I previously identified for believing that someone else was present when TA was killed.

Unfortunately, if that shoe print belonged to a third party that will probably never be proven at this point.  Ugh.

Update:  I thought I might summarize in this post, in one place, the reasons for believing that someone else may have been involved, and present at the crime scene, and with Jodi Arias in her rental car in the aftermath of the murder, under circumstances suggesting threat or coercion.  Let me know if I’ve left anything out.  Feel free to comment, of course.  That’s what we at Lawyers on Strike are here for, at least this week.

1.  The improbability of a lone woman attacking a larger and more powerful man with a knife.

2. The lack of a criminal record or any other fact from JA’s background that would even suggest the capability of such a savage killing.

3. The odd route she took to her next destination after leaving the murder scene.

4.  The smell of cigarette smoke in the rental car when it was returned when it appears to be undisputed that Jodi didn’t smoke.

5.  There are people who think that a photograph of TA shows a reflection in his eyes of someone else.

6.  There is a shoe print in blood at the scene that was never identified.

7.  Jodi Arias said for a long time that two others were there and did the killing.

8.  Incredibly, with all that the possibility of someone else being there was never investigated by the police, so it’s a completely open question.

Advertisements

133 Comments

Filed under wrongful convictions

133 responses to “Jodi Arias Shoe Print Evidence (Updated)

  1. Heather

    You said it, JMRJ, that’s about the size of it. As the State wants to murder her, why on earth should they investigate? I daresay that Kirks attempts to have it investigated had been thwarted, along with other pieces of evidence we have never seen. Yet, they did speak about the footprint, Martinez did his famous assumption and said it was Jodi’s, well that’s expected, isn’t it, yet more than 5 people entered that house and walked up and down the hall, excluding the police and room mates.

    Like

    • ann dash

      It was determined that it was a foot print of one of his roommates who found the body.

      Like

      • Heather

        Ann, thank you, I hadn’t realised.

        Like

        • heather4u2

          Um, Ann, no, and if they said that it wouldn’t be true. The Footprint was made in Wet Sticky Blood; there wouldn’t be a footprint in blood that had been on the floor for 5 DAYS, dried in the Summer heat of AZ which is Before Anyone found TA’s body.

          Like

      • Okay, first of all, who determined that and when? The body was found 5 days later. Blood would not still be wet enough for a boot to be imprinted at that point — at least, not as far as I know. Please share your source on this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ann, would have a link to anything verifying that? It’s perfectly plausible of course, but I wasn’t able to find anything online that looked legit other than a post on a blog by someone who claimed to have watched some testimony from the prosecution’s experts indicating that they hadn’t determined anything about the print. Any info you have confirming what you’ve said would be appreciated.

        Like

      • heather4u2

        ann dash, Arizona heat in Summer, blood on the floor would have dried after 5 days.
        Who determined it was one of the room mates? JM? And, if it was their print, why didn’t they alert someone Travis was dead? This makes no sense to me. If it was determined to be a man’s shoe print, they KNOW a man was there when Travis died.

        How was it determined to be one of the room mates shoes? Was the said room mate in court on the stand? Nope. Why not? The blood would have had to still be wet for the shoe to make a print on the floor.

        Like

  2. Heather

    typo!! I meant to say excluding police and room mates!

    Like

    • Fixed it. Sure that’s what you meant?

      Anyway, I have to tell you that if Martinez claimed it was JA’s shoeprint without any evidence that it was, that is not cricket. If I were an appellate judge I could see circumstances under which all by itself that little charade would have me voting for a new trial and to refer Mr. Martinez for discipline.

      That’s probably one reason I am not an appellate judge, of course.

      You have to look at this from the defendant’s point of view to appreciate how egregious that is. You’ve been claiming all along that there was someone else there and the prosecution is sitting on evidence that might prove it, so they just don’t do any analysis and then, unbelievably, have the gall to claim that the shoe print is yours during your trial.

      Really, really bad conduct by the prosecutor there.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Heather

        You’re not kidding, John! Yes, Martinez really did say that. Nurmi asked twice for a miss-trial, the judge refused. Martinez had been outside the court–signing .. autographs! Misconduct at its finest. Evidence of him doing this, standing with some woman from HLN and signing a woman’s walking stick.

        The judge obviously didn’t think so and refused Nurmi a miss-trial on those grounds.

        Like

  3. Really? Where was the defense team, if there was a questionable footprint?

    Like

    • I don’t know. Once they decided to go with self defense maybe they decided nothing good could come out of it, but it’s kind of disturbing that no one looked into it. The police should have, certainly.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Heather

        I can only hazzard a guess on that as to why nothing was investigated. Same as JM said it was Jodi’s leg and foot in the photo (the other was on the floor), no investigation came out to say that it wasn’t. In fact JM said, when someone saw something in TA’s eye and the photo had been enlarged by an expert, that all he could see was a ”dog”, and not what it clearly showed, Jodi holding a camera and not a knife.

        Like

        • and she did drop the camera — to pick up the knife.His comment about seeing a dog was facecious. It could have been a dog. It could have been a taco…. No science could ever prove what was seen in that eyeball.

          Like

          • But then why did both sides stipulate that Jodi was not holding a knife in the picture taken from the victim’s left eye? The scientist who presented this usually works for the prosecution and the police.

            Further, he wanted to bring the jury to his lab, where he stated the figure was 10 times clearer. Instead of going to the lab, both sides stipulated that Jodi was not holding a knife……

            There is no proof that Jodi dropped a camera and picked up a knife, nor is their any proof that Travis was stabbed in the shower. It seems very improbable that the kinfe was used first.

            Science proved exactly what was reflected in Travis’ left eye, which had to be the photographer and could not possibly be a dog or a taco. Here agian, Martinez is laughing at science when it goes against his theory.

            Like

          • Oh that is interesting, you were there when she dropped the camera to pick up the knife, I see.. Would you sign to that statement?

            Like

          • Oh that is interesting, you were there when she dropped the camera to pick up the knife, I see.. Would you sign to that statement, Beverly?

            Like

      • Heather

        John, Well, Det, Flores previously lied on oath, so what hope was there, he WAS the police!

        Like

        • Well, ‘lying’, I don’t know. Sometimes people get tunnel vision and ‘confirmation bias’ also comes into play. Not the same thing as lying.

          I did comment somewhere this morning that I thought Flores’s report showed a focus on JA that was too early and based on too little. Then I wondered whether there was something in his experience that might have caused him to go in that direction, like maybe he had a stalker girlfriend himself, so as soon as anyone characterized JA as a stalker he was ready to pounce.

          That would be an interesting line of inquiry.

          Once they caught JA in the lie about not being there they really didn’t focus on anything or anyone else. That’s what the record seems to show.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Heather

            Well John, Flores changed his story and Nurmi caught him out. His excuse was that it was a ”misunderstanding”..re the gunshot, I think, to which Nurmi replied, ”That was a pretty big misunderstanding, wasn’t it?”

            With so much corruption – all JM’s witnesses lying on the stand, evidence hidden, there was no hope for Jodi to have had a fair trial. It was a farce.

            Like

            • and yet, the one who lied more than anyone else from day one til the end was the defendant.

              Liked by 1 person

              • HonestAbe

                Beverly, this is where it becomes obvious that you have fallen into the trap of “Well, Jodi lies so she must be guilty.” Her lies are just a diversion created and spotlighted by Martinez to draw your attention away from evaluating the evidence. If you go through this post and read some of the comments on the evidence, you will see that it really isn’t as concrete as Martinez would lead you to believe. In the sentencing phase, Martinez went out on a limb and said what he thought happened. But, much of it didn’t make sense. For example, Travis is stabbed first in the shower but then Jodi “invites” him get out to go to the sink. He then proceeds to simply stand there and let Jodi hack away at his back while he performs an inventory of the stabs to his chest? That’s outrageous! If she was in a frenzy, she would have ripped him to shreds IN the shower and not let him get out. Plus, if he is fighting for his life, why is she not hit once? As the blade goes in several times, he doesn’t grab her hand and punch her in the face? Come on… Also, remember that early on, HLN produced a medical examiner who said that Travis could certainly been shot first. If you will recall, Kevin Horn chose his words carefully and never was able to say that this was 100% the only explanation. Why didn’t the defense bring in another medical examiner or even use the HLN article to contradict Dr Horn?

                The jury voted on what they “thought,” not a critical evaluation of the evidence. Martinez did a great job using inflection and misdirection to detour the jury and many watching on TV. Top that off with HLN’s After Dark show recreations, their anchors demolishing the character of Jodi, dismissing Travis’ deceptions, and it’s clear to see that Jodi didn’t stand a chance…and neither did justice I am afraid.

                Liked by 1 person

          • They went on Jodi “that early” because Jodi’s name had come out of the mouth of several people and there were no other likely suspects. You act if she was arrested that day. It took another month to gather enough Intel and from that, they were able to finally conclude she was there. You must remember, SHE courted the detective, not the other way around. In fact, she called him on the very first day of the investigation while he was at the crime scene. He had several telephonic interviews with her and she was the one who called him. He pieced that together with other evidence he found. Her hair, her bloody palm print and oh yeah, photographs of her anus and vagina that were time stamped June 4th and THAT is how she became the main suspect.

            Listen to her phone interviews again. She speaks so matter of factly about the death of this guy who she supposedly loves and admires. I will bet you the other friends and family who called be detective weren’t that happy. She made herself a suspect by acting like someone who was guilty of a crime.

            Put yourself in the shoes of the detective. Doesn’t it seem most likely that she is the one who did it? Factor in all of the oddities surrounding her involvement. She just happened to be obsessed with him. He just happened to tell people she was stalking him. She just happened to be on a road trip and dissappeared for an entire day which was the exact day he died. She just happened to have pictures of her and him having sex that day. She just happened to have leave her DNA on the wall. She just happened to have her hair at his place stuck to blood. She just happened to rent a car with no navigation to go on a road trip to unfamiliar places, when she owned a car with Gps! Her grandparents just happened to have had a gun of the same caliber reported stolen…..and so on and so forth. There’s far too many “just happened to be” scenarios for it not to be her. With all of that evidence, would you look further into her or push her to the wayside and start looking at someone else, based off of one solitary piece of evidence? That’s why she became the sole suspect in the case. There were way too many suspicious things surrounding her at the time of his death.

            Like

            • heather4u2

              It is nothing other than what someone like you wants to make of it, and there are plenty like you. A DP case (that should never have been), and you think it right to kill someone on circumstantial evidence, or take away their life by locking them up – because of what you … Think? It’s nothing other than guesswork, along with Martinez telling you she did it, a prosecutor in Arizona who is noted for previous misconduct and violations of the Constitution that strangely some people choose to ignore because being ”tough on crime” is what matters; whether that person is guilty or not is irrelevant when it comes to people voting for them.

              ”She made herself a suspect by acting like someone who was guilty of a crime”

              If she was guilty don’t you think the first thing she would have done was to have got herself a lawyer? That is what people do when they’re guilty, they don’t walk into the police station to help.

              Has the shoe print *real evidence* of someone else being there, not crossed your mind? Don’t you think it should? I notice you say nothing about it, this sticks out like a sore thumb being as the shoe print is what this thread is about.

              Like

            • heather4u2

              ”She made herself a suspect by acting like someone who was guilty of a crime.”
              This shows you lack understanding about FEAR: If you had to kill your attacker in self defence in a DP State, wouldn’t you have FEAR, and from circumstantial evidence, i.e you were there, might it not look to Others like yourself that you went there to murder him?
              When you experience Real Fear, you may do and say things that lead others to Think you did it; is that evidence to say you did when it comes to whether you die by lethal injection or lose your life in prison? No, it isn’t. It’s all conjecture and there is not one scrap of strong evidence in that, thus being room for Doubt.

              There is so much in the way of understanding about this case that you lack.

              Have you never heard of corrupt detectives, judges, ME’s and prosecutors before? They are Rife in Death Penalty States.

              Like

    • ann dash

      Exactly. If the DEFENSE did not bring in that “alleged” evidence, it is not the prosecutor’s fault. It was a roommate’s foot print anyway.

      Like

      • Once the defense opted to go with self-defense, they couldn’t bring in that evidence of a footprint. It would have been deemed irrelevant. What we’ve been talking about is why the defense didn’t go with some other strategies that there is plenty of reason to believe could have been successful.

        Like

      • bill

        If the blood was wet I could understand a foot print by the housemate. However 5 days later that blood was dried and no one could have made a foot print in blood at that stage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • heather4u2

        Never proven.

        Like

      • heather4u2

        ” It was a roommate’s foot print anyway.” ann dash and You know this how? Because JM told you, the man who wanted her dead?

        And yes, I agree the Defence should have brought in the evidence, but you are forgetting – that JM HID evidence – the Defence argued with Martinez Before the trial that he wanted all the evidence in – JM said NO.

        Like

    • Well, they weren’t on the case yet and Jodi was still in CA. I think it would be up to the police to investigate it.

      Like

    • HonestAbe

      It’s easy to armchair quarterback the defense but many things have been let go. It could be that Martinez has sucked them into his lair as well. Why wasn’t another medical examiner brought in to refute the testimony of Dr. Horn. In the following link you will see another theory that indicates Travis could very well have been stabbed first. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander. I could go on and on but some of the same arguments I would make were covered earlier in this site.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Heather

    JMJR, John, We have an undesirable on here, please would you do the necessary, thanks!

    Like

  5. If I have time today, I am going to re-listen to the crime scene prosecution experts to see if I can find any reference to the shoe print, and then, I will post my findings here.

    Like

    • Heather

      AA I don’t think they should have gone with self defence, its so limiting and this case is far from that, as we know. Oh what a mess.

      Can they Really implement this verdict at this charade of a trial when so much is online about corruption?

      Will anyone hear the tapes of the trial when the judge was biased and Martinez was yelling at witnesses? Could it voted a mistrial?

      Will there be a new jury regardless?

      Is there any hope of anything for Jodi?

      I’m doubting that she killed him at all now.

      What would be happening behind closed doors in the courtroom?

      Like

      • I don’t know that they would have won with “third party did it” but they sure lost with self-defense, so I guess it’s easy to second guess them now.

        I’ll try to answer your questions to the best of my recollection and hope someone will correct me if I’m not 100% correct:

        Yes, they will proceed to sentencing based on this verdict at this time, unless some new evidence comes up.

        In the first stages of the various types of appeals available to Jodi, no, the appellate court will not hear the trial tapes. They will read the trial transcripts, however, if the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in that regard is raised. And there may be some support for the way witnesses were treated under prosecutorial misconduct in AZ case law, but I only took a peremptory glance through a few appellate decisions, and would really need to research that further. There may be other grounds based on changing the sequence, however. If Jodi is sentenced to execution, this would be an automatic appeal to the AZ Supreme Court. Otherwise, it would be to an intermediary appellate court, with the possibility of appeal to the AZ Supreme Court by writ of certoriari, if they grant it. From there, it could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, if they grant it, but it’s discretionary.

        If Jodi subsequently files for post-conviction relief (PCR – typically, the second type of appeal available), it would almost always be before the trial judge. Assuming she granted a hearing (probably likely if Jodi is sentenced to execution), she has already heard the prosecution during the trial so she would most likely not grant hearing them again. Most likely, PCR relief would be to seek sentence modification and/or for ineffective assistance of counsel. There may be some grounds under the latter. PCR can be appealed to the intermediary court of appeals. Then, it can be appealed further, if granted, as described above — also discretionary.

        Another avenue would be federal habeas corpus, which is basically a “last ditch” attempt after all other appeals processes have been exhausted. New evidence can be considered during this process — unlike in other appeals processes — but this involves mainly identifying whether due process was followed. A hearing may or may not be granted. This can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals and, sometimes, the US Supreme Court (which is again discretionary).

        Unless the trial is remanded back to the trial court on appeal for a new trial, there will not be a new jury, no.

        I’m assuming most of what is occurring behind closed doors now is post-trial motions.

        Like

        • Whoa, AA, pretty good! I thought you were a social worker, not a lawyer.

          Like

          • No, I’ve never been a social worker. Kim was though prior to becoming an attorney. I attended law school many years ago and have worked for law firms for much of my life.

            Like

        • Heather

          Thanks AA, A lot to take in. What post trial motions would they be, any idea?

          Like

          • I’m just guessing here, Heather, but I would imagine the defense filed a motion to set aside the verdict and perhaps an accompanying brief in support thereof. They may have alleged there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. I believe I read somewhere that they filed a motion to motion requesting victim impact statements be submitted by videotape. That would be the Alexander family’s victim impact statements which they are allowed to make as surviving family. I believe that was denied. There may be motions to preclude various evidence from being used during the current phase to determine the sentence aggravator of cruelty.

            Those would be a few examples, but there could be many others. Most of these are filed without hopes of being granted, but to preserve issues on appeal. Any issues not preserved in the record can not (usually, although there are certain possibilities) be raised on appeal. Once the online docket is updated, I can possibly explain more.

            Like

            • Heather

              Gosh, AA its all a bit over my head all this and I’m so upset this has gone on for so long – it wouldn’t happen here. Tonights hearing left me in tears, looking at Jodi crying was just too much for me.

              Like

              • It is very complex, Heather. Of course, according to one other poster here, “anyone” should be able to understand it perfectly. Sorry, but I’m still laughing at that one. I’m all but completely ignorant of the appellate process in the UK; however, I know that our system was based on the common law, and therefore, assume it’s quite similar. I couldn’t bring myself to watch the proceedings today, as of yet.

                Like

              • Heather

                AA yes it IS funny how so many people won’t get past the injuries and say its a simple case, blah, blah blah. I only watched the first part of the hearing, couldn’t cope with the next so I didn’t watch it. Luckily my neighbour came in and gave me a hug as I was in a bit of a state, it was all too much to watch more with Jodi crying, terrible, shocking that these people can put her though all this, they’re heartless animals.
                As my neighbour said, it would have been dealt with much quicker here, and when I told him she had already spent the past 5 years in jail he could hardly believe it. Told me it was obvious (which it is) that this wasn’t a premeditated murder and she should get a lesser sentence, minus time served and that he thought it was monstrous that the State were paying so much money to drag it out and put her through it. All totally unnecessary. .

                Like

      • She has been convicted of 1st degree murder already. That cannot be changed unless she wins at appeal. She will definitely make a motion based on ineffective counsel and look for new lawyers. The new jury is strictly for the penalty phase. Nothing changes the guilty verdict. New jury decides life or death. If they deadlock, judge decides life or natural life (without ever getting out). The only hope is appeal which usually is not successful. Oh, she killed him. There might be more to the story than meets the eye, but she CONFESSED… Why would she do that if she didn’t kill him at all? Doesn’t make sense.

        Like

  6. WhiteTrashGal

    I see. So Jodi admits being there & committing this crime of brutal murder. Incontrovertible evidence supports this, as well as that she planned it for days, if not weeks. But you all want to have the guilty verdict thrown out because Jodi–who WAS THERE–won’t satisfy your curiosity about one footprint which could belong to a host of people, none of whom had anything to do with the crime?

    And you think that is justice? Forget Travis’s family going through all of this again, just because you can make an argument it’s not a perfect investigation or trial? (As if there ever is a perfect investigation and trial?)

    Which reminds me of my favorite lawyer jokes….

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, I agree she was there, there is ample reason to believe she is guilty, but there is some reason to believe she is not guilty and a lot of things weren’t looked into. That’s what is truly non-debatable, and under the circumstances that is tragic.

      Feel free to look around and read – mainly comments here and a couple other posts for this subject. It’s been very busy the last few days.

      Like

      • WhiteTrashGal

        Your argument is there is “ample reason,” which the jury found: guilty of pre-meditated murder “beyond a reasonable doubt.” “Some reason” in the context you wrote would therefore mean you can find little reason to cobble together the argument there might have been this or that, based on an unrealistic standard of perfection, it follows.

        Maybe space aliens did it and put Jodi in her fog, but I hope Travis’s family never has to hear the slander and lies of Jodi Arias, his actual murderer, defended in court again. That would be truly unjust.

        Just my opinion, of course.

        Like

        • But Travis’s family had nothing to do with him for several years before he was killed. What about the campaigns launched by one of them against witnesses such as Alyce LaViolette to effectively end her career, and to establish a law whereby defendants in self-defense trials are not allowed to discuss the relevant aspects of a murder victim’s life? Travis’s sister, Tanisha, was barred from chamber conferences for promoting and recruiting to the campaign about Alyce.

          Like

        • I don’t agree that these are “little” reasons. And it’s far from demanding perfection to point out that there were promising alternative scenarios that weren’t investigated before they pointed the finger and started the freight train rolling. I don’t see how it benefits Travis’ family to convict the wrong person, or convict only one of two or more people who might be guilty, and which might have been avoided if known avenues of inquiry were traveled instead of blocked off.

          And I don’t see much reason for celebration when you have a terrible crime and someone adjudged guilty of it. These are young people who should have had a better lot in life. Even if one or both of them brought things on themselves it’s still terribly sad.

          Like

          • WhiteTrashGal

            Thanks for reponses. Clearly you’ve all sniffed out the Big Conspiracy, so no point in wasting our time arguing further.

            Like

    • Heather

      Well, let me see now.. we have SAINT TRAVIS.. so Jodi HAS to be the EVIL one..

      There, better, whitetrash?

      Like

      • WhiteTrashGal

        No, not better. There is no law of which I am aware which supports murder because the victim is not a saint. If there is, please alert me to it and I’ll be on the next plane out before others notice I’m in line for being legally murdered for my bad character. Yikes! =O

        Like

        • HonestAbe

          I can sense that you are a “Justice For Travis” fan and that’s OK but if that’s so and there is a chance that Jodi didn’t “murder” him, wouldn’t you want to know? Remember, we need to throw Jodi’s comments out entirely and look at the evidence objectively. One thing to consider is that this case has gained nationwide attention. Since the bullets in the stolen gun were different than what was found in Travis, where were they purchased and why has no one come forward saying they sold bullets to Jodi? I made some arguments against the other so-called compelling evidence earlier as has others. Please check them out. The lack of investigation of the foot print and the failure to check the other shower for blood shows that the investigators and Martinez rushed to judgement. Also, remember that Martinez is paid to put people in jail, not to find the truth. I once sat down with a judge and asked him about his concern over his rulings. He said he didn’t sweat them too much because that is why we have an appellate court.

          Like

          • Abe, if you start thinking through how a 3rd party might have done this with JA there but not involved, and yet decided to spare her, you can come up with some ideas about what type of person that is:

            https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/re-thinking-jodi-arias/#comment-3931

            And isn’t it significant that there have been two electronic communications that I know of – one an anonymous email to former TA g/f “Lisa” that is noted in the Flores investigation report, the other being an anonymous comment over on the JAII site that AA alluded to – that are consistent with such a personality?

            Briefly, you’re looking at someone who is a proficient killer, who feels morally justified in what he did, and who is capable of virtuous, merciful behavior as well as brutal killing. I don’t want to pick on Mormons, but that group or some offshoot of it would be a good place to look.

            Like

            • HonestAbe

              I’ll have to look for that comment on the JAII site but you are looking at this from a all perspectives which is more than anyone else related with the case has done. Clearly Travis’ conduct was not in line with the Mormon teachings as I heard in the trial. Also, if he was having financial problems, I could see him going back to his parents’ bad habits and getting involved with the sale of drugs. There are definitely some drug problems in the Mesa area and drug hits are not that unusual.

              A professional hit might have resulted in the sparing of Jodi but typically they are in and out more quickly. For example, my friend’s father was involved in a very lucrative bookie business in Chicago. Unfortunately, he didn’t pay his street dues to the “boys” who eventually put a hit out on him. As it turns out, they followed him to a pizzeria on Halloween and when he had settled in thinking he wasn’t followed, they pulled to the curb, got out and entered. The two men were wearing masks and when my friends father saw then he tried to get up but one of them pushed him back and fired a carbine into his chest. The other came over with a double-barrel shotgun, put it to his neck and fired. Naturally, there were others there but the two simply waved their guns at them, left, and drove away. Very sad because there were four kids who were orphaned as my friend’s parents were divorced. Initially, I thought about this but he was stabbed too many times. It’s almost as if someone was either in a frenzy or trying to send a message. I like your theory.

              I am not surprised that they abandoned the other people theory but I am really surprised that they didn’t come up with a likely scenario of how it could have happened if she did defend herself. At the very least, the defense didn’t jump all over Martinez’s chain of events which were ridiculous to say the least.

              You have me thinking JMRM, you have me thinking.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Heather

                HonestAbe, A very good place to have a look at is Occupy HLN. There Jason Weber tells it how it is (and you don’t have to look at all the comments that will take forever on the JAII site!!)

                Like

              • bill

                I never considered drugs until just now. Tanisha and Denis were involved with controlled substances both before and after Travis death. Is there any way to investigate Travis et al financial records to see if things do not add up?
                There was that drug cartel decapitation that gave murder 2 in Az in the same week that Jodi got Murder 1.
                A lot of people are aware and frightened of the cartels.

                Like

              • Bill, Tanisha, Dennis and Allie — at the VERY least, all have lengthy criminal records for drugs. (JMRJ, these are the siblings of Travis, in case you don’t know.)

                Liked by 1 person

              • That’s a rather startling fact. Nothing to see or investigate there. Ugh.

                Like

              • Another interesting fact, JMRJ, is that the Alexander siblings apparently had a habit of using one another’s identities when arrested for various crimes. Tanisha used her sister Allie’s identity. And, if it’s actually true, Gary or Dennis used Travis’s identity for burglary and domestic violence charges. The record was never corrected, but some news media or another pulled the mug shot, and it was not Travis, but his brother. This came out as an aside in the media during the trial when someone decided to look up Travis’s criminal record and astonishingly enough found one which included domestic violence!

                That raises yet another possibility though, doesn’t it? Since the siblings all had drug charges at some point in their lives (Tanisha’s record has been clean for about 10 years, but Dennis appears to have more recent charges) and since throat slashing is often a characteristic of drug-related killing, and Dennis used Travis’s name in a burglary charge, could this have been a case of mistaken identity on the killers’ part? (I.e., Dennis owed someone some cash which he hadn’t paid, or owed someone a favour, but they thought his name was Travis and went to the house to kill him, assuming he’d be alone — and there’s Jodi.)

                Liked by 1 person

              • AA, of course it is a possibility. And I completely agree that the throat slashing coup de grace is associated with drug related killings. The small caliber pistol might have been more of a backup because maybe there was a concern about neighbors or roommates hearing a gunshot. I don’t know about .25’s but .22 pistols don’t make a real loud noise.

                It also wouldn’t be the first time that a drug killing involved a “home invasion” where the perpetrators are expecting to find their target home alone but turns out he isn’t. Often they just kill whoever else is there, too because of the witness problem, but she might have talked her way out of it.

                Plus, raping her fits in with this scenario pretty well. These would be the kind of killers most likely to do that while they were at it.

                I am just astonished that no one went down this road, along with, oh, a dozen others before even making an arrest.

                Like

    • Incontrovertible means that it cannot be denied or disputed. Not only was a defense put on in order to dispute the “evidence” but many of us here and on other websites have also, after thinking through everything logically, found many ways to dispute the evidence. Therefore, it’s not incontrovertible, sorry.

      How do you know that the footprint was of a person who had nothing to do with the crime? Why is there a footprint in blood when the body was not discovered for 5 days — far more than long enough for the blood to thoroughly dry? Can you supply incontrovertible evidence that it was, in fact, the footprint of someone who had nothing to do with the crime? If so, please share.

      Liked by 1 person

    • One other little nitpick, WhiteTrashGirl (although I honestly don’t like referring to anyone by that handle), Jodi admitted to being there and admitted to killing Travis in self defense (which is justifiable homicide). She didn’t admit to committing murder — at least, not yet, anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WhiteTrashGal

        Jodi also said she wasn’t there. Then she later said ninjas did it. Then she lied under oath. Maybe you missed that?

        If you are determined to base your belief on the word of Jodi, then there’s no point in debating this further.

        Like

        • I have said specifically many times that I wouldn’t base anything on the word of Jodi, including her claims of having killed TA.

          Like

        • You know, you can twist this up if you want to to make it seem as if Jodi told one lie after another, but that’s not what happened. But the truth is this, Jodi said she wasn’t there at all when she first spoke to Detective Flores on the phone the day after Travis’s death. Could that not have occurred from fear? Have you ever been afraid? Couldn’t it also be denial? It’s very difficult to imagine having been involved to any degree in such a terrible event, particularly when someone you love died. The next time Flores spoke with her by phone, she said that perhaps she should consult with an attorney before making a statement. Flores then arrested her in CA approximately 5 weeks while she was held in a police station all day. She said she was not there, but asked to see the photos of the day, perhaps because she couldn’t remember anything of the day at all.

          Jodi never said two “ninjas” did it. That was a phrase that originated on the Nancy Grace show where you may have picked it up. She said two masked intruders killed Travis. She held onto that story for approximately two years, even giving television interviews about it. That may actually be the true story of what happened, or the closest version to the actual events we will ever hear.

          According to Dr. Samuels’ testimony, both he and Kirk Nurmi gently persuaded Jodi to change her story to one in which she killed Travis. Somewhat coincident with this event, a woman named Ashley Reed, who was friends with both Travis and Jodi, killed herself in what may appear to be suspicious. She killed herself with a gun — not typical for a woman. And the trajectory of the bullet was also not typical for a suicide.

          Let’s backtrack a little. The day after Travis’s body was found, this same woman, Ashley Reed phoned in an anonymous tip to the police that her estranged husband, Dustin Thompson was involved in Travis’s murder. Ashley stated that Dustin had been acting strangely leading up to and around the time of Travis’s death. Ashley and Travis had been close for some time during her marriage. Dustin had a violent criminal history, and by that time, Ashley had a restraining order/order of protection against him as he had also been violent towards her. Ashley and Dustin’s house was in foreclosure. They were beginning divorce proceedings. Ashley had talked to Travis about the possibility of moving in with him. Travis thought it would look improper. Ashley moved out shortly before Travis was killed. The police interviewed Ashley twice after her tip, but they did not interview Dustin at all. About a year and a half later, Ashley, a woman without children, who seemed otherwise happy (per reports of friends and family — if they’re legitimate), with her divorce from Dustin complete, then kills herself in a suspicious manner. Dustin later ended up in prison for another crime.

          Doesn’t this strike you as the least bit odd, assuming you’re a reasonable person capable of thinking for yourself?

          Aside from all of that, Lisa, one of Travis’s other girlfriends, gave the police a tip to follow up on Travis’s old roommates. In particular, she mentioned a John Hepworth who Travis had disagreements with, and who had moved out in the middle of the night without telling Travis during the time Lisa and Travis dated. The police never followed up.

          Meanwhile, there’s a footprint of a boot in the blood of the crime scene discovered 5 days (allegedly) after Travis was killed which was also never investigated. You can be sure that if that footprint fit Jodi, Martinez would have brought it up during the trial.

          Then, there’s a report from one of the psychologists who dropped out as an expert due to cancer, who said Jodi claimed Travis had sexual experience with children — in particular, that he had fondled two little boys. It also says that he told a bishop about his problem, but not his own bishop. Now, this is all Jodi’s words to Dr. Karp, which you obviously do not believe, and that’s fine, you don’t have to. I’m just asking you to consider the possibilities.

          Isn’t it possible that there was someone else there who might have killed Travis but Jodi was warned not to tell about it. She stuck to the story of “I wasn’t there” initially in fear. Then, told the story of the intruders, without identifying them. Later, when Ashley died suspiciously, Jodi changed her story to self defense rather than implicating someone else? You don’t have to believe it. I’m just asking you to ponder on it for a moment.

          Jodi doesn’t remember anything beyond the gun going off and Travis lunging at her. So, we don’t have the entire story. If she killed Travis in self defense or in cold blood, and they were the only persons there, then the only other person who could tell us what actually happened would be Travis. But he’s dead.

          If Jodi murdered Travis in cold blood, it begs the question as to why she didn’t kill him when he was sleeping or even after sex. He was naked then also, and very vulnerable. Why wait until he was in the shower when he could fight back? If she intended to shoot him, why bring a weak .25 caliber gun? On top of that, the gun stolen from her grandparents was loaded with hollow point bullets, per the police report of that event. Why did she choose to buy different bullets which do far less damage than hollow points would have? But the prosecution’s theory is that she first stabbed him, then made rather shallow stabs at his back and the back of his head, then slit his throat, and finally shot him. Why would a small slender woman think she could stab a strong larger man while he was looking right at her?

          There are so many questions here that remain unanswered. For me, the prosecution’s theory doesn’t make sense at all. Perhaps it does for you, but you may not have had all the information I just presented prior to this moment in time. If you didn’t, again, I ask you to just consider it for a moment.

          Like

          • HonestAbe

            Excellent point on the bullets that I wasn’t even aware of! Also, when she did go to actually buy a gun for a camping trip, she purchased a 9mm.

            Like

        • Heather

          A question for you, whiteTrashGal, when did you last kill someone?

          For until you have, you cannot just pass it off simplisticly with saying she lied. Do You know what state you’d be in having just had to kill someone to save your life?. Yes, she did initially lie, that is common knowledge that Jodi has admitted to, but, lying on the stand under oath ? No, she did not.

          I agree whitetrashgal, that if you are going to refuse to look at any mitigating circumstances or anything surrounding this case, there’s no point; you don’t want to debate – to you its cut and dried.

          You might want to ponder on the words, ”There but for the Grace of God, go I,” when you’re next on your way to church.

          Like

        • Heather

          Of course, WhiteTrash, if you are going to insist on being closedminded, no, I agree with you. .
          The ONLY good opinion is an informed one, BUT, you have made up your mind Not to see anything else.

          FYI Jodi did not lie under oath.
          You seem determined to ONLY see a small part of the picture–go to Occupy HLN and you might learn a lot.

          Like

    • heather4u2

      A Shoe print made in Wet Sticky Blood not part of the CRIME???? It Should tell anyone that someone else was there, and by the SIZE of that Shoe Print it belonged to a man. Travis did not wear his shoes in the shower, nor would he be naked wearing just his shoes and be able to stand making a Shoe print in his own blood! 🙂

      Like

  7. Kim, here’s the best image we have of the shoe print. SJ of the JAII site gave me his permission to share it with you here.

    Also, this is the map/graphic used in court to demonstrate where the print was. It’s perfectly positioned for someone to have seen what was in the shower. Interesting?

    Like

  8. GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

    Basically you are arguing that the state must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ANYONE else in the state of Arizona could NOT have killed Travis before you believe they can say that Jodi did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite forensic evidence, Jodi’s admission, the mountainous circumstantial evidence that exists of her attempting to cover her tracks on her trip to Mesa and the May 26 2008 text message from Travis to Jodi in which he calls her a sociopath and says he WILL be letting her family and everyone they know -know all about her evil ways. This idea that there is “ample evidence” that Jodi did NOT commit Travis’ murder must then mean that you agree with me that even in the post-verdict interview Jodi continues to lie when she states she was forced to kill Travis becs he attacked her. Because after everything she is still maintaining this idea that she was there and there alone and that she was forced to kill him becs he was a violent sexual deviant. Even though there were obviously no bruises or any obvious injuries on her the day after the murder because Ryan Burns would have seen them. (With the exception of the finger injury -which if you go back and listen to testimony when Juan was doing cross and she was on the stand and he asked her about any injuries she sustained that day, she forgot for a moment and said “well, there was my finger injury”..the one statement consistent with what she first told Detective Flores she sustained on that day except it was from the intruders NOT Travis that hurt her finger. Her defense QUICKLY tried to cover up that comment on the stand but the jury heard it. You are basically saying that you do not buy into her own defense strategy (just as I don’t) but that somehow u believe that some blogs out there with people’s guesses about what COULD have happened add up to “ample evidence”.

    Jodi tells a 48 hour interviewer that one of the intruders somehow got her a message in to jail warning her that she better shut up. By this time however she had already TOLD the detectives and was TELLING the public the intruder story. So what does she do with this “mystery message” from the intruder? Rather than KEEP it and use it to PROVE her story is true…she THROWS it away. Big sigh.

    1. Jodi Arias was not this tiny petite girl u want to imagine herself as and was quite fit. Travis may have been stocky but he was not tall and when someone is in a shower, wet and naked and sitting down, this puts anyone in a vulnerable position against a knife with a long blade. This argument has never ever equated to anything when put into HONEST context.

    2. Lack of criminal record? So what? She did have a record of emotional outbursts and herself admits to angry and violent outbursts of breaking windows and kicking in doors and kicking her pet dog so badly he ran away and never came back home.

    3. Odd route? Explain. She had just killed someone and had to figure out her next step and get rid of murder weapons and bloody clothes.

    4. Smell of cigarette smoke? It was a RENT A CAR. Rent A Car’s sometimes STINK Also, Jodi had other people IN that car in Utah. Leslie Udy. How do u know whether Leslie didnt smoke? Point is myriad reasons for this one very very nebulous point. THIS is “ample evidence”?

    5. Reflection seen in Travis eye. This is blogger talk and nothing more. The forensic dud the defense brought in only stated JODI was in reflection.

    6. Blood shoe print. NO, blood would NOT necessarily been completely dry by that time. People DID go into Travis’ room and thats how he ws discovered. This was discussed in court and is yet another nebulous point. Blogger talk does not equate as “evidence”.

    7. Jodi said intruders did it. Jodi said a lot of things. She also said “Travis was not the TYPE to own a GUN”. What is yr point?

    8. Police never investigated someone else. This again is silly. The police DID rule out all roommates and interviewed many people and in fact its clear that Flores had some unwillingness early on to just leap to Jodi becs of Travis’ friends statements and I believe he really DID believe she had help initially. He did not interview with her until 7/15 officially. That is more than 30 days after Travis’ body was found. Bloggers say Flores did not look at anything but Jodi. Really? What then was he doing for first 30+ days then?

    I am surprised that you decide to take some bloggers commentary and elevate their “theories” to the status of “evidence”.

    Her attorneys are frustrated beyond belief with their client and her arrogance and insistence at not listening to their advice. They KNEW the public and the jury had dismissed entirely her allegations of Travis’ pedophilia and DViolence. They needed time to consider how best to go about trying to save her life. What does the defendant do? Thinks SHE knows best and goes on TV (you know the ones YOU all blame for poor Jodi’s situation) and decides to tell the world she is still this sad misunderstood victim and now its also her attorneys fault for not calling Matt McCartney to the stand. The one they were bound by candor to the tribunal NOT to call becs they knew there ws a possibility he would lie AND that Martinez would have had an absolute field day becs of the lies that already are documented surrounding this particular witness. But it doesnt stop there. She claims it ws their fault she took the stand too. I do not believe THAT for one single second. Arias craves the ability to tell her story. This is one out of control human being who perfectly fits the descriptor of a sociopath – but NOT a very high functioning one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Guilty”, thanks for the comment. You might not have seen that I responded to commenter JLC concerning much of what is in your comment here, so to avoid duplicating work here’s a link to that response:

      https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/re-thinking-jodi-arias/#comment-3896

      Now, you make some good arguments beyond that worth addressing, I think. First, I had not heard about the May 26th text message from TA to JA. If you are arguing that that is fairly proximate to the murder date and provides Jodi with a motive, I’ll agree. But you’ll have to agree that others also had a motive. And if any of those persons had a history of violence, that would make them more likely suspects, assuming you could place them at the scene at the time. But since no one tried to place anyone else with a motive or even without one at the scene, we’re just left with this big hole. Motive is kind of an important piece of a puzzle like this, but ordinarily lots of people have motive or some arguable motive, or some grudge. This is something you should concede, unless you just want to be polemical.

      I do agree that Jodi’s account at trial is probably not the truth, not that it’s necessarily a “lie” as in an intentional falsehood. I think it is somewhat likely that she is hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with what has been going on around her and what has been happening to her for the last 5 years, but in any case I attach very little evidentiary significance to what she says, under oath or no, to police or no, and even to her attorneys.

      I think it is also somewhat likely that she felt badgered into the self defense claim, possibly by her own attorneys. And she may be pliable enough to go along, but probably wouldn’t do a very good job pulling it off. Not to mention, as I have said many times now, the coup de grace to the throat more or less precludes a viable self defense argument.

      How you can think the fact that she had no significant bruises or injuries the day after the murder somehow implies she stabbed a man to death, a man who by all accounts fought for his life, instead of raising serious questions about that scenario is beyond me.

      On the 48 hours thing, she might have been telling the “intruders” story, but she hadn’t identified them or described them. As I have indicated many times, I don’t think it matters all that much what she says. I wouldn’t think the intruders thing was a viable scenario myself unless there was independent evidence that also at least suggested it, and of course there is.

      On the “odd route” objection: why did she have to “figure out” where she was going when she pre-meditated and meticulously planned the whole thing? I thought going to Ryan’s place had been previously arranged, but I could be mistaken about that.

      Yes, there are other plausible explanations for the cigarette smell. There are also other plausible explanations for gas cans and a cell phone not being on. Why do your inferences only favor guilt?

      The bloody shoe print? Other explanations do not matter. It should have been positively identified, it was inexcusable for the police not to have done that. The fact that there’s even an argument about it is their fault, and legally speaking the laws of evidence dictate that the inference goes against them – spoiling evidence entitles the other party to a jury instruction that they can infer that the spoiling party spoiled it because it would hurt their case.

      Assuming that your basis for claiming that Flores was real, real open-minded until evidence convinced him that JA was the only one involved is Flores’s self-serving testimony at trial, his contemporaneous report (which can be found online and is far more reliable on that point) tells a different story: he never seriously considered anything after he determined that JA had lied to him about being there, because there are no notes indicating that he did.

      I don’t know anything about the Matt McCartney stuff. If you have the time to fill me in on what’s going on there I would appreciate it.

      Like

      • Matt McCartney was an old boyfriend of Jodi (she was with him for about 2 years before dating Darryl Brewer — there was a 14 or 15 month gap between him and Darryl) who she remained very good friends with. She visited him and hung out with him during the infamous road trip from CA to AZ to UT. Matt made the following comments on JAII on January 3:

        “Take a look at her permanently deformed hand, where he broke her finger in one of his many angry outbursts.

        Q. Why wasn’t it set?
        A. She didn’t go to the hospital that’s why. She was protecting him.

        Q. Why didn’t she go to the hospital???
        A. Because a report would be made that could lead back to him and he knew it.
        Jodi is an artist. Her hands are a critical element in her life. Not only is she a photographer, she is also a painter.

        I personally witnessed the purple finger shaped bruises on her neck. She originally claimed was from a seat belt. Later, after much debate, she admitted they were from him. She assured me that: “He is a good man” and “He didn’t mean it”.

        In one of our many conversations, I asked her why she wouldn’t “Just leave him.”
        She said: “I can’t leave him, you don’t understand, I’ve tried. He wont let me!” She refused to elaborate.

        I was Jodi’s boyfriend for around two years and in that time, she wouldn’t so much as squish a bug. I caught her on many occasions, fishing bugs out of the tub, so they wouldn’t get washed down the drain. She had this crazy neurotic cat, that would flip out and attack her for no reason and she didn’t so much as swat it. Jodi is NOT a violent person!

        When we ended our relationship, I was living and working at a distance. During that period, I began spending time with a colleague. One of my douche bag coworkers decided to “inform” her. There was lots of crying, many talks and a few letters. She was NEVER VIOLENT in any way. We remained friends and since then, she had a few other relationships ending with Travis. I personally know the man she was with before Travis. He and Jodi maintained a friendly relationship after they parted. He also had NO issues with violence. So why now? What changed?

        Before Jodi was arrested we would talk on a regular basis. I am one of her longest lasting friends and former lovers. I could be a important character witness. At one point, I asked Jodi to leave me out of this situation, so as not draw attention to myself or my new family and since then, she has.

        Her life is on the line. She could get the death penalty. Yet she’s made it a point not to involve me.
        Why? Because I asked her not to….

        That is the kind of person Jodi is!”

        “Unfortunately, I live quite a few states away and cannot afford to fly back and forth. I did speak with her previous attorneys, at that time Jodi was making some bad decisions in her case. It was then that I requested not to be “dragged” into it.”

        “Jason, I like how direct you are. What am I?

        1. I am a man with a family who comes first. Yes even before Jodi.
        Your right Jason they will pay for the plane ticket but nothing else. My job may not be waiting for me when I get back. My first obligation is to my family.

        2. I was asked if I would lie for Jodi. I said yes. So yes, that makes a me liar. That’s probably why they haven’t called me.”

        “Jason as I have spoke with her attorneys and investigators. Unfortunately at that time Jodi was not making the best decisions for her case. There are things I deliberately didn’t share. So I am not considered a reliable witness.”

        “Jason,

        My reason for posting was to give a more accurate vision of Jodi’s true character. Given that this is a Jodi Arias support site. Many people who know and love Jodi are afraid to come forward.

        I feel it necessary to clarify one thing. It wasn’t her attorneys who asked me if I would lie for her. it was the Investigator who asked that question.

        As for my Integrity, My family comes first. I’ll live with the rest.

        I whole heartily believe, she will NOT be convicted.

        I was asked not to post anything more, so this will be my last post.”

        Like

        • GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

          John: I wanted to add in some things we know about Matt McCartney from AA’s post. As an atty, I am sure, you will have taken note of ‘Matt’s’ admission that he “would lie for jodi” and what that means in a court of law. Yes, that DOES make him an unreliable witness. Matt McCartney I believe-(IF.. it was in fact him- we would not ever really know BTW)- originally posted the above to the jaii site in December 2012 or January 2013 as an FYI. Just before trial started.

          During the cross examination of DV expert witness for defense Alyce LaViolette by prosecutor Martinez, Martinez asked LaV WHAT it was she remembered reading in the materials she was provided for review about Matt McCartney’s interview with the defense and what he specifically had to say when it came to physical abuse of Jodi by Travis. Alyce LaViolette responded with the following:

          “Matt had said that he knew there was verbal abuse and suspected physical abuse but that he did not have any evidence that Travis physically abused Jodi”.

          THIS is what is on the record. The only OTHER contradicting information we have that Matt WAS a witness to the physical abuse is Jodi Arias claiming he was and this supposed posting to the jodiinnocent site. Personally I have seen them post absolute inaccurate information in the past so imo they have no credibility. And even if it WAS Matt that posted that info – he SAID he WOULD lie for her, so what does it matter>? He could have been..yep..LYING.

          The whole idea, that there is this guy out there who actually witnessed the physical abuse of Jodi (the ONLY one BTW, according to Jodi on the stand..but then she changes that in her post-verdict interview to MANY people saw it) and her Defense DID NOT call him..is ludicrous. Her defense WOULD have subpoenaed him so fast every one’s head would spin. That is IF he was in anyway credible. So this idea that Jodi was keeping him out of trial becs she is just that kind of good friend is absurd. And anyway- Jodi herself admits in her post verdict interview she WANTED her defense to “make every effort to find him” (like all of a sudden he is lost).

          There is also LOTS of reasons to believe the coded messages Arias tried to send thru her ex-cellmate’s girlfriend Anne Campbell were to eventually find their way TO Matt McCartney. Because of the dates for a special hearing re: the pedophilia letters AND Matt McCartneys interviews with the defense in which he TELLS them he never saw proof of physical abuse happened just days prior to that hearing. Arias telling him what he told her attys about NOT seeing evidence of the abuse “DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED what she had been telling her attorneys for a year”. Which, BTW, WAS the coded message in the magazine.

          Like

          • Guilty, let me respond briefly here, and maybe you’ll appreciate this given the realities that I have otherwise described for you.

            The fact that Jodi’s defense didn’t call Matt does not mean they thought he wasn’t being truthful in some relevant way. It simply means that they thought he would not be an effective witness because he could be too easily damaged.

            I once had a witness who solicited a bribe from me, or at least I thought he did. I might have used him for any number of reasons after that, and I hardly thought he was incapable of giving me truthful information. But I would never have used him as a witness. After that solicitation I would always doubt anything he told me. That’s number one. But also, because my credibility deficit is so large going into a trial, I can’t take the chance that a jury would think I would put on a witness who was not honest and who would lie. I would lose the case. If the jury doesn’t believe me, it’s over. And the surest way to undermine my own credibility with them, and I have no credibility to spare, would be to put up a witness who could easily be shown to be a liar.

            But let me emphasize the first part again: I never want to put in evidence I don’t believe in. Ever. I’m not infallible, but I won’t play fast and loose with the truth in a trial setting. No way on earth would I ever do that. It’s not only a cardinal sin of lawyering; it’s also the fastest route to losing, unless you get lucky. And I don’t even want to be lucky that way.

            I hope you can understand that. Take my last reply to you as an example of how appalled I sometimes am. Martinez, after that fiasco with the shot-first, shot last evidence, should have simply dropped the DP, rather than foist contradictory evidence on the court. The court will let him get away with it, but it’s still slimy.

            Like

            • lissajrobinson

              Hi JMRH, thanks for your post — especially the last paragraph!

              I am outraged about the shot-first, shot-last testimony because this is clearly a BIG lie that has been crafted by the prosecution. It’s particularly offensive in a trial where all sorts of people are flinging around accusations about others lying — especially Jodi (which she has, but now I am digressing from my point). Clearly, Dr. Horn lied.

              In the autopsy he states: “The dura mater and falx cerebri are intact.”

              He stated (after his being caught out by Dr. Geffner) that this was a typo. Sorry, but I am not buying that one bit, unless he is a very lazy or incompetent ME. If those areas were damaged, then a skilled ME would not only state they were damaged, but also describe the damage in detail.

              The prosecution changed the wound order so it wouldn’t line up with the self defense narrative — period. And they got away with it, because the autopsy itself never stated when the gun shot may or may not have occurred — only that the chest and throat wound were what killed Travis. Secondly, his chest wound does not explain the blood splatter at the sink.

              The lung was nicked not punctured. However, the bullet wound out of the cheek could have caused blood from the nasal to the mouth which would cause coughing and splatter of blood over the sink. Just because Jodi killed Travis, does not make it okay for the prosecution to build what I truly consider to be a false narrative. It doesn’t line up with the physical evidence.

              Also, there has been a lot of discussion about the brutality of the stab wounds — the ones on back especially and the final throat cut because they are brutal and they don’t fit with “defensive.” But a lot of assumption has been created based on those wounds that characterize Jodi as evil and especially cruel. That may well be true, however, I would like to propose another idea about the stab wounds. This is a very interesting discussion from an expert on using knives as a weapon of self defense:

              http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/defending-self-defense-knife-use

              Enjoy reading this blog a lot! Thank you John.

              Like

              • That’s the crux of the case right there. The M.E.’s testimony. This is only one reason of many why this was not a fair trial. The knife wounds to the back are shallow jabs and not at all life-threating. They only appear grotesque because of the skin expanding, decaying and opening up.

                Like

      • heather4u2

        ”Jodi tells a 48 hour interviewer that one of the intruders somehow got her a message in to jail warning her that she better shut up. By this time however she had already TOLD the detectives and was TELLING the public the intruder story. So what does she do with this “mystery message” from the intruder? Rather than KEEP it and use it to PROVE her story is true…she THROWS it away. Big sigh.”

        And a HUGE CLUE to Why we haven’t heard the Truth of what happened.

        Like

    • Guilty, a “mountain” of evidence that Jodi tried to cover her tracks? You mean the fact that she rented a car in her own name using her own credit card? The gas cans she borrowed from Darryl Brewer to drive across the desert? The third gas can she bought from Wal-Mart and then returned for cash but that one Wal-Mart cannot find a receipt for — even though it’s well known that Wal-Mart employees are often sloppy especially when busy? The fact that her phone was turned off or died during part of her trip and she couldn’t find her charger? Hmm, interesting that she made calls on her way to UT in Kingman, AZ, isn’t it? Or, is it the fact that she dyed her hair along the way because the car rental agent remembers her as a blonde on June 2? Problem with that is the police report from the burglary at her grandparents’ house lists her as having brown hair on May 28. Perhaps the car rental agent remembered the blonde from her drivers license. I’m blonde on my state ID, but brunette now, so I must be in the process of planning a murder, right?

      Jodi didn’t get naked in front of Ryan Burns. He didn’t testify to that. In fact, she wore long sleeves on a hot summer day.

      Jodi is 5’6″ and weighed 110-115 lbs. To me, a person who is 4’11”, that’s almost a giant, I’ll give you that much. I’d be looking up to her. Travis was 5’9″ and 200 lbs with 16 inch biceps and he had been working out. There is often a tremendous strength difference between a man and woman of the same height. In fact, I have a friend who is 6’1″ and she worked out. She was married to a man who was 6’3″, was significantly older than her and didn’t work out. Yet, he overpowered her and beat her easily. She didn’t stand a chance against him.

      Jodi did NOT admit to violent outbursts or breaking windows or kicking doors. In an email she sent to Travis, she tried to empathize with his anger, and admitted she sometimes felt angry enough to punch walls. There’s a big difference there. During her Flores interrogation tapes, she admitted to kicking a dog when she was a freshman in high school. As an adult, she wouldn’t even kill a bug! Flores asked if she had ANY anger issues. She thought about it and then talked about how her family kept the dog, Doggy Boy, tied up in the back yard. One time, he was loose in the yard when she took out the trash containing wet diapers of her brother and sister. The dog tore open the trash bag and it was disgusting. She had to clean up the mess and in a moment of anger, she kicked the dog ONCE and he ran away from her. That’s the ONLY anger issue she remembers in her life and she said it changed her life and her views on animals and she felt terrible about it and wanted to apologize to the dog for doing it. If that makes her violent, then I’m also violent, because I once spanked a cat when I was a teenager for urinating on the floor. I wasn’t supposed to bring the cat into the house but I did, and I knew my stepfather would be livid if he saw the puddle of urine, so I reached out and spanked the cat. Then, I apologized to the cat, realizing it wasn’t his fault. I guess I’m a murderess then.

      Odd route, yes, a very odd route. She could have just as easily disposed of the gun and her clothes taking a direct route. So, what’s your point?

      Sure, rental cars often smell when they’re returned. But the rental agent said it did NOT smell of smoke when he rented the car to Jodi. Now, he also said she was a blonde which I detailed above, so he could have been mistaken. Leslie Udy was Mormon, so probably didn’t smoke, but sure, she could have. Travi’s brother Steven said he smoked yesterday during his victim impact statement. He was raised a Mormon along with Travis, by their grandmother. But as far as we know, he wasn’t practicing Mormonism for many years. Leslie, on the other hand, was. Not only that, but it’s unusual for a non-smoker to let smokers smoke in their car. I know this because I’m a smoker.

      Yes, the reflection in Travis’s eye IS talk that was not seen by the expert. We’ve discussed that here before.

      Jodi told Flores that Travis did not own a gun, right. But she also testified that he did. The difference is that her testimony was under oath. Her statement to Flores wasn’t. Also, Travis hunted. Most hunters DO own guns.

      Flores focused in on Jodi right away. He did NOT interview former roommate John Hepworth. He also did not interview Dustin Thompson. He had tips about them, and the one about Dustin seems like it SHOULD have been investigated because he had a violent criminal history. That’s the point. Flores did interview the roommates living with Travis at the time of his death but read their statements. There are many inconsistencies there. The major one is that they didn’t smell his decomposing body over the course of 5 days, nor did their girlfriends. They all spent HOURS at a time in that house according to their statements. What was Flores waiting for from June 9 to July 15? He was waiting for recovery of the photos from the camera’s memory card. That’s what he was doing. And yes, he said all along he thought someone else was involved. But he didn’t follow up on that.

      As for the May 26 text, it wasn’t ONE text. There were a series of texts. Travis didn’t just call her a sociopath. He called her every name under the sun and it went on for hours, switching between text and instant message. He compared her to Hitler. What was he talking about when he said he would tell everyone what she had done? We don’t know. We have no idea. She had sent him pamphlets about pedophelia. Was that it? Did she have an abortion? Had she spoken to a bishop? We have no idea. But those are ALL ideas thrown out on various blogs. The truth is we really don’t know. The important point is that he continued to talk to her after that date. As for him calling her a sociopath, do you not remember that he called himself “a bit of a sociopath” in his email exchange with the Hughes? Seems that was a word Travis used frequently.

      Where have Jodi’s attorneys stated that they are frustrated with her beyond belief? They haven’t. That’s blogger talk. But I guess because you believe THAT blogger talk, it’s gospel truth. If we talk on a blog, we’re full of nonsense. Interesting.

      I addressed what Matt said above. According to Matt, he said it to an investigator, not Jodi’s attorneys themselves. There’s a big difference between a person saying they would lie for someone and taking the stand under oath and actually lying. JMRJ could address that fact better than I.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And one other point, if you honestly think that a puddle of blood would NOT be fully dry 5 days after the fact, then you need to research that. I did, and it would be completely dry, not even moist, and even if the atmosphere was humid — and I’m sure there was air conditioning in the house.

        Liked by 1 person

      • GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt

        Jodi DID admit to violent outbursts in that letter, I read it. In it she specifically says she has punched walls, kicked down doors and busted windows. Don’t believe me ?read it again. Just a bit:

        “…my anger is very destructive. I’ve kicked down doors and it hurts people and it hurts me. Sometimes I forget who I am….”

        Like

        • heather4u2

          Jodi was abused by Both her parents so why should it be surprising that she reacted? Punching walls, kicking down doors are both understandable reactions from the teenager she was At That Time. Her father threw her into furniture, her mother hit her and her brother, so Not reacting would be very surprising.

          Like

    • HonestAbe

      Guilty, if your mind is really open to looking at this from all sides, JMRJs comments should have instilled some doubt in your mind. As he pointed out, you can’t use the evidence for only one plausible explanation. the common idea in this site is that we need to throw out everything that Jodi has said. Afterall, it’s Juan’s responsibility to convince us that his explanation is the only possible explanation. This means guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not a strong belief or likely guilt, or probably guilty, etc. So let’s look at the evidence.
      1. The gun. It was a .25 cal but note that particular caliber gun is the 5th most common stolen gun. For guns traced, of the top 10, the .25 takes up 4 spots. http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF Also, based on other comments on this site, the ammunition for that gun was hollow point. Yet, Travis was not shot with hollow point ammunition.
      2. The gas cans. I actually think it’s a pretty smart idea and not unusual for a woman traveling at night to bring extra gas through the hot desert. Note that she also said that she brought water as well. My neighbor has an SUV and brings 6 cans of gas with him when he travels through the desert with his family. Yet, if you wanted to cover your tracks, wouldn’t you use cash?
      3. The license plate. Surely, one of the best ways to attract the attention of the police is to not have a license plate or to turn it upside down. If I were to show you 50 cars, 48 with plates, one without a plate and one where it was upside down, which would you notice? To say this was done to avoid detection is beyond absurd and I’m surprised Martinez even tried to pull it off for that objective.
      4. Cell phone. Does the phone being turned off point to only guilt and that she was trying to cover her tracks? Of course not. Cell phones lose their charge and turn off. Mine does it all the time. More reason for the gas cans I would say. If you are going to say that she would be certain to have a fully charged phone because she is traveling the desert, I would say that would be a good idea but things happen and she did have a charger but couldn’t find it. Also, she was driving a rental which are usually pretty new.
      5. The order of stabs and gunshot. Here’s where the defense really dropped the ball. The initial reports from Flores was that he was shot first. Even the medical examiner wasn’t going to rule it out. However this was later changed and Martinez insisted Travis was stabbed first. Why? Because it stirs emotion and he could then use it in theatrical performance of pain and pouring blood during closing. Look, I feel terribly for Travis and his family but this is why I want the truth. Everyone is approaching the number of stabs as grossly inhumane but if Jodi’s story of self defense is true, would she be guilty of anything other than self defense if it took almost 30 stab wounds to stop him? Getting back to the order, HLN had a doctor note that Travis could very well have been shot first and even noted why there might not be that much blood. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander
      I have just taken 5 of the most incriminating pieces of evidence, turned them around, and provided reasonable doubt without even attacking Travis and pointing out the abundance of other instances of doubt and inconsistencies that others have pointed out. In closing, keep in mind that although Jodi certainly isn’t an invalid, she was about 120 lbs at the time and Travis was close to 200 lbs and had been working out. The medical examiner noted that Travis put up a valiant fight and even his brother noted he was invincible. How is it that a woman would be able to inflict this much damage on a male and escape without any marks to her face? Don’t you think Travis would have grabbed the knife at least once and punched her? There are only two reasonable explanations: 1. She shot him first in which case Martinez’s entire case goes out the window and 2. There was another male who walked away pretty beaten up from an intense fight for life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Heather

        HonestAbe, I appreciate the way you think.

        Like

      • survivor

        This is horrible. The title of this wordpress made me hope to find legit legal discussion, but this is all just a big joke. Sorry that it’s this comment, it has to serve for all the others which built up my disbelief, but now I really can’t hold back anymore. What are these delusional points? .25 caliber is stolen often – so what? It was reported stolen from the defendants grandparents. How many guns are stolen from relatives of suspects in a murder case that found the victim with a matching wound? I bet the statistics go down considerably if one applies common sense. Also, what about the hollow point ammunition? It’s no problem to buy new one, and “based on other comments on this site” does not hold up in court. Is this a joke? I would even assume that people here claimed a .25 can only be used with hollow point ammo. Geez, guys, get a grip. You’re all completely out there. No offense, just to wake you up that in case people look funny at you, it’s you, not them, who should maybe start to seek professional help.
        Rant out, wastin’ no more time here. Guess people who apply logic are “haters” or “Justice 4 Travis fans”, I’ve seen such “accusations” above. Honestly, get out of your echo chambers, it does your minds no good.

        Like

        • The total number of privately held firearms in the US is between 270 and 310 million.

          http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

          There are lots of .25’s around. The chances of a .25 being used as compared with another pistol would be about 1 in 8 based on manufacturing data from some time ago:

          http://www.firearmsid.com/feature%20articles/0900guic/guns%20used%20in%20crime.htm

          Most stolen guns are handguns.

          You’re trying to conclude too much from too little. There’s too high a chance of a .25 being used in any event to infer much of anything from the stolen pistol, other than a possibility. That shouldn’t be enough for the fair minded.

          Like

          • Jessie

            There’s an easy way and then there’s an accurate way to explain the problems with the gun as evidence.

            (I’m ignoring for the moment the claims that the bullets owned by grandpa and the bullet found at the crime scene don’t match. I don’t recall that ever being brought up at trial, or in any other reliable source, and as many rumors stem from the pro-Jodi forces as from the guilters. This sounds like a classic sort of pro-Jodi rumor — it never came up at trial?? I also don’t know ballistics, so I couldn’t evaluate how meaningful it might be, even if it is true.)

            The easy problem with the gun is that it’s illogical. If you’re going to commit a murder, you don’t draw the cops’ attention to your murder weapon right before you do it. Especially not when you can just swipe grandpa’s gun and take your chances he won’t notice. He reportedly didn’t use it much.

            There were also no suspicions that the burglary was staged until well after the murder. Incidentally, this is my big kicker in the Knox case — the cops walked in the door and could tell that burglary was staged, well before they had a suspect. In the Arias case, it never came up until a staged burglary was used to explain where she got a gun.

            The more accurate problem with the whole assertion is that it’s a classic Type I statistical error. It seems like a MIND-BLOWING COINCIDENCE…but only because we’re geared to ascribe meaning to coincidences. We do it all the time. Humans are pattern-seekers. Coincidences are commonplace, everyday occurrences, but whether and how we ascribe meaning to them has little relationship to their actual probability (see the Birthday Paradox, for example).

            The actual probability with the gun would be a complicated question. Way more complicated than just one-in-eight, but I’ve never actually seen it worked up. I just know it’s not as mind-blowing as it seems like it should be because coincidences never are.

            All that said, I do accept the gun as evidence of premeditation….but it’s the only evidence point for it that even makes any sense. And you know how I feel about a single evidence point.

            Like

        • HonestAbe

          Survivor, you are very much like the others who insist that the stolen gun can only mean one thing: she stole it to shoot Travis. I will admit it’s a possibility but if I do that, you must also admit that there is a possibility that the gun to shoot Travis COULD be another weapon of the same caliber. You must remember that nobody knows for certain what happened besides Travis and Jodi. Therefore, the stories that the “haters,” “supporters,” and those on this site have outlined are all hypothesis. What gives you the right to select one, say it’s the only possible one, brand the defendant as a murderess, and tell the rest of us that we’re delusional? You can’t, or at least shouldn’t, take such liberties and this is the problem with the verdict.

          Like

      • heather4u2

        ”2. There was another male who walked away pretty beaten up from an intense fight for life.”

        My money is on that.

        Like

  9. Jessie

    This isn’t really germane to your overall point, but maybe it’ll help knock one thing off your list — namely, #3. She didn’t take an unusual route from Mesa to Salt Lake City. It only looks that way on a map.

    The most direct route would appear to be I-17 to Flagstaff and then Hwy. 89 until you pick 15 south of Provo. In reality, that route is at least twice as long as the route she took. Hwy. 89 is mountainous, desolate, and routes halfway around the Grand Canyon.

    She may not have specifically known that (I only do because I made the mistake of driving that route once), but when you live in that part of the country — or even if you travel by car frequently in the US, which she had — you learn pretty quickly that the interstate is ALWAYS your quickest route. I’ve never found an exception, although of course I have taken the less direct route if I want to go the scenic way.

    But Hwy. 89 is a particularly onerous drive. It takes about 12 hours and there’s very little between Flagstaff and Provo. Even trying to pick up I-15 around St. George wouldn’t help much (might knock off two hours, tops). She took the route that anyone who lives out there would have taken unless they actually wanted to make a stop at the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, or Zion Park.

    Like

    • I’ll have to let AA respond to you here, because I’m not familiar with the merits of the various routes, but she is. I didn’t think there was any dispute about it, but if that was wrong it might very well knock off #3.

      Thanks for the comment.

      Like

  10. This discussion brings up most of the still unresolved issues in State v. Jodi Arias. The refusal to do a complete investigation, which must include such basic things as identifying who could have left the bloody shoeprint in the locked bedroom, is a big reason why there have been so many exonerations in Arizona and elsewhere. Key prosecution witnesses who give false evidence and other prosecutor misconduct are another reason that the convicted have recieved new trials and some have been exonerated.

    Like

    • HonestAbe

      It was certainly lazy investigative work by a group that simply wanted a conviction and the desire to move onto the next case. There is no justice in simply receiving a conviction rather than finding the true details. Also, recent evidence showed blood in Travis’ ear canal which would suggest that he was shot while he was alive and has sufficient blood in his system rather than at the end of his life as was presented.

      Problem is HLN has done such a thorough job of convincing Jodi Arias on the TV that she may never get a fair retrial and we won’t ever know the truth nor will Travis’ family…though indications suggest that they are convinced they have the right woman. I remain unconvinced.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think that after the sentence, things will die down and I beieve she can get a fair trial. I really liked your comments. There is more and more evidence about the order of injuries being not as the prosecution presented. You may be interested in this article:

        http://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/spotlight-on-the-testimony-of-dr-kevin-horn/

        Like

        • honestabe

          Thanks robroman! I appreciate the link as well as your thoughts! There aren’t many people who share the same objectivity that you have. People have watched the coverage by HLN, especially Nancy Grace, and have been sucked into the presumption of guilt based on the number of stab wounds which is ridiculous. As I understand it, Nancy has been impacted by a murder of someone close to her so if someone goes up on trial, she presumes them guilty right away. It’s sad that she’s so disillusioned.

          Hopefully, Jodi’s defense will read some of the things that have been posted and obtain a retrial. At this point though, I’m not optimistic that things will work out for her. Even if she does obtain a fair trial and is acquitted, she’ll have to live in seclusion so her life is ruined either way. Very sad, especially when we look at the evidence, or lack thereof, that led to her conviction.

          I have always thought that the gunshot came first or there were other people there. If she were alone, a likely scenario would be they did use rope and he had brought a knife to cut the ropes and left it somewhere on or neat the bed. Travis goes to shower and something happens (no one ever produced the camera and showed that it DIDN’T have dents) whether it be the dropping of the camera or she confronted him about a text that came in but either way, he got enraged and came after her. She grabs the gun and shoots as she described. This would explain the trajectory of the bullet if he tucked his head down. Once shot (he may not have even known it as I have had a friend get shot and another get stabbed and neither even knew), he gets up to look at the wound and sees blood which gets all over the vanity. He’s now really enraged and goes after her. She flees to the bedroom and he catches her and pushes her to the bed. Maybe she is on her stomach. He goes to turn her over and in the process she finds the knife and when turned, she stabs him in the chest. Maybe the first stab doesn’t stop him and he comes after her again so she stabs repeatedly until he staggers backwards. Maybe she is shocked at what has happened and goes to him to say sorry, etc. He grabs at her and she stabs his chest again which now he feels and he turns. Scared she stabs him in the back trying to get him to stop. He falls to the floor and blood gets on the carpet. She goes back to him and asks why he made her do this and he turns for one last attack and she swipes with the knife hitting his throat. She then loses it and panics. She wants to put him back together so she rags him to the shower in an attempt to clean his wounds not comprehending that it’s too late. She gets him to the shower and gets a cup from the room (I think his shower head was fixed) and pours it on him until she realizes he’s gone. She tries to clean up, grabs the sheets (camera is in there which she forgets while in a panic, and she puts it in the washing machine. She then leaves in a panic. Thinking it was all just a dream, she phones his house hoping he will pick up but the reality eventually sets in and she realizes what has happened.
          It’s certainly plausible and the steps I describe seem to go along with the emotions that I am sure were there at that time. Though, it seems more likely that there were two other people involved as she initially described. If she were the only one there, I would suspect that she would have shown more signs of a major struggle. This is where the Martinez scenario fails. There is no way that Travis stood at the vanity and let her apply stabs to his back. It’s ridiculous and anyone who believes that he let her do that isn’t being realistic. Also, a stab in the shower? Unlikely just because she didn’t appear to get hit once. She would have had to stab, pull out and clock back and then stab again which gives him a chance to grab the knife and punch her in the face at least once if not several times. Yet she has no fat lip, no swollen or broken nose, no black eyes. Regardless of the nonsense that Martinez alleged her face after the murder is that of an innocent person.

          Liked by 1 person

          • heather4u2

            Honest Abe, unfortunately Rob Roman has done a complete about turn and become a hater.He thinks she’s guilty as charged, yet thinks she didn’t have a fair trial… ??

            Yes… I know…. I was shocked too.

            Like

  11. Can anyone get hold of a photo of that footprint please? I want to check the sole pattern, as I think I might know the kind of shoe worn by the killer, judging by the photograph. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Pamela, the only photo I am aware of is found after scrolling a little ways down this link:

      http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/a-message-from-jodi-arias-along-came-jodi-dateline-nbc-zach-billings-jodi-arias-is-innocent/

      As we have a continuing interest in the matter here at LoS, I’d be interested to know what your thinking is and what you come up with, if anything. Nice to hear from you.

      Like

      • Hi JMRJ, I couldn’t find the photo of the shoe print, though I scrolled up and down several times. I am not as sure as I was before about being able to show a potential sole print. It’s just that I have found an example of what I believe to be a similar type shoe to the one shown in the courtroom photograph. However, the shoe I have photographed is not of the lace-up style, but the pull-on variety, so the soles may not be similar at all. However, it the two shoes are of the same brand, there is still a possibility that the soles are identical. I thought if I could get hold of a photograph of the shoe print left at the scene, I could see if I had a match. If you go to my new page on FB – Jodi Arias Inquiry Team, you will see what I mean. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jodi-Arias-Inquiry-Team/1500496146837330
        Pamela

        Like

      • I found the footprint on the site you sent. It does in fact look somewhat similar to the sole print of the shoe I found. However, I really need someone with expertise to blow up the photo of this footprint, so that we can all get a much better look at it.

        Like

        • Surely you have no illusions that I, somehow, have any expertise? But I hope someone can respond to you and provide the necessary enlargement.

          Like

          • Surely you have no illusions that I was asking you JMRJ? I don’t even know your name, let alone your credentials, (or lack of them) in any department whatsoever! My exact words were: ” I really need someone with expertise to blow up the photo of this footprint, so that we can all get a better look at it.” At no time did I give any kind of indication that I was referring to you. You incorrectly inferred that, and for the life of me I cannot think why! On my FB page, to which I directed you, I in fact asked for the assistance of a man known to me as HJ Blankenship. He is a person who has been doing exactly this kind of work for us. He has done a great deal of work in blowing up photos of the shoe exhibit. To my knowledge he has not done any such work on the sole of the shoe. I would like him or anyone else with similar talents, to compare the exhibit sole with the sole of the shoe I have found. I do not expect the two to be the same, as the shoes differ in that one is a lace-up and on a slip-on shoe, but I would like to know for sure.

            Like

  12. I meant to say, “one a slip-on shoe” Typo. Apology.

    Like

  13. Sorry, but if you measure the tile, and that shower base bottom, and figure, based on the sole, that is a running shoe…it comes down to a womans running shoe, that was not only in the hall, but on the base of the shower where she kicked his torso in.

    Like

    • Well, you know, that’s a theory. Maybe even a good one. But the point is the prints were never identified professionally. We’re not going to resolve this by looking at a picture on the internet. But I appreciate the effort and the comment.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Well, I’m not one of those trial people. I just like the forensics. The verdict has never been my concern. I’m waiting for a friend to do a 3d rendering. So far he’s been quite spot on. 🙂

        Like

        • I like forensics, too. Sort of. But I’ve been less than completely impressed with how they are used much of the time.

          The point of this post, though, is how inexcusable – and how telling – it is that these prints were never even investigated, much less identified, especially when the one person you know was there at the relevant time – Jodi Arias – has been saying that there were others present as well. I still think that is a viable scenario, and the indisputable fact that it has never been ruled out means JA shouldn’t even have been prosecuted, let alone convicted. And that is true whether she is in fact guilty or not.

          And I think it’s very unlikely that she’s guilty, at least solely guilty.

          Like

          • She does tell what happened when she uses the intruder story. Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all to place anyone else on the scene. She takes that story away when she’s told her only defense is self defense. I don’t trust Horn, or Flores at this point.

            There was much that went without discussion in that trial. Sad state of affairs. I wouldn’t have wanted my trial to have gone that way.

            Are you keeping up with what is happening in the courtroom? Today was quite interesting. Maybe you could offer your services? She’s definitely in well over her head.

            Like

            • heather4u2

              ”Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all to place anyone else on the scene. She takes that story away when she’s told her only defense is self defense. ”

              Disagree entirely. As the Shoe Print is too big to be Jodi’s and we discount Travis being able to stand after such injuries, discount that he has never worn his shoes in the shower, the ONLY conclusion to be drawn is a second man.

              Can you vouch that second man wasn’t involved in the fight? No, you can’t. Does this take away from Self-Defence? Absolutely not. You weren’t there and neither was I, so you cannot state conclusively it could not have been Self Defence, can you.

              Like

    • heather4u2

      Both prints too large to have been Jodi’s. Wrong shape, style too. It is a man’s footprint. And obviously not Travis Alexanders. Proving Jodi was not alone. Saying this no way indicates planning to murder him, what it does show is that a man was there besides Travis and the shoe print belongs to him.

      Like

  14. Don’t forget about the .25 caliber gun that was used. If it had been stolen from the Allen residence then Juan could have taken into evidence any spent shell casings to match the marks on the spent casings from the Allen residence with the casing found at the crime scene. If the markings match the same firing pattern then the gun from the Allen residence was used to shoot Travis with which mean’s Jodi is definitely guilty. But until the marks on the casing can positively be identified with any from the Allen residence then what proof does Juan have to support Jodi’s claim that she killed Travis?

    Like

    • Why didn’t Juan do a matching casing check? Because it might have been proven that a third party was responsible just like the case of the shoeprint. What is even better is that if the shoe print and shell casing are associated with any of the Alexander Four (Felons) siblings then Juan is in a whole lot of trouble because the Alexander Four are not supposed to have any weapons and since Juan did nit make certain that any of the family members were involved in the shooting of Travis then he could be held criminally negligent for not ensuring evidence was gathered and processed in a manner that would prove his theory. A really good lawyer could then turn it on Juan to say that he had implicitly conspired with the Alexander’s to keep evidence from the trial that would allow the jury to see a third party where reasonable doubt would have been brought into question in the first trial that would have possibly have exonerated Jodi. Since Juan did not conduct both the casing match and the print match with a 100% certainty that they belonged to Jodi then I would have to say that Juan is guilty of Malicious Prosecutorial Misconduct. And, as such seeing as how he is seeking the death penalty such a verdict decided by the jury would in fact then make Juan Martinez involved with conspiracy to commit first degree pre-meditated murder because his actions have not allowed evidence into the trial on purpose and by design by his own meditation that would exonerate Jodi in the death of Travis but would have pointed to a third party suspect.

      Like

      • I get your point, sort of. I might be wrong, but my understanding is it would not be possible to match a spent casing to a particular gun through an analysis of any markings; you can only match a fairly intact projectile – that is, the bullet itself, because it would get markings from the gun it was fired from when it passed through the barrel.

        But correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, I certainly agree that the “failure” to match the casing, coupled with the “failure” to identify the shoe print, would be strong circumstantial evidence of a willful refusal to investigate a third party culprit.

        Like

      • Oops, never mind. A quick check revealed they can match by comparing the casing to another casing fired from the same gun.

        I can see why the defense didn’t try to do a test, and this comes up with some frequency: if they do the test they have to reveal the results, and since the results might convict your client you forego the test.

        But there’s no excuse for the prosecution/police not to perform such a test. Of course in this case you would have to identify a specific gun, and that might no be as easy as you’d think.

        So I have to qualify that while the conduct of the prosecution here is suspicious, without more I can’t say that not testing the spent cartridge is strong circumstantial proof. It’s some proof, but not enough to reach that conclusion, I think.

        Liked by 1 person

        • heather4u2

          There are also 2 types of bullets, one a Hollow point is less destructive than the other (forget the name of that one as I am only learning about them!) We don’t have guns in the UK, let me re-phrase that, unless they come from the Black market, guns are not readily available here. One is required to have a firearms certificate and proof of why you need to own one, farmers, for instance.

          Like

  15. Dave

    HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE ADMITS KILLING TRAVIS. EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY EITHER SIDE

    Like

    • People falsely confess, sometimes in great detail. I don’t doubt that something pathological goes on with JA; I just don’t think it proves much of anything. At least by itself.

      Like

      • They got Jodi to confess to a crime that they needed her to confess to in order to make the book that the Hughes wrote about Travis have enough value to sell it. If Jodi would have been found not guilty the book wouldn’t have sold as well.

        Like

    • heather4u2

      Killing in Self Defence is not a crime; this she admits to doing. The crime is when people in the US don’t acknowledge Self-Defence and automatically think the defendant committed murder and is lying.

      Like

  16. Jodi arias is not the monster ppl think she is i honestly do believe it was a heat of passion crime she just snapped in the end. I dont think it was premed she had been a brunnete before . She should be already coming out in a few years. She needs counsling y a man who will treat her right. Luv ya girl

    Like

    • Johnny, I’ve always admired your commitment to Jodi, and also your ability to see through a lot of the smoke and mirrors. I can more easily see crime of passion, the hair color and other things are just red herrings. Her appeal process has begun, her supporters should continue to raise funds. I DO DISAGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT ABOUT A MAN. A supportive family and friends that will help her on her mental health journey, whether incarcerated or not is what she needs. Support, not fantasies and ridiculous theories. Agree?

      Like

  17. What about the locked door to the house on J508? Enrique said that he returned home to the door being locked and had to use the garage entrance. According to Zach and testimony by Janeen DeMarte where she says that Zach made the comment that Travis never locked the door when he was home working, tells me that someone locked the door to make it appear as if Travis had left for Cancun.

    Then there is of course the doggy fence that was present on the stairs leading up to Travis bedroom that was also found on J508 by Enrique Cortez.

    Now if Jodi had set the crime up to make it look like Travis had left early for Cancun then why wasn’t the door locked on J408 and the doggy fence put on the stairs before she had left to visit Ryan Burns?

    Both of these facts talked about in the Flores Report come a day after Travis has been killed. Jodi was not around to build the crime scene in this manner. So who put the doggy fence up and who locked the door?

    There is also the post by Dave Hall who said that Travis was dead on June 5th, 2008. Either it was a fake or he knew for certain that Travis was dead.

    Like

  18. Right before Travis was killed it was deemed that Pre-Paid Legal was a Ponzi Scam or Scheme and was shut down. It is now privately owned to avoid such scrutiny. Maybe the investigation had something to do with Travis. Maybe Travis ratted PPLS out, they found out about it and then murdered him.

    Like

  19. And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.

    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

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s