I think it is.
It was obvious from the questions raised by the jury, that they’re not buying what the prosecution is selling. They also don’t believe (at this point) that Jodi acted alone.
Can you imagine Juan Martinez in a wrestling match with Kirk Nurmi? Enough said.
Then there’s Thomas Brown. He’s the guy Jodi initially pointed out as a potential suspect. He’s also a former roommate of TA and was interviewed no less than 3 times by Esteban Flores. None of the information provided by Thomas Brown was ever included in any documentation passed to the defense. Am I surprised by that? Not really.
Next there’s the gun – overly trumpeted by the prosecution as “the murder weapon” and as “stolen” by Jodi… but with no ballistics proof (or any other proof for that matter) to back any of those claims up.
There’s also the forever-wavering testimony of Esteban “I’m watching all the testimonies” Flores relating to his much publicized sequence of events, which did nothing to assist the prosecution either – and why would it. His theory after all, was based on an alleged conversation he had with Dr Horn, which Dr Horn subsequently denied and which Flores then put it down to a “mistake”. No shit!
Also take into account Martinez’ reluctance to call the still subpoenaed Lisa Andrews Daidone… where she apparently recalled the multiple tire slashing incidents (while spending the night with TA), and subsequently tried pinning that (and started the “stalking” rumors) on Jodi… but totally bypassed the thought that both the stalking and the tire incidents could have been directed at her by her ex Steve Bell? (The “John Doe” email is also included at the end of this post).
That’s the same Steve Bell that had serious issues with the law both preceding and following his break up with Lisa over her escapades with TA. I believe Martinez said he didn’t want to call Lisa because he didn’t want to create an “inflammatory situation” for the jury causing an appellate issue. In layman’s terms, he didn’t want her tire slashing & stalking statements to sway the jury, only for them to be proven as false at a later date, subsequently forcing an acquittal.
Overall, and based on the respective performance to date of the slipshod & overly confident prosecution, and with copious amounts of prosecutorial misconduct in plain sight already (notwithstanding or to the exclusion of the ongoing SMS message issue or the recent camera dropping stunt), I personally think the probability of a directed verdict is very low, but a mistrial should not be ruled out at some stage for numerous reasons.
Who was the last “Mr Big” prosecutor that thought he had a “slam dunk” in a high profile trial, prior to it all coming off the rails and going tits up in unforgettable style? I believe it was Jeff Ashton – The Laughing Guy himself… yeah.
So maybe we can draw some similarities between this trial and Casey’s trial after all… even though, if I recall correctly, Ashton never rested for the state directly after showing naked pics of the defendant to one of his own witnesses.
Your thoughts so far?
SJ
[hdplay id=24 width=500 height=300]
This is an excerpt from the “John Doe” email, which Lisa Andrews Daidone alleges was sent to her by Jodi on 12-8-2008:
“You are a shameful whore. Your Heavenly Father must be deeply ashamed of the whoredoms you’ve committed with that insidious man. If you let him stay in your bed one more time or even sleep under the same roof as him, you will be giving the appearance of evil. You are driving away the Holy Ghost, and you are wasting your time. You are also compromising your salvation and breaking your bapitismal covenants. Of all the commandments to break, committing acts of whoredom is one of the most displeasing in the eyes of the Lord. You cannot be ashamed enough of yourself. You are filthy, and you need to repent and come clean in the eyes of God. Think about your future husband, and how you disrespect not only yourself, but him, as well as the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Is that what you want for yourself? Your future, your salvation, and your posterity is resting on your choices and actions. You are a daughter of God, and you have been a shameful example. Be thou clean, sin no more. Heavenly Father loves you and wants you to make the right choices. I know you are strong enough to choose the right. Your Father in Heaven is pulling for you. Don’t ignore the promptings you receive, because they are vital to your spiritual well-being.”
SJ,
I love this post. THIS is the reason I’m here. I don’t put blind faith in a prosecution’s case ever. You just highlighted the games played in cases. If this prosecutor knew that Jodi wasn’t the stalker, but implied so in opening, ie. “she just couldn’t help herself” x3, than he gaming the system just as much as those who feel defense attorney’s do. I believe he knew Jodi wasn’t the tire slasher but was happy to let everyone assume so. That is, until Nurmi became aware of the information and requested her information to which the prosecutor reluctantly gave. Nurmi had to ask for this through the judge!
CJ I agree with everything you said. Also, the tone of that email that was sent to Lisa sounds more like it came from her ex-BF Steve Bell who was also Mormon. The email used phrases of someone fluent in Mormonisms and not someone that recently began practicing. Also, I agree that the prosecution did not call Lisa to the stand because they would rather let the jury think Jodi did the tire slashing since it was hinted that she did when Marie/Mimi was on the stand.
Here is also something that struck me while I was listening to the interrogation tapes over the trial break:
The jury asked questions about the roommates, alibis etc and the reason why they are going in that direction is because Flores led them there.
Twice in this interrogation tape, first at the 32:45 mark:
‘ Jodi: ‘unless there was two people…’
Flores – he’s a pretty good sized guy … it would take two people, maybe more to over power him”
and again at 45:28 he says ‘he’s a big guy and it would take, like I mentioned to you before, it would take more than one person to do this to him’.
In one of the first tapes played to the jury, Flores himself tells Jodi he thinks there had to be 2 people to do this to Travis.
You nailed it about that email. When I first heard the language used, I immediately thought that the subject was male and jealous, that it wasn’t jodi
I guess what the others are saying though, is that none of this matters because she pleaded self defense. I think what the lead detective said, matters. No wonder the jury was asking questions.
David brought up a motion for another attorney to withdraw, Victoria something or other was her name. She cited a conflict in odd language. The assumption was that whomever she represented had knowledge of the Arias case. Do you remember David bringing that up? Has me wondering whether Victoria was representing Steve Bell.
Whoops I forgot to attach the link to the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdiZADvLaEY
CJ,
Thanks for the youtube link. I’ve been listening to the part you’re talking about … where Flores is leading the jury to think about “it would take two people”.
During this conversation, I believe he using using police techniques, misdirection, playing it close to the chest, allowing her to say whatever she’s going to say, pretending to agree with her, play her, counter her, this and that. He already knows at this point, from a lot of Travs’ friends, that the focus should be on her. So he’s not empathizing with her tears and appreciating her ‘wanting to help’ with the case. His antennae are up, and his training is being put to use.
So, I do not for one minute believe he is saying to her on the phone, “Well, during my time investigating this crime in the last 18 hours, it is my firm belief as an experienced police officer that this took at least two people; maybe more.”
In fact, what seems more suspicious to me is Jodi trying to influence the perception of the crime during this call and to lead focus away from herself.
If the crime involved a simple shooting (at this point she wouldn’t know if it was a simple shooting or not, cause she’s not involved, right?) it would have nothing to do with being overpowered. If someone shot him, Travis’ strength, and fists, and punching bag, and martial arts, and wrestling and his kicking my ass would have no bearing in the conversation. To me she’s already working Flores, and is trying to find out what they know about the scene of ‘the crime’.
Oh my gosh! I was thinking the same thing, only you worded it better than I could have. I wanted to say that although Jodi seems intelligent and has an impressive, broad vocabulary, the letter sounded to me like it came from someone who was VERY much influenced by ‘The Church’ and/or was familiar with all the teachings/possibly grew up in the LDS faith.
I feel like a female could’ve written it. (perhaps on her own? with the help of Travis? or maybe Steve?) Who the heck knows! All it would take is one ‘devout’ member of the church to decide to take it upon themselves to worry about someone else’s personal life & verbally ‘let em have it’. Or on paper I should say… haha
I’m relieved & happy to see a support site for Jodi. I’ve been fuming about how the case is being handled.
I encourage those interested to do a quick google search about the secretive mormon committee SCMC (Strengthening Church Members Committee). By an lds elder’s own description in a 2012 (or possibly 2011) interview, it serves to observe and monitor other people/members who might be a risk to the faith of the other members.
Other research suggests that it keeps records of its finding and takes action upon members in order to help protect the integrity of the church.
I know that everyone here is not on board with ‘conspiracy theories’ and I’m not sure that this really is one (since the letter has not become part of the court record, suggesting that jodi wrote it). But I could see this committee being motivated by lots of TAs actions to protect other lds’ers faith so maybe that’s the origin of the mysterious letter to Lisa.
I second what CJ said, “I love this post. THIS is the reason I’m here. I don’t put blind faith in a prosecution’s case ever. You just highlighted the games played in cases.”
Anybody interested in another example of prosecutorial misconduct, watch “Standard Operating Procedure”…absolutely riveting documentary about the whole Abu Ghraib situation, American military personnel, the controversial despicable photos they took of Iraqi prisoners naked with underwear on their heads etc. It in no way excuses the stupidity and base ignorance of the young (for the most part) idiots involved but shows also how they were completely and utterly made to take the responsibility for the sins in that prison without ANY upper echelon military personnel being held accountable at all. Janis Karpinski though, Brigadeer General, did get “relieved of her duties” but it shows how she was a scapegoat as well. Watch it, its excellent if you can, its On Demand right now.
I have on demand. I’ll watch it. Do you have any thoughts about why Flores said to the media that there was no way Jodi could have done this alone? That was at first, when Jodi said two intruders did it. Do you think he was operating off of the idea Jodi had help? Doesn’t it weaken the state’s case when the lead detective makes statements to the media like that?
Also, are you lawyer? I thought you said you were ( aside from David).
CJ, I was glued to the TV watching it so I hope you enjoy it. Though it’ll probably make you very angry like it did me.
I don’t have any thoughts about that other than at first take, I would have thought the same thing. (That there had to be more than one person involved.) He is a big guy. I can see Flores operating with that assumption before he had the forensic information anyway. IMO that is a subjective idea that it ‘weakens the states case’ having the lead detective make these statements early on. Meaning it very well could- in the minds of the jurors- and that of course is what is important. But being the pessimist I am, I don’t think it will make much difference in the end, since her defense again is claiming self defense and until now anyway we have not heard anything, even in their opening statement that alluded to another person being present. And we did hear that in the opening of Casey Anthony’s trial. But there aren’t any hard and fast rules that say her defense could not try and introduce during their case, this idea. But I doubt it.
No, I am not a lawyer, though I wish I had gone to law school…:)
I thought you were! Your comments sounded like it and I erronously thought you said you were.
I’m waiting for the kiddos to return to school to watch it.
Daniel, your thoughts about the defense – I worry about them too. I see the same red flags you do. Nothing much has been shown in terms of HOW Travis abused Jodi. I’m concerned about the sexual violence expert too. I don’t see how they can work that in with what we know so far. It could really turn off the jury if grand leaps are made by experts without solid proof about how Travis intereracted with Jodi. ( my personal feelings aside.)
Great post, SJ!
Martinez showing Jodi’s friends those pictures was such crap. How does posing naked prove that one is not a quiet, soft-spoken person? What the hell does one have to do with the other? I’m pretty sure that most of us don’t know what our friends get up to in the bedroom.
Oh i read the certain women’s groups are very angry that they showed her like that. Do you think they could have greyed out the personal areas without being accused of tampering?
It would have been better suited for him to throw the photos up of the corpse and ask if she knew THAT side of Jodi instead of the nude photos. No one knows everything about their friends’ sex life.
Agreed Trixels. I thought that made the prosecutor look petty , vindictive and small and was totally beside the point.
Agree actually, The other photo would have been more effective.
ITA Trixels. That was entirely what I was expecting him to put on the board. I was shocked and like many…offended….when he put up pics of her in the nude. Not only does that not make his point, it demeans the intelligence of the witness and the jury. Bad move considering this was a PROSECUTION side witness.
Martinez as prosecutor is speaking for Travis and its a little ironic that whenever the defense makes a point or something he disagrees with he immediately gets hostile, angry, has an outburst.
And he gets nasty with his own witnesses! Imagine what he’ll be like with the defense witnesses.
He may have a great record, but Ashton did too, and we’ve seen before how some juries don’t like it when the prosecutor behaves like a petty asshole. Martinez should tone it down a bit.
Here are two youtube vids of Travis Alexander as Eddie Snell motivational speaker for prepaid legal. In the first one he gives ten poor commitments and in the second he shows off his muscles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw6F8YMoCNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36hTqMtzLQQ
Looking at the second vid, he certainly looks like he could easily over power Jodi and it would be no wonder that she would have to keep stabbing at him to get away from him.
Don’t know if you guys have seen this but even the Jodi haters agree on a hate page that this lawyer makes some good points. Here is the link to the video where the lawyer gives his arguments.
Jodi Arias trial: Lawyer says Valley woman could escape the death penalty, or even walk free
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/Jodi-Arias-trial-Lawyer-says-Valley-woman-could-escape-the-death-penalty-or-even-walk-free
I think someone/some group has forced her / threatened her to change statements. This way, they could damage her credibility. The Mormons just could not bear the humiliation they get after evidences reveal that one of their ‘most ideal guy’ appears not ‘ideal’ at all. How can he go to church and speak and stand as a motivational speaker when in fact he is doing such things that exactly contradict their teachings?!? Not everything that we see/presented is exactly what it is. There could something deeper behind it.
Macey- I have the same feeling. I just can’t shake it. It is the most reasonable conclusion I can come to. I know the defense claim can force a believeable picture, but I think it is only believable because it makes more sense than premeditative murder. I think it is very possible that Jodi would rather risk pleading self defense, doing some time, and putting this behind her one day, than living in fear of who ever she knows is guilty. Perhaps the rest of her life in hiding of the real killers and the cult followers.
Hey all. Just posting in regards to people’s doubt over whether they think Jodi could have dragged Travis on her own. My opinion- NO WAY. Here is why. I am epileptic. Relevance you ask- read on. I have had seizures where my family have had to drag me out of harms way. They describe my body as a dead weight when I am passed out to it. I asked my Mum when was I wasn’t convulsing was she able to drag me on my own?My Mum is bigger than me and she says she always needs a hand. The relevance to this if we are making a link to Travis- me convulsing would be seen as resistance. I am trying to find something closest to no resistance -a dead weight (this me at the of my fit or in between them if they are bad (they keep going).
She gave me an example that it once took my uncle and three other well built men to drag me. I only weigh 130 pounds and I am 5’10 tall. My uncle would weigh double me and is an ex cop. I would say a situation like that their adrenalin would be kicking in. People saying the adrenalin kicks in but how much? I get the rare stories etc. So despite this it still took four grown men and I am talking big strong men to drag me. Yes, I am tall but I wouldn’t be classified as heavy. I am much smaller than them. So I just don’t buy it Jodi was able to drag someone the weight of Travis on her own. She had help or for some bizarre reason is she covering for someone?
What kind of marks were on the floor? Dragging marks? Rolling marks?
Any difference if he’s wet and slides more easily across the floor? Maybe that’s why the sheets were washed, if she rolled him onto a sheet, then pulled him on the sheet?
But still, even if she did drag or roll, ‘sheet’ him, any ideas on the motivation of getting him back in the shower? Seems like a lot of work for … what?
If was he on the sheet, basically you are pulling at the sheet and trying to drag him at the same time. Basically, best way I can explain is, you know when you try and open a jar and it just won’t budge a bit like that. Most likely she would tear the sheet if anything.
Now hypothetically (I know she didn’t) if she had what is called was a slide sheet (they have them in hospitals and it was a massive one and this is only if….she could work to put his body in the correct position on the slide sheet then she might have been be able to do it. You wouldn’t def place him at the top because this is where she would bear all the weight and she would loose here balance and hurt her self. Nor would she place him at the bottom because I can’t remember the exact reason in terms of balance stuff but she would probably have to bend down on her knees and her back take most of it…but heck her hands and her arms would cane.
Nurses can effectively roll (living) compliant patients using a bed sheet but this would def take more than one and usually with the help of the patient. There is a correct technique to this.
If was wet then the sheet get wet. Think of it this way. When I had swimming classes where we had to swim in our clothes and save someone that was ‘dead’ it was very hard.The point of this if you saw someone drowning, chances are you may not be in you more bathers so you need to practice swimming fully clothed. In water with all your clothes on, they weigh you down and and its annoying because they aren’t like bathers which are fitted and are special material.
So taking these factors into account, plus the added weight of Travis’s dead weight (no pun intended honestly) I think the sheets going to be more of a burden than anything in terms of lifting.
Just think whole think doesn’t add up Yes I agree with you “But still, even if she did drag or roll, ‘sheet’ him, any ideas on the motivation of getting him back in the shower? Seems like a lot of work for … what?”
There have been murders where the crime scene signifies some religious message. I don’t know anything about Mormonism. I know I am probably beating up the garden path but any ideas?
Forget the dragging, how hard would it have been for her to get him into the shower he was curled up in that tiny shower, would have been seemingly impossible, much more difficult IMO.
Hey Micky
Your question bugged me
But still, even if she did drag or roll, ‘sheet’ him, any ideas on the motivation of getting him back in the shower? Seems like a lot of work for … what?
I was wondering if somebody was leaving a religious symbolism etc. As I noted for I know nil to nothing about Mormonism. However just did some reading and water is a big deal to them and seen in a evil context etc to swim etc. Some on them wear some special under garment while they shower.
I don’t understand the scriptures etc. Leads me to think one of his Mormon friends knows a lot more. As Jodi just being a Mormon for two months I don’t think she understand the shame of being exposed (Travis) to the world like (shower). Its like someone is giving the ultimate revenge and someone has set Jodi up. Maybe she is being set up or threatened.
Yeah just my take on it because it seems a lot of work for what?
Mormons do not think water or swimming is evil.
That is like assuming baptists arent allowed to dance.
Yeah, there’s a lot of strange beliefs about the LDS folk. I’m from Utah (but NOT Mormon) and when I went to Tennessee they had the same mentality about Mormons & water. They also thought Mormons have horns and hypnotize people when they sing “Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree”… 😀
On a different note- I might be mistaken, but I thought I saw hardwood flooring in the photos? If this is the case, and if Travis was wet (or even IF he was on a sheet) wouldn’t it make it EVEN MORE difficult to drag his body? All I can think of is how much resistance there would be because of the weight/water/flooring and dragging.
If someone that was alive was dragged, wouldn’t it cause a friction burn from the resistance? Idk, just some things I was imagining. Maybe the flooring wasn’t even hardwood. If that’s the case then I apologize for any confusion I may be causing.
Tile in the bathroom and carpet in the hall & bedroom
Someone on this site talked alot about this subject, first name I forget, last name Longnecker. He writes oddly the way he over uses comas (purposely i think) makes it difficult to follow him, so I think he was overlooked. ANYWAY all that to say this blood attonement sacrifice is what he suggested reading about. It made alot of sense, to me atleast.
MickyD,
Using a sheet to move someone is commonly used in hospitals by nurses or by Physical Therapists or other caregivers needing to move people that are disabled. So yes, it can make moving a large person very easy for a small person. Another area of the Prosecution that I thought the state did not address and has caused many to wonder how it would be possible for her as a petite person to have “dragged” Travis. But it could have been done with a sheet very easily.
What I have read about why the shower is…a lot of people think 1. She moved him into the shower to look at the wounds more carefully to possibly wash them off and maybe try to care for him/dress wounds but something happened and she was stopped or got scared OR 2. 1. she moved him into the shower in order to wash off..remove …any possible defensive DNA of hers off him
Bob,
Something you said yesterday stuck with me. When you said defense lawyers pay someone to write a story of a defense theory for them, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the defense any lawyer creates is VERY LOOSELY based on the truth? Are you saying they can just make stuff up? For example, had Jodi stuck with her first story, and they pros didn’t have the bloody handprint or pics, would that mean a defense attorney could create a defense around that scenario? They can just pick whatever fits and use it never-mind whether it’s close to the truth? ( I know they can’t reveal whether they know the truth or not but say the defendant comes clean to them privately, are they then obliged to create a defense around the “real” truth?)
And if you are saying they can fabricate a defense, are you then saying, Jodi admitted to this per a court doc you read? That nurmi said something about a doc that shows Jodi admitted to it in self defense? I think you said exception20? Heck, I cant remember.
Thanks for explaining in advance.
Hi CJ, I know you are not asking me that question, but yes you and Bob are correct. The defense can and does create a defense that is based around known facts of the case but can be very creative in order to present an alternate theory that is beneficial to their client. This is where introducing “reasonable doubt” becomes all important, they want it believable enough…hence the hiring of a writer I guess, someone skilled in making the listener believe in the story. Sometimes its true & sometimes its not. They can provide a defense of what COULD have happened not necessarily what DID happen And this is where the state is supposed to have the bigger burden of proof. They are REQUIRED to build their case ONLY around the known facts of the case. Not to say there aren’t many prosecutors who have and do FUDGE facts of the case in order to make their case. I thought that was interesting as well that some defense attorneys have hired writers to come up with a plausible alternative theory. I didn’t know that but it certainly is understandable.
Although we haven’t heard the entire case and testimonies, I’d like to think that the fact so many people have varying ideas on what ‘they believe could’ve/did happen in the case’, shows enough reasonable doubt already. Does that make sense?
I wonder how many different theories each juror has in their mind as to what happened. Whether she admitted to it or not, the evidence doesn’t seem all that clear or reliable and neither do a lot of the people testifying.
I would hope the truth is enough defense. If you are innocent a writer is not required, you simply tell the truth. If that is true they hire a writer. I am outraged that defeats the purpose of a trial. We are looking for the truth not a hollywood drama. That is the problem.
Think of all the evidence collected including testimony as beads. the prosecution is the” thread” that will try to connect all these beads, the tighter the better, so that when the thread ends are tied together no beads fall off. All the defense has to do is knock off one of those beads or make the thread miss a bead altogether. can they intentionally make stuff up? no they can’t suborn perjury or illicit testimony or evidence they know to be false. Do they use the power of suggestion to help the defendant.better explain a story so that is not a lie ,but creates different interpretation of the truth, I think so.
I’m not trying to disparage defense attorneys, but I think a good one wouldn’t be too interested in what the truth really is. Its not their job
also, it may old news and no longer relevant regarding defense attorneys. but she was assigned 2 when she was first arrested, and the the women defense attorney eventually asked to be taken off the case. And JA also petitioned the court to represent herself before the state amended their charges to include the death penalty. Maybe the first PD felt compromised, and didn’t feel she could represent her in good faith because of what she had been told, and maybe JA felt that if they were not willing to run with anything she told them, she had a better chance on her own.
Pure speculation……though
Bob:
from what I remember the reason the first attorney had to drop out was due to a conflict of interest and there was even information that led many to believe it was because she had represented someone else with possible “conflict of interest” information that would necessarily require her removal. I believe the judge allowed it immediately. The judge was not so amenable when Kirk Nurmi tried to withdraw because he was leaving the Public Defenders office. He tried twice and was rejected twice. That has always bothered me and I have worried that that may lead him to be a little less “vigorous” in her defense.
Bob,
Your arguement makes sense. I can see why the actual truth wouldn’t matter when you explain it this way.
You know, I was reading an interview by Taylor Searle, Travis’ “best friend”. In it Searle states that it was “only a couple days before he was killed when Travis showed me a message to Jodi in which he broke it off with her for good”. Now, what I am curious about is, if this is true, this would fit perfectly into the state’s case as to the reason for her “premeditation” of Travis’ murder. And YET, once again, no message at all was put forth as evidence by the state that Travis’ had “broken it off with Jodi for good”. Why NOT? This to me would really have been icing on the cake for the prosecution. Is Taylor lying? Was there no such message? Or was there a message but put into context of what came immediately after, it did not fit the state’s theory?
the possible “what came immediately after” …that the state did not want the jury to see.
Daniel,
The letter was not brought in (imo) because Travis also said the letter was so mean he worried that “jodi may hurt Travis”. So what you said above is also why I think the letter was not included. It would have highlighted his abuse. Plus he slept with her after writing it.
I feel like you guys will hear me scream through the computer if one more person asks why someone would drive to visit someone who abuses them. I give up with that question. If people don’t get it, than I’m not going to worry about it anymore.
Oh, I agree with you, CJ! With as much information about abusive relationships that is out there, I’m surprised that anyone is still asking “Well, why wouldn’t someone just leave?”
I feel like screaming too!!!
I feel the same way! Prior to coming to this site I swear I have left Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace messages regarding their (and their guest’s) skewed views on abusive relationships. I was actually On-Air one of the first nights they discussed the trial on Jane Velez, but I was cut off thanks to a commercial and 5 mins or less of the show remaining. I’ve got a loooong message I need to edit so I can send it to Jane because right now it’s just verbal vomit.
The fact that Jodi was influenced by Travis in regard to her job, ex-boyfriend (bf when she met Travis), and even religion makes it that much more manipulative on Travis’s side. She obviously took what advise he gave her to heart- enough that she ended up changing a lot of her life to support it. What I’m getting at is: Him talking to her about the LDS religion, taking her to church (after having sex, allegedly ), asking to meet up so he can give her a BOM & discussing the Word of Wisdom at Starbucks (allegedly), and soon after asking her to perform oral sex on him (allegedly) in the car, Baptizing her and then (allegedly) wanting to engage in anal sex ——-in MY mind is eerily familiar with a number of abusers who have ‘preached’ their faith and combined it with sex in order to ‘brainwash’/ their victim so the lines and personal boundaries become blurry. ugh, I don’t know how to explain what I’m thinking in a way that isn’t confusing… I believe whether Travis did it consciously/intentionally or not, he was misleading/ degrading/ confusing, and because Jodi looked to him for guidance when it came to the religion he was in a position where he COULD manipulate, take advantage, emotionally & psychologically abuse her. He baptized her! It had to throw off her entire self-concept to hear “you/this is okay/desired” one moment and then “you aren’t worthy/ don’t mean anything/ are bad/ are breaking the ‘rules’ in regard to your spirituality” the next. I hope this makes sense to someone?? Wish I could explain it better.
CJ, Don’t scream! 🙂 I won’t ask that question, because I understand it.
But..the problem I worry about is whether or not her driving all that way to visit Travis one last time after he was so abusive to her, (not to mention moving from CA back to Mesa AFTER they broke up) is not more indicative of something broken in HER as opposed to Travis..or will be seen that way. My point is, yes, of course its true that many women who have been abused return over and over to their abuser. But usually, there are more reasons for the emotional entanglement..i.e. they have been with the abuser for years, its all they know, or they are married and have children with the abuser and can’t give up the dream they have had about a wonderful family life, or they are financially completely dependent on the abuser…None of these extenuating circumstances were present. And we have even heard on this site by posts from CONFUSED, that to go out of her way to engage with him , was confusing even to her. My girlfriend olunteers every once in a while at a womens shelter (the place is so secret even I do not know where it is located) and in her experience, knowing what she knows about DV, she thinks this is going to be a difficult one for Jodi’s defense to overcome. in her opinion, she thinks the defense is also really going to have to show evidence of incredibly sinister psychological abuse of Travis towards Jodi, along with evidence of physical abuse, or else this situation of her going so far to visit Travis (keeping in mind she was also deathly afraid of him and his potential to really truly hurt her), says more about Jodi’s problems than it does Travis. Just thought I would pass this along.
CONFUSED being a poster on here who was abused by husband for years.
Oh I agree with your girlfriend. They are going to have show sinister or physical with good evidence. I think Jodi had her own issues, no doubt. I don’t know if I totally agree with her driving there because of her own issues. I shared my story on here: two relationships that were abuse years ago, before I went through a ton of therapy. One, the first, I would have driven to see him. He didn’t physically abuse thought but emotionally he was torture. But he was soo convincing and contrite when he was sorry. He was charasmatic even. I wasnt married to that guy, lived with him for only a month BUT we were togther on and off for four years. The second was physically abusive and left after the 5th DV and went to prison to which I went into treatment for my issues causing me to gravitate toward ppl like this. If I had to choose, I would say that the first guy has more power over me and Id rather be hit then emotionally screwed with.
( now I couldn’t fathon relationships like that and have been married healthfully for 13 years.)
In my case though I had been involved with them for a lot longer than jodi which speaks to your point. Jodi hadnt known him for that long and was very attached early on ie joining the religion so quickly which shows some of what you mean about her having issues right?
It does, yes you are right. And I completely understand how emotionally abusive can rise to the level of being worse than being physically abusive.( in some cases anyway…because some women never survive the physical abuse)…
Thanks CJ and I am so glad you are well beyond that misery! 🙂
I hate how most of the journalists/ news broadcasters are unwilling to consider the fact that a lot of the same questions they ask about Jodi, can also be asked of Travis:
Why did you (Travis) continue to stay with her?
Why continue to see her if she did, in fact slash your tires?
Why didn’t YOU file a police report about her alleged stalking and tire-slashing?
Why didn’t you seek a restraining order?
Where are the pictures, and proof of her ‘scary stalking and other behaviors’?
Why didn’t Travis’s ‘concerned friends’ file some sort of report or have more of an intervention with Travis since they ‘knew’ Jodi was “dangerous/evil/etc”?
It seems Travis had a LOT more support as far as friends, family, and church members than Jodi did, so why was it so hard for HIM to break away from the “fatal attraction”?
I believe it was Taylor Searle (or another one of his friends) who referred to Jodi as “Just a BOOTY CALL” to Travis and “not someone he would marry”. What does that say about Travis’s TRUE character?
Why let Jodi into your house if you’re afraid of her?
Why have sex with her (IN YOUR HOUSE especially) if you were afraid of her and didn’t want to have anything to do with her?
If this was premeditated then 1-How did Jodi KNOW Travis would for sure be home (I mean, she had to drive a looong way) and who’s to say he’d open the door when she got there? 2-How did she know his roommates either wouldn’t be home or wouldn’t hear the sounds of a gun or Travis being stabbed numerous times? Again, she had to drive a looong way. Doesn’t it sound funny to think that she went through all of this trouble (dying her hair, renting car, gas cans, etc) for some time in advance- to just leave a ridiculous murder scene with all sorts of evidence? Tedious planning for some time only to ‘throw planning out the window’ once she did murder him?? Sounds stupid to me! Doesn’t make sense. Who plans so many details UP UNTIL a murder but doesn’t have at least SOME plan in place to follow through, dispose of/get rid of evidence? Besides that, Travis and Jodi’s relationship seemed to be so up & down- hooking up then breaking up- how could she plan on murdering him when the ‘hope’ that things COULD work out- AGAIN- was still a possibility? Their relationship seemed too unpredictable for her to form a plan and actually carry through with it- not changing her mind along the way. (There seemed to be a lot of each of therm changing their mind while they were seeing each other)
How do we know that Travis didn’t want to/plan on killing Jodi in order to save his reputation? I mean, he couldn’t resist ‘her evil ways’ and I’m sure was under a LOT of scrutiny when it came to dating her.. Perhaps he wanted to ‘get rid of the problem’ and it backfired!
He was able to get her into vulnerable sexual positions just as easily as she was able to get him. Travis could’ve used intimacy just as easily as Jodi could’ve used ‘her looks’ and ‘sex’!
Isn’t it possible that Travis could’ve tried to kill Jodi and THAT is how she ended up killing him in self-defense?
*I’m just throwing out ideas here.. I realize her statements so far don’t match any of that, and I also don’t know how to explain the ‘overkill’ other than rage/passion… or one of Travis’s friends/roommates finishing him off.. maybe they had a personal vendetta against him?
Jodi lied numerous times when interrogated/interviewed- how many suspects are actually honest the first time they are interviewed? (I really am curious)
Okay, so Jodi lied and people are unwilling to let that go, BUT Travis obviously lied and was misleading & deceitful, so how does HE have so much credibility?
Why give so much credit to others’ testimonies (they seem like hear-say to me) such as Travis’s friends, when he could’ve just been talking shit to them about Jodi in order to ‘save face’ the whole time?
Yikes! I have a headache. Sometimes I wish I was in the courtroom helping to defend Jodi 🙁
It’s sad that I have so much more to say (even after writing the novel above) in regard to the issue of abuse. Having been a victim myself (raped when I was 14 yo), I can identify with gravitating toward very unhealthy relationships and staying in them longer than I should (mostly because they were master manipulators that knew how to control & convince me of things). I ended up (still do) question my own decision-making and my own thinking and perception. Not knowing who or what to trust is awful. It’s so easy for someone to tolerate the abuse when they don’t have much self-worth to begin with. In my opinion it seemed like Jodi struggled with that and was searching for an identity and way to feel worthy. From her testimony it sounded as though Travis was able to ‘reassure’ her, praised her, doted on her by giving her attention, told her she deserved more and better than she had at that moment, and basically motivated her to want more and to do better. I’m sure he seemed like ‘Mr. Wonderful’ because of his success, his devotion to his religion- which teaches good values, his motivational speeches, all of the friends and business partners that surrounded him… I’m sure it seemed ideal…. in the beginning.
People are upset about Jodi’s flat affect while testifying. I’m not concerned because I understand where it might be coming from. I often have a flat affect and have trouble showing any emotion because I’m so used to stuffing my emotions down/hiding them so I won’t appear quite as vulnerable. I masked my emotions for so long as a way of self-preservation because I just couldn’t handle the pain I felt. My friends and family complain about not being able to read whether I am upset, ‘happy’ with something, angry. I get it. I am easily triggered by the tiniest noise, situation, touch, etc… and it can send me into a rage instantly. Thankfully, I’ve been aware of all of this and have been getting help. I don’t think Jodi was that fortunate. It’s too bad that they’ll both be paying a price for being in an unhealthy relationship. Essentially, even if Jodi doesn’t receive the death penalty she’ll still be paying with her life. I feel they are both victims in this.
I think one reason why people aren’t asking TA why he kept going back to Jodi is because he is dead.
I think another reason no one is asking him that question is that he is not defending himself against a charge of homicide, with the excuse that he was abused. So, it is not much of an issue why he kept going back to her.
And I think another reason why no one is asking him is because he did not drive 1000 miles and then kill her. I think, if he had done that, perhaps the question would be asked.
But..why do you want to know why he is not being asked?
It’s a rhetorical question. The point is, there are mitigating factors that need to be viewed because of her defense and one of them is that Travis town has accused Jodi of being a stalker. The prosecutor said this in not so many words about her checking his phone only to find he was cheating. As it turns out, she was never stalking him so the prosecution’s case looks very weak. The abuse matters because had it not happened, we wouldn’t be here today discussing this case. His death did not happen in a vacuum as much as the prosecution would like us to believe.
Travis was planning on vising Jodi, he was planning on driving 1000 miles to see her, he told her she was at the top of his list on that trip. MANipulative. And like someone else on here pointed out, “you don’t invite your stalker to clean your house” and only pay her $12.50 an hour.
Re: the John Doe email. Was it presented as evidence at trial? I don’t recall. I’m looking, of course, at the phrase: “that insidious man.” Whoever wrote it had certain feelings/opinions about Travis! If jodi wrote it, that would mean she wanted this insidious sinner all to herself.
I would imagine someone from the church wrote it.
Not necessarily… IF this was written by Jodi, she wouldn’t have put “that awesome guy”… She would have put the filthiest thing she could think of that would smear Travis in a way that would have Lisa reconsidering who she was dating and leave him….but it had to sound like it was coming from the mouth of a devoutly religious person shunning Lisa for being with a sinful man.
If NOT written by Jodi, it could be any number of people: jealous ex-boyfriend or admirer, jealous admirer of Travis, friend or family member thinking she was getting too serious with Travis and trying to scare her away, or even a judgmental church-goer who saw them together and felt a duty to set her straight.
I just keep asking myself what would any person have to gain by writing this letter? Personal gain? Or moral gain? Hard to say for sure though…
Neutral Party-
You seem to have a similar perspective as me when it comes to The Church and personalities of the ‘devout’/nosy members. I love it! You obviously don’t have to answer, but I’m wondering if you’ve had much involvement with The Church or its’ members?
I definitely have. Being from Orem/Provo area of Utah, it’s hard not to! (Is anyone thinking about the “Provo Push” comment?) lol Btw, I ran across the Urban Dictionary’s definition of it probably 6 months ago by accident. Pretty funny stuff 😀 I’m sure she heard the common line “Stay Moral, Go Oral” as a way to rationalize the oral sex.
I wish the news media would look into sites like “Behind the Mormon Curtain” in order to get a more ’rounded’ perspective on how much the religion aspect DOES/CAN play into this case. It’s difficult to understand fully unless you’re aware of the ‘inner-workings’ and goings-on of The Church.
At the beging this ltr bugged me becuz I was reading it like “if” jodi was writing it. BUT I read it like someone who knew Mimi herself, makes more sense. The part; “i know you are strong enough to choose the right.” That came from someone she knew personally, n she KNIWS it! She just doesnt want to say cuz she knows that person n she knows its true! That makes her a lier n under her religion, shes committing a sin!
I really enjoy reading this site and appreciate the comments and discussions, which are done in a reasonable manner (as opposed to the opinions & dramatics of the haters). I have to admit though, the fact that I am still impartial to either side has been a shock to me. (maybe because I was a total Casey Anthony hater??) Therefore, I thought you all might appreciate (coming from someone who’s impartial) that I am so put-off by Martinez’s behavior, with all of his abrasiveness and his rude antics, that I actually find myself siding with the defense and rolling my eyes at some of Martinez’s objections. Surely he wouldn’t be where he is today if this tactic didn’t bode well with jurors, but I tend to think if I was on that jury panel, I wouldn’t buy into his theory of Jodi Arias is a pre-meditated cold blooded killer. I would most certainly be wondering what went on between Jodi and Travis that no one else saw, and that “what if” would keep me from going with a guilty verdict. What I have noticed in the trial testimony so far is that he was ashamed of dating Jodi while playing the virginal devout Mormon to his Mormon friends and looking for a worthy Mormon wife, all while gettin kinky with Jodi behind the scenes and acting out his sexual fantasies, but not interested in anything other than sex with her. Obviously that’s not a good enough reason to kill someone, but I’m really curious about all of the unknown. Thats my two cents. Thanks for the great reading material everyone!
I am a little distressed that Arias’s attorney, Mr. Nurmi, is just sitting there like a potted plant during Martinez’s objectionable cross exam. For example, Martinez will ask an unclear question, Arias will ask for a clarification, then Martinez will scream at her and berate her for not understanding. This is quite improper and abusive. Nurmi should be on his feet, actively objecting, and actively interfering with this manner of cross exam. This would also give Arias “cover” and make it clear to the jury that Martinez’s exam is “over the top.”
WISHIING jodi were better at math only to REALLY EMBARRASS MARTINEZ YESTERDAY……………………………………………………………..REMEMBER THIS………………………he was going over the gas receipts and said well……….screamed at her. “MAM!!!!! DOES THIS NOT SAY EIGHT POINT 3 ZERO FOUR TENTHS?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I KNOW I KNOW………….. not helping her case however mr. smartass screaming idiot does not know the THIRD decimal place is 1/1,000 NOT 1/10……………he CLEARLY SAID IT TWICE…….IE referring the the 3rd decimal as “tenths”…………………..wish nermi would have objected but he may not have the “math” stuff on his mind i do not blame him……………………i really really dislike martinez and am trying to find his office to email him about his style and math skills……………..not so smart…………….imo………….