Janeen DeMarte – Jurors Questions (from Day 50)

Following on from another very successful day for Team Jodi, here’s a list of the 19 jurors questions asked & answered by Janeen DeMarte from trial day 50:

Q1: How many forensic cases have you worked on?

Q2: How many times have you testified based on your evaluations?

Q3: How many cases involved abuse?

Q4: Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking, would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?

Q5: Would the person be answering the questions the same, regardless of whether they called the animal a bear or a tiger?

Q6: Do you believe absolutely that it is possible to remain purely unbiased in an evaluation once compassion creeps in?

Q7: What types of people are at risk for developing or having Borderline Personality Disorder?

Q8: In the interview Jodi gave, where she stated – “Mark my words, no jury will ever convict me” – do you feel that is part of a Borderline Personality Disorder, especially since she is smiling  when she said it?

Q9: Wouldn’t taking the camera, rather than leaving it, show more organizational thinking capabilities?

Q10: When asked by the defense about efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment, you stated you had other examples for this category that did not involve TA. Can you share those examples?

Janeen DeMarte - Jodi Arias - Team Jodi 4-18

Q11: Do you think deleting pictures from a camera, and then washing that camera is an attempt to remove or destroy evidence?

Q12: If you had not seen pictures proving that the evidence (photos) was recovered, given your knowledge of cameras, would you have viewed this as an effective attempt to destroy evidence?

Q13: In your opinion, is it normal for a person who is incarcerated to be depressed and have anxiety?

Q14: Do you consider Jodi stabbing, shooting & slitting TA’s throat to be a traumatic event?

Q15: You said you administered the TSI to Jodi because Dr Karp had done the same… but you did not re-administer other tests that Dr Karp or Dr Samuels had given. Can you explain why?

Q16: Do you know what the differences are between the TSI 1 versus the TSI 2?

Q17: Regarding the PDS answer sheet – exhibit #555 – do you know who’s handwriting is on the PDS answer sheet?

Q18: Do you see any issues with Dr Samuels filling out the answer sheet and possibly summarizing the written answers on section #2?

Q19: Does it cause any concern for you regarding the validity of the test, that the written answers appear to be answered by someone who is familiar with psychological verbiage and not in layman’s verbiage?

And here’s the video covering all the questions & answers, together with the state & defense follow-ups:


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leave your comments below…

Team Jodi


  1. geebee2 says:

    Oh wow, they are much better than I thought. Clearly the jury is divided.

    ( I only saw the second half of juror’s questions – which was a bit depressing! )

    • geebee2 says:

      Well I take that back. Nothing is clear from Juror’s questions.
      But they seem quite well balanced and thoughtful on the whole.
      All we need is a jury that understands the case properly and isn’t bamboozled by Martinez’s stupid arguments.

      • Jamie says:

        I love how this Forensic Psych picks and chooses when she wants to believe Jodi’s word is credible.
        Another thing that drives me crazy is that this same Forensic Psych has been misleading with some of her own personal information, yet believes there’s no problem in that! Practically everything she has testified to is somehow morphed to fit the prosecution’s side…. but SHE’s not biased!

        • Jamie says:

          Keep sippin’ that water DeMarte! Maybe the ‘correct’ answers will come to you…. You aren’t nervous, are you?

      • Tim Himes says:

        I call Juan Martinez, “Bon Jovi Rockstar, Macho Camacho Juan a fighter” I think he is crass, bombastic, demeaning, insulting, egotistical, arrogant condescending and a bully. His is “Johnny ” one note, crush anything or anyone in his path, he doesn’t know any other way. I suggest he watch a good actor performing his craft, preferably on stage, where tempo, tone, intonation, operative words, mood and movement keep the audience attached to what you are saying instead like an amateur actor chewing up the scenery, ranting and raving, substituting noise with sincerity. Many law schools hold classes with Acting coach’s for just that reason, lawyers are on stage, some are effective many are simple bores.

    • patty says:

      OH these are great questions. They show doubt. Doubt she planned this. Doubt this Dr knows what she is doing, Doubt is our friend and Jodi’s. Go Jurors think! Think how your awesome doctor that you see, can be kind and compassionate and still professional. THINK, why wash a camera? Jodi knows about memory cards. Think Jurors….Think and keep that doubt and say NO to Martinez, you are wrong!

      • Introspective says:

        Yes, Vote NO on jm! Good summerization, Patty.

      • Jean says:

        Oh that is good – you said it Patty! I think that deserves an “Amen” for the jury using their heads!!!!
        These jurors are not stupid. Definitely.

        I see jodi everyday and I feel so bad for her. I want to give her a hug and tell her it will be ok. She always looks so so sad. I can’t imagine sitting there everyday for this long with your life on the line.
        So, if Jo reads this – (((((((((HUGS))))))))))) and another ((((((((((((BIG HUG))))))))))))))) because you deserve them!! I sure hope you get them!!!

      • maria rigadopoulou says:

        Yep,Patty you’re right!Tosum it all up:Jurors,USE YOUR HEAD please!

  2. geebee2 says:

    I have a new section about the cluster of 9 wounds to the back. I reckon they should not have been classified as stab wounds by Horn, according to his own definition and testimony: http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/The+Big+Lie#ninestabs

    • cindy jewell says:

      Good morning GB. I always love your post. As always said the slashes to the back Proved That she a was on top of Jodi She was fighting for her life.
      The jury questions Sound to me As if they are not buying Baby doctors Testimony. Even ng last night so God the questions were in the defenses favor. Hahaha!

      • Aly says:

        Thanks geebee,
        I’v e never understood Jodi having a knife and I agree they aren’t stab wounds.

        When Jodi was asked did you kill Travis, she looked at the jury and said yes.

        We couldn;t see her when asked about stabbing her, I don’t think they have ever found the knife
        and as far as we know it never left the house. I heard one on the talking heads say it was about the size of a pocket knife. What made then thing that and one of the idiots even said sh slashed his tires and then used the same knife.

        When they talk I never believe ONE thing that they say, BUT I thought that was about one of the stupidest of many things they SAY period. If Jodi really did use the knife and I can’t wrap my head around that one at all.

        But, IF she did I do agree with cindy it wasn’t from the back.

  3. Sil says:

    I have a feeling that questions 17, 18 and 19 came from the same juror. All the shit about whether Dr. Samuels altered scores was beaten to a pulp by the prosecutor. So the juror bringing it up is practically asking her for her opinion on it so he/she may validate theirs. That juror is not a friend.

    The other questions were more germaine to her testimony. So I’m happy.

    I hope that at least one juror at some point engaged in some kind of therapy. They would definitely not like this chick.

    Oh, I’m not going to call her *Dr.* anything. She has no value as a doctor. She clearly is in this to become an expert at giving “expert” testimony and not because she truly cares about helping people. Specially, given all this shit she spouts about domestic violence. Now, I’m not familiar with abuse or domestic violence because I guess I’ve been lucky and also being from where I am, being hit with a belt was not uncommon in our family dynamics.

    All my cousins got beatings when we were kids. :lol: But, personally, I do have one son, and in his whole life, of sixteen years, I’ve only once hit him once with a belt and it just didn’t feel right. So I loaded up on books about parenting and child psychology just so I could understand a little about how to be a good parent. I’ve made tons of mistakes I’m sure, but I proactively engage him in conversation about his future, his role in society, his responsibilities to himself and others and I must say, my kid is pretty amazing!

    I wish that Jodi would have had a better support system. :( She deserved so much better. She *deserves* so much better, actually. And hopefully when this whole ordeal is over, some kind soul will help her get on her feet. I wouldn’t mind doing something for her. Maybe we can all do something on her behalf. We can buy her a ticket to Greece and she can visit marie. heheh

    • geebee2 says:

      Just like Jodi once kicked a dog, and felt really, really bad about it.
      As Flores said : that’s not an anger management problem.
      I once had a similar incident I’m not going to disclose, that just happened once.
      Learning when you do something bad is a sign of normality.

    • cindy jewell says:

      That my friend Is how the cycle of abuse ends…..

    • joujoubaby says:

      Good for you, Sil. I was never physically abused. My dad was physically abusive toward my mother and verbally abusive toward both of us. One day my younger brother (not his son) did something that irritated and I screamed, “ARE YOU STUPID?” And my ears heard it as if it were my dad himself yelling. At that moment I realized that I had it in me to be exactly like him. I’ve never been more angry with myself and hurt for my little brother. I know how that feels to perpetrate the thing that is so damaging to self. I have not been perfect since, but it was certainly my blinding on the road to Damascus.

    • RumpledRose says:

      I agree Sil with the questions you stated as coming from the same juror, but I think that same juror asked at least 15 and 16 too.

      Seems that person is knowledgeable in the field. And, I am thinking not from a patient/client standpoint, but rather seems this person has had some edu on the subject. This could help or hurt this case, just depends if he/she is more for the abuser or the abused (this will also depend on that persons own life experiences), and whether or not he/she can see that TA was the one with most of the power and control in that co-dependent, absolutely f’d mentally love sick relationship. This juror is trying not to be biased as well, and to be more objective.

      Still think so far that none of this matters so far. Premeditation and Murder 1 in my mind hasn’t even come close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there are still more rebuttal witnesses though, I guess it’s still too early to tell. However, with that said, I cannot see how bringing on Walmart or the gas station attendant will help with anything for the state…to me, that’s just going to piss most the jurors off for implying that JM didn’t think they were smart enough to get his bs the first time through. Can’t see where that will even help the Pros case.

    • maria rigadopoulou says:

      thank you for remembering that I would be more than willing and happy to have Jodi as my guest to my beautiful country once she’s out until things are settled back there.Haters have been proved to be real psychos and I do worry about Jodi’s safety,that’s true.
      The questions were good,I didnt like Q8,the verbiage of Q14 and Q18-19(or m,aybe those two were just clarification questions I don’t know).But overall,yesterday’s questions sounded nicer than those asked when ALV was on the stand for example.I remeber crying while listening that day!

    • Truthseeker1111 says:


      A courtroom observer posted on another website that these two jurors turned in the most questions on Thursday, Day 50…

      Juror 8…older nice looker male with goatee that looks like he may be the juror foreman
      Juror 9…slender male with long white pony tail

      Since these two jurors sit side by side…can they look over and read each others questions before they submit them for the witness?

      Do the jurors get to talk with each other about the trial each day?

      • Sil says:

        Hmmm. I suppose it’s very possible that a juror could glance at another juror’s paper and see what they’re writing, but I’m pretty sure they are NOT supposed to be discussing the case with one another until it’s given to them for deliberation.

  4. geebee2 says:

    More good news : I am up to number two slot this morning when you google for

    “Jodi Arias Wiki”

    Keep searching and clicking!

    Maybe I will ask for the wikipedia article to be deleted after all!

    • Sil says:

      I’ve bookmarked it and I click on it several times a day. lol

      • Sable says:

        What a great idea! Thanks, I have bookmarked and will now do the same. Enjoyed your post above and others’ answers, also. Live and learn, I so identify with all of you and is one reason I love this site.
        So refreshing to opine with others who are WILLING to learn from our experiences as opposed to listening to the vindictive accusations, intolerant bluster, and blind hatred being dished out by the lemmings and sheep out there.
        Love the idea of somehow helping an acquitted Jodi to travel to Greece. :D
        Now that is a positive creative visualization! Wish we could somehow ALL go to visit Maria!!!

        • CR says:

          I have also bookmarked it a couple of weeks ago. So glad I did so. I click it 10-15 times a day. I did not know it helped.

        • maria rigadopoulou says:

          I’m no rich girl,that’s for sure yet a greek proverb says:” There’s always room even for 1000 people as long as they are GOOD people”.You can all come and I promise you we will have a great time sunbathing,going sightseeing,enjoying the nightlife(YES,YES JODI INCLUDED!!!!!) :D

    • patty says:

      Add more tags too!! Yay good for you!!

    • BirdOnALimb says:

      I have bookmarked it also. it will give me something to read on this gloomy day. :) Thanks for all you do.

    • maria rigadopoulou says:

      do I just type ”Jodi Arias Wiki” and go to the Wikipedia article or are you guys talking about a different article?Sorry for the dumb question,Im no computer wiz obviously :)

    • Jared Wolf says:

      Geebee, just looked at the page about the ‘stab wounds’ really being chop wounds, and that she likely stabbed him only 3 times. That’s great stuff! The overkill indicating rage has to constantly be somewhere in the minds of every juror. I kind of wish the Jurors would have access to summaries such as yours, but then they would in turn have access to all the other emotional revenge websites that lack any objectivity.

      Thank you and I’ll be sure to click on the site as many times a day as I can. Maybe the court of popular opinion will reverse course in time.

  5. Jaz says:

    I was in a meeting and missed the jurors questions. I’m stoked to see how it went.

    Good Morning and Happy Friday everyone! :)

    • cindy jewell says:

      Good morning to all of you also. so next week its gas cans again? Yuck!

      • Sil says:

        Morning ladies! =)

      • Ann says:

        Are you kidding about the gas cans? Anymore witnesses ?

        • Sable says:

          I think JM has rebuttal witness from Walmart to try to prove Jodi was “lying” and did not return the kerosene can…. big hairy deal, huh? They got nuthin’. Scramblin’ for itty bitty straws is all.

          • Heather1 says:

            Cashiers make mistakes, its well known–they’re human–so yes, he’s clutching at straws, its ridiculous, like saying they never give the wrong change or forget to check out something and you go home without it, which happened to me just last week!!

      • maria rigadopoulou says:

        Oh Gawwwwwd I thought I would never have to repeatedly hear the word”gas ans,gas cans,gas cans” coming from Kermit’s mouth ever again!!

  6. Al says:

    Good Morning All.

    And this morning’s little song is


  7. JoshDavis says:

    Good morning everyone :-) let’s all try to formulate
    a mental block of DeMarte’s smug, rude, stuck up
    & condescending face drinking over 500 cups of
    water. I never want to see that face ever again!

    • cindy jewell says:

      Omg how I so Agree with you….Hope she finds someway to pay off that PHD…This sure isn’t it.

      • Claudia says:

        You do not have to pay for a Phd. My son got a stipend for 4 years at a medical school where he received his Phd, which allowed him to have an apartment off campus. After medical school, he did a 4 year post doctorate at St. Jude Children’s Hospital where he also received a stipend. Dr. D may have some money due on getting her Bachelors, but with the length of time, she most likely has it paid off.

    • B.Berry says:

      I envy her bladder control, LOL.

    • Jamie says:

      Doesn’t she realize too much water can kill a person?! lol Keep chuggin!

  8. Gwen says:

    OIC what baby doc was saying about lions, tigers and bears. If you’re attacked by a bear your trauma would fall under the Big Brown or Grizzly trauma category but if it was a tiger, your trauma would be more Bengal or feline and catlike. But if you lied about it that would negate any trauma you felt at all. I bet she has a chart. And only a Juan-loving idiot would BS her way thru trying to answer such a question in favor of the prosecution. HA!

  9. Mariana Dimitrov says:

    Hey guys, I just found this post on one of the hate sites. It’s interesting :

    Ronni Teamsterbabe Nancy Schmitt-West… I found this for you but you will have to do the math. God help us!! She obviously lies on her “CV” whatever the hell that is… Jennifer L. Willmott, JD

    Jennifer Willmott has spent her entire legal career defending people’s
    rights and freedoms. She received her undergraduate degree from the
    University of Arizona in 1992. In 1995 she graduated from Arizona State
    University School of Law. Immediately after graduating from law school,
    Jennifer joined the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office. As a trial
    attorney, Jennifer defended thousands of cases. At the Public Defender’s
    Office, Jennifer had the opportunity to defend many different types of
    cases ranging from misdemeanor DUI charges to homicides. Beginning
    in 2001 Jennifer took on the added responsibility of supervising and
    training trial attorneys.

    She has successfully tried and won serious felony charges including
    aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping,
    child molest, homicide, and auto theft.

    Jennifer dedicates her entire practice to defending those charged with
    crimes and DUIs. She practices in Maricopa County Superior Court and
    all city courts, including Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa,
    Buckeye, Tolleson, Glendale, Peoria, and Surprise.

    In addition to her criminal defense practice, Jennifer has taught hundreds
    of attorneys trial practice skills and how to be a competent and effective
    criminal defense attorney. Many of the attorneys Jennifer has instructed
    are now well respected criminal defense attorneys.

    • cindy jewell says:

      Thats our Ms Jennifer.

      • TB1 says:

        Yes, and all the hater sites keep saying is she smokes pot. Personally I don’t care if she does or not, I’m just thankful that she is on JA’s side and if you watched Nurmi during this young, inexperienced girl’s testimony, I think he really is liking Jen. And even the hater sites didn’t like the questions. Cindy, I keep telling you I’m in the thumb, but I think it gets lost in the numerous posts lately.

        • cindy jewell says:

          Didn’t you change your name?
          Yes JM I have a memory problemaaaaa

          • TB1 says:

            Yes, I did because I noticed someone else was using the same name, so I didn’t want to be confused with someone else.

        • Kira says:

          The hater sites are basing the pot thing off of an arrest record for a Jennifer Sussman (JW’s maiden name and I assume a common one) who was born in 1982. Our Jennifer was born in 1969 or 1970. Those people are just too stupid.

          • maria rigadopoulou says:

            They’re such a disgrace those haters,they really are! Why dont they bother to check thier info before spewing all this shit about JW?She’s one classy lady,who also happens to be a brilliant mind and attorney! I’m so proud she’s on Jodi’s side!!

      • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

        AND she’s likable. She’s nice and she has good manners. There’s a lot to be said for that when you compare her to Martinez.

    • Kira says:

      What is this person getting at?

      • Mariana Dimitrov says:

        That’s what I was wondering. What she mean by lies on “CV”? Anybody?

        • Claudia says:

          A CV is a resume for professionals. Much thorough than a résumé .

        • Michelle K says:

          A resume is typically a one-page document that includes your educational and work history, with key accomplishments and awards highlighted

          BUT a CV or curriculum vitae can stretch longer than one page and includes more details about research and publications you’ve authored, as well as honors, awards and affiliations.

          CV’s as someone I think has already pointed out is just a much more detailed resume often submitted more so by senior executive type positions.

      • sirlips says:

        I think she was trying to point out to someone else that had been saying JW “padded” her own experience..

        I would guess the line of thinking is that someone couldnt have done all those things, that jenn claims, in such a short time.

        What they dont understand is Jenn is not HIRED by anyone, she is assigned by the court to cases. She is a public defender.

        How can someone train hundreds of people in several years? well, you can train more than one person at a time….maybe even do classes with hundreds of people attending. (Kind of like working at more than 1 resteraunt at a time..wink wink DR.D)

        • Kira says:

          Maybe they still have it in their heads that 1995 wasn’t all that long ago. But it’s been 18 years!

        • Sable says:

          I love it!
          Good Morning, Sirlips.

        • Ann says:

          Did you think JD testimony about her working more than 10 jobs came of snobbish? I did! I think this Dr. did a whole lot of impling…I didn’t like it when Jen said…you do know they are still in a relationship,dont you. She said, I know they are still having sex. I read between the lines..ok heffer your impling sex only relationship.

    • Rhonda in Alabama says:

      This other side of people I hope to GOD they never need a defense
      attorney for something in LIFE. It seems in the other sides eyes
      a TRIAL should be like Nasty DisGrace claims all on the STATE
      PROSECUTOR side an if you are a defendant you are just GUILTY
      then ? No If’s, And’s or But’s about it? WTH kind of country would that be?

      I think that is how it is in some country’s though but this is AMERICA
      an if people feel they like that type of LAW they need to MOVE to
      a country that FITS THEM because obviously the USA does not.

      An it is scary that some of these same people that think that way can
      be on JURY’S ! hopefully some Juror’s are actually thinking the
      American Way. As in PROVE to ME the GUILT. Without any
      doubts. Show me the PROOF etc.

      • maria rigadopoulou says:

        Rhonda,there seem to be so many people out there who are apparently keen supporters of the Holy Inquisition,that’s why!!

    • Wonderingwhy says:

      CURRICULUM VITAE !!!!!! seriously, they don’t know what’s CV is? They shouldn’t be able to talk about anything regarding anything ever!

    • I absolutely love Jennifer Wilmott! I love her enthusiasm and her diligent efforts in helping Jodi. She is professional yet authentically personable!

  10. patty says:

    YES, YES, YES, YES, YES. The Jury thinks Baby Doc is a dumbass. Sorry but they do not think she knows what she is doing based on those questions. OMGosh, Omgosh what a great day for Jodi. Thank you Jurors. OMGosh, Hope, I have hope and a good feeling.. Please hurry and go to Jury. They believe Jodi has PTSD, they believe she was disorganized and didnt plan this. OH yes yes yes yes yes. Great day, good job Jurors, great job JW. Bad job Dr D-azz. Haha Martinez…….. FAIL!!

    • Sable says:

      It is a GREAT FEELING to be alive today, isn’t it?!!!!
      Hope Jodi gets to have great days of feeling alive on the outside pretty soon!!!
      Hope Hope Hope Hope :!:

    • Nikki says:

      Hope Jodi gets a chance to read those yesterday afternoon Day 50 comments – all of them, someday. Might be an antidote for migraines because laughter is so good for you!

      • Nikki says:

        To clarify, what was laughable was the posturing by Dr. D., i.e. her intellectual investment in the Testing process. Reductionism writ large. [Lady, take it down a notch, and ditch the vocal fry, ok? When you chronically push down your voice like that you can damage it – more over you push down your emotions in the process. Feelings are ok. Trust that you can ethically manage them. You’ve got great potential but at this stage you have more future ahead of you than, well, expertise behind you.] I don’t mean to suggest there is anything laughable about Travis’s demise. The guy was extremely disadvantaged by his background. He unsuccessfully sought redemption, and that makes me very sad. RIP TA.

  11. cindy jewell says:

    She is a dumb ass.
    She sure doesn’t know anything about PTSD. How could she say They don’t suffer From depression.

    • TB1 says:

      And killing someone doesn’t cause trauma. I’m glad she answered the way she did because other wise the jurors might believe her. So be thankful for her asinine comments, by being too rigidly objective, she showed her bias.

      • LC says:

        Right TB. The question it self was setvup fir a fsil. Think, lets say “HYPOTHETICALY” speaking, that she answered YES to that question “would be the same/AS TRAUMATIC” that would’ve meant that the attack would’ve been the same either way but she was not taking Jodis attack into account. Or why then was she not considering Jodis attack to be as traumatic. I dont know, I hope I make sense.

        • Jared Wolf says:

          TB1, “rigidly objective?” My impression of Dr. Damarte is that she came to court with the ‘objective’ of out right KILLING Jodi Arias. It seemed to me she didn’t even believe her own BS, that she knows her diagnosis doesn’t hold any water, is perjuring herself and that she is Juan Martinez’ puppet. I don’t think it gets more subjective than Dr Damarte.

        • Jamie says:

          And doesn’t ‘trauma’ vary person to person? Perhaps one event is traumatic to one person and not another…

    • Jamie says:

      Not only that, but PTSD and Borderline Personality Disorder can occur co-morbidly, can’t they? BPD is usually developed due to early childhood trauma for the most part, isn’t it? (trauma being abuse of some sort, neglect, chaotic environment, etc)

  12. patty says:

    OK this guy has a YouTube video and says we are all fake, or “staged” commenters. That pisses me off. Also, he thinks he is super sleuth, NOT! Did you know the manager of this site also supported Casey Anthony? OMGosh the guy is a idiot. However, since I am a real person, a real and not staged commenter and this guy is reporting lies as facts, can we all please flag this insane video and get him thrown off YouTube, with his cleaver little name. The creep. Jodi will be free, we will be victorious and I am sick of being put down for believing she was defending herself. Is it just us who think that TA was a sick, demented, derelict, sexual deviant? Sorry but requesting anal sex from a woman on first date is pervy. She only did it to please him.

    • TB1 says:

      Patty, it gets better, look up Chris Stark on twitlonger, we are actually a pr firm hired by Joez Baez, to make it look like JA has support and these are all canned comments on here. Canned from where I don’t know and it’s Friday do we get a paycheck today?

      • patty says:

        TB1, I am tired of being bashed for supporting Jodi. I was successful in getting people to stop posting nasty, stuff on FB and other sites. I am not gonna put up with it, so everyone I see I flag and report!

        • SJ - Team Jodi says:

          Hi Patty,
          Thanks for your concern and your support. I just sent you an email.

          Team Jodi

          • Jared Wolf says:

            Is this the video (I just watched it) where a guy does some detective work and finds the “damning evidence” that Jodiisinnocent website is run by, OMG a PAKISTANI MAN!!!?? It must be some insidious attempt by foreigners to destroy the American Justice System!

            Well SJ, JC, or MB, whichever one of you is guilty of being “Pakistani” and trying to ruin our justice system, I have news for you, YOU ARE TOO LATE!! LOL

      • Ann says:

        Stupid people must have more time than I do to think these thing up.

        • cindy jewell says:

          Ann, I’m afraid that the coming weeks will only get worse. The Crazies will start coming out of the woodwork. We cannot play Into these bullies hands. we all need to keep steadfast and not let them upset us.
          We are Team Jodi!!!

          • tonysam says:

            It’s going to be terrible these next few weeks. I don’t know if Jodi Arias has any idea just how bad it is out there. I am totally disgusted by the media coverage, some of which has sunk to the level of a game show (HLN After Dark). If she is acquitted, she’s going to have to go into hiding for months, if not years.

            • seek2understand says:

              But maybe the tide will start to turn more. Sometimes it takes a while for new information to sink in.

            • maria rigadopoulou says:

              I dread to think what will happen the day the verdict is announced.Whether it is positive for us or them(god forbid) the haters are gonna go NUTS!They’re gonna try and overflow all social media with hateful,disgusting and vile comments!

            • Nikki says:

              It would definitely help restore some dignity to the whole process if the Alexander family would “call off the dogs” in social media. They probably do not approve of all of JM’s (mostly cringe-worthy) behavior either. How can they when his yelling, especially the trademark, “Did I ASK you_________?” in a simmering rage likely reminds them of the abuse they were subjected to as children? JM’s belligerence is toxic to the Alexanders as well as Everybody Else. Willmott and Nurmi together provide a positive example of what the prosecution’s case crucially lacks on the most elemental level.

              So the bottom line and inescapable irony is that while the jury weighs evidence in the case, they are also witness to JM’s unrepentant obstreperousness, behavior that visibly echoes the abuse that the defense claims. In perpetuating this tortured courtroom atmosphere JM slouches daily towards making the defendant’s case more plausible.

            • Jamie says:


              isn’t it amazing how every other case has become unimportant to HLN since the Arias trial began? They haven’t given two shits about reporting kidnappings or other crimes. I think it’s done an injustice to others because it’s as though they’re saying “The conviction of Jodi Arias is all that matters to us! It doesn’t matter that it’s reported on from sun-up to sun-up (yes, I meant sun-up!). It still isn’t enough!”

      • Kira says:

        Haha, I wish Jose had hired us! I’d love the chance to meet him and tell him what an awesome lawyer he is.

      • sirlips says:

        defamation (of character) n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation.(this would include publicly claiming they are not REAL people) If the defamatory statement is —->printedbroadcast over the medialarge money awards<—— in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed.
        Request: Chris Stark and any others publicly known figures, stop your attempts to debase me and my work here.
        Request: Chris Stark and any other publicly known figures, Stop your attempts to earn money on my work here, without my expressed written permission.
        (I would suggest every poster here copy and paste this into one of their comments)

        Well, Chris Stark better learn the laws of libel and slander. Because, I am most definitely real, and I stand behind my words. I AM NOT AFRAID TO POST MY NAME and proof of who I am. I don’t need to hide behind the screen for fear of idiots stalking me or trying to attack me. I'm going to die someday anyway, may as well be with my pride intact.

        With that said, let it be known now, that anyone here could be planning to write a book, make a movie or some other venture due to their “work” or experiences here. If Mr. Stark says ANYTHING un-true to hinder that venture he can be held libel for the loss, or the potential loss.

        The law is pretty clear on this. It started with NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN IN 1964. YOU SIR, ARE A “PUBLIC FIGURE”, AND I MOST CERTAINLY AM NOT.

        MR. Stark, would you like to fuck with me?

        • sirlips says:

          Not sure why that didnt post correctly…

          defamation (of character) n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is ***printed*** or ***broadcast over the media*** it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease, or being unable to perform one’s occupation are called libel per se or slander and can more easily lead to ***large money awards**** in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed.

          • sirlips says:

            …An Example of this “libel per se” would be PUBLICLY announcing that a person doesnt even exist. That would be the ultimate “character” assasination, wouldnt it?

      • Sable says:

        Well, well, well, All Right!!!!
        I could USE a paycheck! lolol

      • BevM says:

        Hmmm I always knew I had imaginary friends but not THIS many. That explains the voices in my head…….

      • Paige says:

        Yes, my dog is coming home tomorrow from surgery at the vet’s and I’d be happy for extra money to pay the bill! (LOL – I’m just changing his name from “Harry” to “There goes my bonus!”)

      • Rhonda in Alabama says:

        That is exactly why I have Rhonda in Alabama. I am not fake and anyone
        can look me up if they try hard enough I am not afraid to stand up for what
        I believe in. An I am definitely not afraid of LOSERS on the internet that
        talk big behind a keyboard but face to face I would tear that ass UP !

        The FAKES are those on the haters side with the FAKE NAMES an go around
        an bash the witnesses. They make up fake accounts with fake names
        to go bash Jodi Supporters etc. The majority on the internet are Travis
        Supporters if you take time to read the comments on U TUBE or TWITTER
        even but I think that is because JODI SUPPORTERS do not go around
        bashing them back ? for FEAR of attack etc.

        I think it is disgusting the things they say to the witnesses on some of
        the accounts they have on the internet. They show pure HATRED an
        IGNORANCE. Which in return I have true discontent with any of them
        an that includes all hln JOKE NEWS they enrage the IGNORANT

    • Donna says:

      The hater sites are staged …lots of double or triple facebook page IDs for the person.

      • Rhonda in Alabama says:

        I think you may be right. I find it strange that on FB Travis Supporters
        out number the Jodi Supporters. But yet on TWITTER it must be harder
        to keep up with numbers some how? as JODI has almost 30,000 followers
        an Travis has 6,000 ?

        An that rant about that daily over there on Twitter about how Jodi is winning
        on that site.

        The only thing I can figure is actual Travis Supporters can’t really spew
        out paragraphs on Twitter just short sentences an the comments an
        blocking is so easy you can rid the hatred fairly easy an not even see
        it anymore.

        To me it does show they are very ignorant and can’t tolerate
        to have a low number of followers. On FB also you can PAY $$$$ an get
        this one page to come an LIKE your wall for 10 bucks for 1000 likes so
        it is very possible to make numbers look bigger than they actually are.

  13. geebee2 says:

    I watched a good program on memory/PTSD last night


    Reminded me of an experience I once had, when I was in an underground train that went slowly through a smoke filled King’s cross underground station just after fire broke out. I got back home, started listening to news coverage on the radio, then realised this wasn’t a good idea, replaying and imagining such a traumatic incident could be dangerous. Since then, I’m never too happy travelling on the underground. I never had (serious) PTSD, but I can easily imagine how it can develop. I think people with good empathy are perhaps more susceptible, and Jodi would certainly fit in this category.

    • Natalie says:

      Yes, your post reminds me of the day Jodi was testifying that she didn’t mean to kill Travis. I have to believe some of those jurors saw and felt what I did … a person full of regret, remorse, sadness, and love for Travis. That is what can lead one to believe that Jodi initially lied because she was afraid and ashamed about everything that happened … not because she planned a murder and was continuing to try to get away with it. It’s difficult to put yourself in her shoes because this is not something that happens to most people. But some jurors could realize under such extreme circumstances a person could make choices that are not well thought out, such as the intruders story and she was not there story. I believe any person on the jury that is an empathetic person who has had trauma (even such as yours geebee) will believe Jodi did not intetionally kill Travis. There are also lots of other scenarios that I could put forth, but your post particularly goes to aspects of empathy … and I think that can come from Jodi and from the jurors as well.

  14. TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

    You can always tell when juror questions are good for the defense. HLN barely mentions them.

    • Donna says:

      Yes, I always listen to what they don’t say. That is much more telling than what the small details they run away with. Which is most of their stuff. Tapes and rumors not allowed in court. And a bunch of circus dog and pony shows.

  15. JoshDavis says:

    I an so glad i woke up and ran out of the fog that is
    HLN, Dr Drew, NG…
    Thanks to everyone who is not so narrow-minded
    and can see the obvious on this site to open my
    eyes to what a cruel world we live in.

    I hope that Jodi finds peace in her heart
    no matter what the outcome is and people
    one day will realize that there is a difference
    between evil and and human error.

    • sirlips says:

      Welcome Josh.

      I am also glad there is a site for people to post, that think for themselves, and can freely debate their opinions.

    • Nikki says:

      Did not personally know of this site when the trial began. But I have satellite radio and was listening to the SSLAs (self-serving license abusers) on that notorious crime station. Did not know what any of the people involved in this case looked like. I heard Jodi’s voice broadcast over and over and heard about Travis, his friends and family. Listened to chunks of testimony for weeks without any visuals because I don’t have TV.

      But from the very outset, the crime scene description told me that there was a lot more to the story than jealousy. As a motive, it just didn’t “add up”, given the scant information I had. It began to feel as if there was a hole in the story I was getting from the crime TV station so large that you could drive another narrative through it.

      And I realized with increasing apprehension that the trial’s testimony was constantly misrepresented by the SSLA commentators. They had the audacity to twist testimony and evidence seconds after it had been broadcast. I also realized that, not having followed the Casey Anthony trial except to catch NG discussing it on her show after it ended, that I assumed, based on NG’s unrelenting denigration of CA, that she had been found guilty. Finally heard from NG herself that she had not. It was a red flag.

      Looked elsewhere for trial coverage. Watched the live feed for another week or so before coming here for the feed and reading these comments. A welcome relief.

    • Aly says:

      Their stage for drama is pathetic, isn’t it!

  16. TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

    Despite all her BS about being purely objective, I think DDM is the most biased witness we’ve seen so far. She obviously dislikes Jodi for some reason that is probably deeply personal to DDM. Probably some petty jealousy. Did you hear how she stated that Jodi lied on the test? With such venom!! And her thinking is clearly clouded by her bias. She believes every single thing TA wrote or said to friends and the rest of us can clearly see that TA was smearing Jodi by spreading rumors about her.

    • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

      There was something fishy about DDM giving Jodi a reading test. I didn’t believe her BS explanation that she was just being thorough. Does she give all the people she’s evaluating reading tests? I think DDM screamed bias while she was being asked about giving Jodi that reading test.

      • TB1 says:

        And that was after reading her journals. Having spent some time substitute teaching and teaching GED classes, I could tell with a one page essay from the students whether or not they were up to high school level.

        • Ann says:

          Good point.

          • Rhonda in Alabama says:

            Exactly daaaa how could a person even TEXT if they could not READ. Or
            write a BLOG on MY SPACE. She did that to embarrass Jodi I think. To
            make sure she was not mentally challenged really ? an I think she said
            retardation actually I thought people did not say that anymore?

            That woman acted like a spoiled teen herself with her high an mighty
            act an treated JW with disrespect also. Which they were all crying about
            Jodi answered JM with disrespect. It only proves how people do not
            like to be spoken too as though they are mentally challenged when it
            is obvious they are not.

            Dr D needs to grow up a lot still and in her 30’s acting like a 16 year old
            WOW. Guess 30 is the new 16 then.

        • maria rigadopoulou says:

          TB1,exactly! I’m a teacher myself and it only takes a one-page writing to understand a loooot of things about a student,including if they have Specific Learning Difficulties!!!Let alone if they can read!

      • LC says:

        Right, who would that? ???? Shes that STUPID for it not to register in her head; I readcher journal, she can obviously write/read. Really is she THAT clueless or can it be that she knows better and performed the test just to make the extra $$$ she was getting paid since she didn’t want to spend more time face to face talking to Jodi?! Hhhmmmmm something to thk about.

        • cindyp says:

          Right on, LC. Didn’t Wilmott make a point of how many extra hours were spent on that ‘reading test’ or was that my imagination?

      • seek2understand says:

        To shame her, you think, because she didn’t graduate high school?

        • Rhonda in Alabama says:

          That is the other thing they bring up a lot. She did not go to 12th grade
          big DEAL. How many credits really do most of us need at the end?

          I did the same thing. Was working full time left home at 17 moved in
          with bf. Got married though at 18 ? finished later 2 credits WOW!

          A lot in the Senior year even graduate mid term with enough credits.

          They act like she dropped out in the 8th grade which infuriates me she
          is far from being a drop out. I met a drop out from the 8th grade my
          daughter’s newest bf. He is actually STUPID ! an a ex convict ex
          gang banger. That is what comes to my mind on a drop out. But
          to others they say oh my 11th grade drop out. Come on.

          • maria rigadopoulou says:

            A ”drop-out” is indeed a strong word,often used derogatorily to offend people but hey!If all drop-outs are as bright,eloquent and cultured as Jodi then Demartian can admit she FAILED big time in life and may as well just tear that Diploma of hers or stick it up her a$$!

          • seek2understand says:

            My bro dropped out & later got his GED, and is doing really well in his career now.

        • Kira says:

          Probably. Though Jodi has a GED now which is just as good as graduating high school.

      • Natalie says:

        Yeah!! Giving a reading test to Jodi is like asking someone that’s up and walking arounf if you can check their pulse to see if they’re alive. Really?! Why would she do that? Not too bright if she can’t use her own brain to summize that Jodi can read and write very well thank you.

        • Nikki says:

          Which just goes to show that Dr. D’s reason for giving Jodi a reading test was disingenuous. She had another purpose in doing so. What a crock.

        • seek2understand says:

          Jodi had a 136 on the verbal portion of the WAIS (close to genius level), but JD didn’t know Jodi could read just by observation…telling about JD’s lack of experience.

    • Sable says:

      My undergrad degrees were in Microbiology and Psychology, with minors in Chemistry and Sociology/Anthropology. So much has happened in these fields, and continues to happen, (exponentially, as we approach the singularity, but I digress) since 1985, that I haven’t been able to keep up and I am certainly no expert in much of anything. But, FWIW, my educational exposure to these rather diverse fields has enabled me to witness the intense pressure that has been exerted upon individuals within the “soft” sciences to strive for more “objectivity” in their respective fields in order to effectively compete with the kind of objectivity already inherent in so many methods already established within the “hard” sciences.

      What it all boils down to is that some things are simply easier to measure than others and so lend themselves to being more simple to characterize in scientific terms, but just because we are unable to characterize something in scientific terms does not make it meaningless. It would be easier to accurately measure exactly how many liters of water were imbibed by JDM, yesterday, than it would be to accurately measure how little empathy she demonstrated, simply because we have defined units of measurement to describe fluid volume as well as graded volumetric devices to physically assess and pinpoint the actual measure, whereas, I am not aware of what units of measurement we have available to measure empathy. For all that I know, there may actually BE a psychological test out there that tries and/or succeeds in measuring empathy. (?)

      In order to be able to make comparisons between individuals in an objective manner (and we need to do be able to do this in a standardized way for the sake of forensics, so that we can judge people fairly, and not just throw every tom, dick and harriet under the bus every time they are accused of something and there may be mitigating circumstances), we need an objective measuring device and that is a purpose of various psychological tests. They are important tools. Without them, we have no standard basis from which to compare one person’s behavior to another person’s behavior in order to make a judgement about the behavior. Without these objective measuring devices, all we have is your opinion, my opinion, his opinion, her opinion, etc…

      Still, it doesn’t mean that the measuring devices are an end-all, be-all answer to ensuring total objectivity. For one thing, there is always the possibility of operator (human) error. For instance, if I am the one in charge of measuring how much water is inside the carafe being imbibed by JDM, and I am too lazy to go find my glasses before I eyeball the meniscus of the water level I won’t be able to see properly and I will provide the wrong measurement. Maybe I am Dr Samuels and make a minor transcription or arithmetic error and inadvertantly providing a final numerical measurement that is “off” by one unit. In either of these particular cases, it doesn’t matter a whole lot, since my quantitative inaccuracy is so small (relatively) that it does not impact the qualitative interpretation derived from the quantitative measurement. The measurement was “good enough for government work, ” so to speak.

      In any event, sometimes a thing is so obvious that one is able to grasp how monumental the thing is without it being necessary to actually bother with measuring the thing. We do not need to actually measure how much water JDM drank to know that she was drinking a lot of water. We do not need to subject her to a psychological test to know she is not the most empathetic actor in the cast.

      All that said, a part of me feels very sorry for JD. In trying so hard to be a good little “soft scientist,” by trying to maintain total and irresolute “objectivity,” she has totally missed the whole point of why science insists upon objectivity in the first place: to eliminate one’s personal biases from tainting the nature of the truth one is seeking! I believe that both of the other “experts”, Samuels and LaViolette, have a realistic grasp of this, and that their many years of experience have taught them how to keep their own biases separate from, and out of, the equations they work on, when they assess individuals. No one is capable of being absolutely unbiased, but I think that what little bias may be able to “leak in” is negligible, for these experts, again – good enough for govt work.

      I think JDMs decision to assess Jody with a reading test was informed by her own disdain toward Jodi for having dropped out of high school. I think this same disdain was planted, nourished, and reinforced by her naive and unquestioning belief in whatever pack of lies JM seduced her with, whenever he invited her to take on this case. I also believe she allowed all these personal feelings of disdain to poison the decisions she made with regard to which tests to administer and which portions of those tests to use for her interpretive purposes. The irony is rich and sad…. that in striving to maintain objectivity in her assessment by maintaining boundaries and placing more importance upon measuring devices (psych tests) than upon data obtainable through interview, the misguided little doc has managed to be *less* objective in her assessment of Jodi than her more experienced expert counterparts, who JM so vociferously argues are “biased.” Hah!

      • Natalie says:

        Thanks Sable, good post. Maybe the closest we have to a psychological test for empathy would be Jung’s Myers-Briggs test. Feeling is one of the dichotomies, which I would equate to the capacity for empathy. I suspect the pros witness goes the other way toward the thinking dichotomy.

        • Gulliver says:

          “Feeling” on the Myers-Briggs test does not equate to empathy. The Feeling-Thinking dimension measures to what degree a person makes decisions based on feeling or on thinking. It is the overall type that leads to an empathic disposition or not. The ENFP type (extraverted, intuitive, feeling, perceiving) is described as “empathetic and caring.”

          I suspect that Alyce LaViolette is an ENFP type which has been described by David Keirsey as a “Champion” and rather rare in society.


      • joujoubaby says:

        Great insights, Sable. Thank you.

      • seek2understand says:

        Good post!

  17. imagine says:

    Hi. This is my first comment but have visited this site and the ones against Jodi to try and make sure I haven’t missed any information about this trial. (I watch it on YouTube everyday as well). I prefer this site because the people are nicer.
    I’d like to start out by saying I honestly do not know if it was pre meditated but the more knowledge I get, the more it appears it was not. Even if it was, I do not feel comfortable with the death penalty. I feel like I lwould be a good juror except I would not participate in a death penalty trial because that is Gods ‘job’ to decide that kind of fate when a person is guilty.
    I have some points that I think a normal everyday person that has an open mind and has a pretty good idea what it means to stay ‘objective’. First, JM is mean and inpatient, I am lost on people claiming he is just really passionate. My heart goes out to anyone that has had to endure him in a court room. I also think the defense counsel and witnesses are very good at what they do. JW is an awesome attorney. I love her style. What I’ve noticed as far as witnesses go is that they only reacted some of the emotional ways they have, when it was the only option they had to protect themselves from JM. The prosecution witness has been very condescending and disrespectful for no justified reason that I can see since JW has not tried to intimidate her or been disrespectful to her. So, the two negative feelings I’ve had has been for those two personalities on prosecution. (I still feel I am remaining objective when I say that). Also, isn’t it totally possible that Jodi can have Borderline Personality Disorder AND ptsd?
    If I were on the jury, at this point I would say “Not Guilty”. Thank you for this site. It is refreshing to read about the case without people saying really mean things about people and their physical appearance. Have a great day!

    • sirlips says:

      Hi Imagine, welcome to the site.

      Yes, it is very possible to have PTSD and BPD, infact that is what DR.s testified to. He said he found that Jodi had BPD and PTSD, but in the end diagnosed her with PTSD as it fit the diagnosis fully and the BPD didnt have anything to do with this crime and that it was not as “pointed” of a diagnosis on the BPD.

      What people need to understand is that BPD is not bad. I’m fucking wacked, and probably fit many of these diagnosisisississs..ers. but that doesnt prove i did or will do anything. PTSD is the same. It can be a valid explanation for why someo one did something, like “fog”, etc..but it doesnt prove they are more apt to be a angel murderer.

      • LC says:

        Agree with you sirlips. But she set there and named every single symptom that Jodi has and matched it up with BPD knowing the symptoms also fit PTSD. And if you take all the symptoms she said she found in Jodi to diagnose her with BPD, then she might as well diagnosed TA with it too!

      • joujoubaby says:

        I think what he said was that he believed that she has an Axis II diagnosis, but that he was not going to diagnose it. That’s what all of NOS talk was regarding

        • seek2understand says:

          Yeah, Samuels made the more experienced choice to just stick with what the test said in that case, while JD tried to force it into an exact diagnosis.

      • seek2understand says:

        You do appear to be. ;)

    • cindyp says:

      Hi imagine, it was nice to read your post. I am always happy to see others who share the open-mindedness that is part of this forum. I am not a psychology expert or therapist, but I would have a difficult time understanding why a person should have either BPD or PTSD. It does not make sense that one with BPD would be immune to PTSD.

      I thought your comments about the prosecutor and defense attorneys was spot-on. Personally, it was the dumbassery of JM and the hatred of hln that sent me here – so, I guess in a way, they helped me find this site! That can’t be all bad! :D

      • Sable says:

        Hi, Imagine! Enjoyed your post very much. Welcome.

        I agree very much with cindyp:
        I thought your comments about the prosecutor and defense attorneys was spot-on.

      • Jamie says:

        I’ve had the Dx of PTSD for years now and have only more recently been Dx as having BPD as well. (was first just Dx with BPD Traits) It’s weird to me that Dr D. would Dx Jodi with BPD because it usually takes YEARS for ppl with BPD to be diagnosed bc it is such a complex disorder. Most Borderlines have a fairly significant ‘psychiatric history’. I don’t think it’s so easily diagnosed and isn’t a go-to disorder.

    • leetbean says:

      I really enjoyed your post, imagine. I hope you keep coming back =)

  18. Joe Yinzer says:

    I just want to thank you for posting all of the trial video. It’s helped me keep up with the trial when life comes calling and I can’t watch live testimony or when I see people posting about a particular segment of the trial that I need clarification on.
    I didn’t catch the juror questions to JD yesterday so it was great to be able to watch it now.
    Thanks again SJ.
    Team Jodi!

  19. geebee2 says:

    Direct Testimony of Dr. Kevin Horn is at http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/HornDirect

    This is NOT my work.

  20. Joe Yinzer says:

    For those wondering what a CV is as I always did when I fist saw those initials a while back it stands for Curriculum Vitae. Sort of like a Resume.
    A list of a persons achievements.

  21. D says:

    Hope the jurors noticed the questions she totally avoided answering. Starting right out of the gate with with question #1.

    Also, she sure did miss a lot of important facts during the 12.5 interview process. Being that she used her skewed interview as part of her BPD diagnosis, and now it is proven that her facts were seriously deficient, I guess now the diagnosis, in her mind, still stands because of some stupid bubble sheet tests. I hope a juror has taken those tests to know how difficult they are to complete. I know for a fact I could take the same test 5 minutes apart and the answers would not be the same both times.

    Also, how one day she is not a DV expert, and she comes back from lunch yesterday, suddenly a DV expert with some convoluted explanation of why she wasn’t one the day before. That was actually quite a pathetic exchange on her part. And very obvious that spending her lunch hour with “the prosecutor” magically certified her as a DV expert.

    interesting and disgusting at the same time how she can make excuses for Travis’ character assination of Jodi. I hate to think how she would try to justify his fantasies involving 12 year old girls. Or did I miss that?

    Based on the good doctor’s assessments, minus the breast implants, I am pretty sure I have BPD but I will need a bubble sheet to make sure. Please send ASAP.

    • BloodMeridien says:

      Ms. DeMarte is right you know. Last week a grizzly bear came charging at me so I sat down and had a nice cup of tea and a cookie. Yesterday, a tiger came at me, boy did I run and run.

    • Sable says:

      Hello, D.

      I agree with all the points you made, so spot-on!!!

      My favorite one you made is this:
      “Also, how one day she is not a DV expert, and she comes back from lunch yesterday, suddenly a DV expert with some convoluted explanation of why she wasn’t one the day before. That was actually quite a pathetic exchange on her part. And very obvious that spending her lunch hour with “the prosecutor” magically certified her as a DV expert.”

      That picture SJ posted earlier with little prick whispering in her lizard ear seems to tell it all, doesn’t it?
      Gross. What a false mentor. Just disgusting.

  22. FLNANG says:

    I think that Jennifer Wilmott yesterday did a great job chipping away Dr. DM’s personal biases and inexperience with evaluations. JW doesn’t yell or go to theatrics but she mentioned key points about her evaluation that were shown to be biased. For example, the issue with the camera was brought up by JW and she asked her so you think that leaving a camera behind with the SD/Memory card is considered planning and organization? The Dr. kept saying yes, but this is one of the biggest questions that we have all had about the scene of the crime besides the blood left everywhere in the bedroom and bathroom except for the body in the shower. She also told her so after Jodi described to you that she remembered that she felt in danger and she shot Mr. Alexander and he fell on top of her, etc… You still found it odd that she said something bad had happened? In reference to her stating Jodi told her she knew she’d killed him. She emphasized so you think it’s a big leap? And the Dr. said yes it is even though there was a huge struggle between Jodi and Travis. This was in reference to Jodi losing her memory and the doctor assuming that Jodi is lying because she doesn’t talk about the actual events in between. I like that JW said so this is your subjective opinion and after a little bit of back and forth the doctor had to give in to agreeing because it’s true. It ‘s her subjective opinion. I’d also like to add that she keeps stating the ethics perception of things but I think that giving a person a self help book doesn’t fall under gift giving and doesn’t demonstrate an ethics violation that would be biased towards the client. It’s important for the psychologist not to get personal with the person and cross that line of ethics. If both LV and Samuels didn’t get personal with Jodi there wasn’t an ethical violation. The book and magazine subscription may give an outside perception otherwise but that doesn’t mean the relationship between the client and psychologists/therapists was violated. If that was the case then because the prosecution is paying Dr. DM that will automatically place her in a bias position because of this fact. I think that she served her general purpose of diagnosing Jodi with a psych disorder. In the end this might even help her because the jury may not believe it was SD but they may believe it was a crime of passion. I don’t think she has anything to lose from this Dr.’s testimony. And a lot of the things that she based her diagnosis were subjective as JW stated. I don’t think that all of the “experts” testimonies will cancel each other out. I think they actually help the jury connect the dots of the events that occurred. And this expert didn’t really make any points for JM’s case.

    • Ann says:

      That camera drove nuts from day 1. Also, it was a big mistake on JD part to say Jodi threw weapons away after the stabbings.

    • Sable says:

      Great post, as usual, FLNANG!!!

    • LC says:

      Yes, I agree and if anything JD helped the defense. Akl in all, all b thecway around she just looked confused by the end. I wish a juror would’ve asked if she can go back would she had spent more TIME with Jodi? Even though she’d probably say NO because the prosecutor is paying her, but I have a feeling SHE WOULD. She was lost…

    • maria rigadopoulou says:

      That ”Doctor” really made me outrageous for at least 2 reasons,which you have also mentioned above.Fistly,I’m a layperson when it comes to trials,psychology etc etc yet I’m fascinated by Crime Documentaries,have watched a zillion of them trying to play Sherlock LOL and I’m an avid reader when it comes to well…pretty much everything.I wouldnt even have heard the name Jodi Arias if it mentioned on a YouTube comment where one user wrote”Do you think Jodi Arias will be the next Casey Anthony?I hope that bitch blah blah blah…”.That alone made me look up for her.I had no idea what HLN or NG was(thank goodness) so I first thing O did was to google the crime photos.PERIOD.It was sufficient enough to understand that this was in no way premeditated,that this woman must have suffered too much in the hands of that man to make kill him the way she did YET I just coudnt figure out WHY on Earth she had been so grossly OVERcharged.Long story short,it led me here.Icant wrap my head around the fact that this witness (expert witness my ass)would willingly say all these inaccurate things when she is supposed to be far from a layperson!!!
      Secondly,when she repeatedly insisted that ”yes,it’s a big leap” I was screaming at my computer screen ”Hello???Have you never heard of the term INDUCTIVE REASONING???” You reach general conclusions derived from specific examples.It’s one of the ways the human mind works.For example ”The ravens that I’ve seen are black so all ravens must be black”. This type of reasoning’s validity has been questioned coz it can often lead to stupid conclusions yet it kinda remimds me what Jodi did.”I know I was in a brutal fight,I see blood in my hands,I know blood comes out of injured people therefore I must have killed Travis-or therefore Travis must be seriously injured or dead since I am alive ”. What the hell was that ”doctor” thinking when she was saying the absurdities she said I will neve rknow!!!

  23. llanger says:

    I’ve rarely seen encountered a more unlikabe person than Dr. DeMented. Could she and Nancy Graceless be related?
    I think the jury’s questions indicate that they sliced through DeMented’s bullshit and found (what else?)…bullshit.

  24. Dharma says:

    great job!!! the expert is to young and it was easily recognizable and seen.

  25. Introspective says:

    Yesterday, while watching Dr. Know-Nothing, noticed that he and his entire ‘mis-Behavior Panel’ were complimenting ‘Dr.’ Self-Important as someone ‘who knows, understands and speaks’ THEIR language ! Won’t be surprised if not too far into the future he will hv her as his featured co-anchor to ‘highlight’ her brilliant knowledge to all our awe and gasps of wonder on the ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’ of her immense ability as a clinician, nah, Director, nah, Doctorate, nah, Licensed Clinical Psychologist – yeah! (Notice I left out – length).

    All this arriving shortly at 9p, est, irrestible combo – a feast for all our eyes, ears, and yes, our hearts and minds, too! A stuffy, pompass ass + a self-absorbed, cold, undeservedly inflated egotist = A cornacopia of pure ‘ENTERTAINMENT’ for the lowly masses. Their phone lines are ‘sure’ to be jammed and the ratings – I can’t even begin to speculate on ! :cool:

    • Introspective says:

      Oh, btw, Morning y’all ! :)

    • FLNANG says:

      Yes you are right. Now, she’ll go on the show and discuss more in depth her reasoning for diagnosis. Puke and sick. You be she ll be invited.

    • TrialWatcher says:

      Introspective: I was thinking the same thing while JD was answering questions about how much she earns as a forensic “specialist” when testifying and evaluating for courts…….and that she is PIMPING herself out to gain a reputation and build her very young practice. She makes much more on doing this then as a therapist. I then started imagining which of the HLN “hosts” would be employing her after this trial as a “talking head expert”. This doctor knows which side her bread is buttered on.

      Unfortunately, for JD, she is gaining a pretty awful “reputation” and I think she will drop her therapy practice because she won’t be able to earn the living she wants. She has ABSOLUTELY NO HEART, this woman.

  26. Rachel says:

    Good morning all. I’m about to watch the video of the juror questions now. Thanks for always being on top of it, SJ! Posting the videos always helps since I usually miss the last part of the day as I’m on Eastern time.

  27. me# says:

    Loved the jury questions. One, they proves Juror #5 and/or possibly Juror#11 were the Jurors who were the authors of the numerous sarcastic and pro-prosecution questions. Two, the questions showed great doubt in Dr. D’s abilities. Three, they showed the jurors where questioning Dr. D on her knowledge and her right to be called an expert (i.e.. questions 1 -3). The questions appear to be mocking her ability to use common sense (i.e.. questions 4,5,9,13,14, & 16). And their questions could be seen as the juror looking for support for Dr. Samuel’s testimony (i.e. questions 6, 15, 17, & 18), these questions not only forced her to admit YES you can have compassion and still be unbiased – they also gave JW the opening to reintroduce everyone including Dr. D to both the filled in answer sheet and the original yellow legal pad answers. Thus clearing up any misdoubts as to Dr. Samuel creditability. The answers were the same on both sheet and the handwriting on the yellow sheet clearly shows Dr. S’s “headings” and JA handwriting for the answers.
    To me Dr. D showed during her time on the stand that she has a very good scientific mind and only thinks in ridge objective and “data points” ways. Black and whites with no greys. Great for a research scientist but IMO not so good for a job that deals in the subjective, and as AL pointed out wonderfully, with many shades of grey. The jury questions showed they picked up on what the “expert” Dr. D lacks. I imagine Dr. D and her past teachers, employers, and supervisors knew it too, which is why she only has a “handful” of patients and has spent most of her time in her “career” evaluating and not treating.

    • FLNANG says:

      You are right very black and white! She does present well and you can see how she went literally by the book. There’s a whole lot of grey….

      • D says:

        She is the book. And beyone what she has memorized, she has nothing.

        • D says:


        • maria rigadopoulou says:

          We call such students and generally such people ”parrots” meaning they can impress you with what they have memorized but are incapable of forming an opinion of their own,they are like fish out of water when it comes to something beyond what ‘s written in books.

    • TrialWatcher says:

      She, and a lot of the general public have what is called “buttoned down minds”.

  28. deb says:

    SO someone with Borderline personality disorder can’t get PTSD??

    • Donna says:

      Even though that is the most common co=diagnosis with BPD?

    • Natalie says:

      Exactly, and couldn’t someone with BPD experience a real threat and defend their own life? I’m not saying Jodi has BPD, but even if she does, which I doubt, because I don’t think what I’ve heard in this case shows that, couldn’t she still find herself in a position to need to defend her life? Imo once this Dr was hired by the pros she set out to see what she needed to see to do the job she was hired for.

      • Natalie says:

        Also, regarding the Dr being biased … I just wish JW would have asked the young doctor how many times she has been asked to testify as an expert and if she had ever turned any down? Alyce testified that she did turn some down. If JW asked I must have missed it. I would have liked to have heard those answers.

  29. JoshDavis says:

    Can you imagine if this judge was in charge of Jodi’s trial?

    Oregon juror jailed for texting during trial


  30. Ann says:

    I loved it when JW pointed out that she only used what Travis was saying in his IMs,emails & JD said I can give you more examples & Jen said no, let just look at what you gave JM yesterday. At that time I figured this would become a juror question. Jen was using her 90% of non verbal then!

  31. Al says:


    I’m glad to see you get a little bit of your spirit back as the evening wore on. I agree with you on the ebb and flow of the jury’s interest. And of course I do agree with you that JW got a little flustered, but I told you so way before the lunch break.

    But here’s the flip side of the situation. Both defense experts had JM flustered too. Its just that his frustration was reflected in his shouting, resorting to yes/no questions and asking the judge to have the witness answer his questions, whereas Jennifer just pressed the witness herself. Which is more effective with the jury waits to be seen.

    I think any case that actually ends up in a trial, falls into one of three classes: The prosecution has a really tight case and the accused has nothing to loose by going to trial, the prosecution has a really weak case and the accused has nothing to loose by going to trial or lastly the prosecution has a middling case and the accused feels they have a better chance with the jury, than just pleading guilty. I think this case falls in the third category. I think the prosecution, from a laypersons point of view has a middling case. I think there is enough here for a person, so inclined, to be able to argue either side of the case, and that is reflected clearly in the various and vivid opinions we have seen on this page as each witness has passed before us.

    The best a defense team can hope for in a case such as this is that they can get a true deliberation from the jury. If the jury went into deliberation with no one buying any part of the defenses case, the defense is in obvious trouble. I don’t know if the prosecution has passed that hurdle. I think the jury questions to the last 4 witnesses have all reflected that we do have some people on this jury, who at least so far are truly questioning the prosecution’s case, just as we have some people who seem to be questioning the defenses case. I’m not sure that there is enough left in rebuttal to be able to resolve these issues in the favor of either side.

    What that inevitably means is that we have to either get further resolution and clarification of the evidence from the attorneys in closing arguments or from the jury during their deliberations. The last wild card left are the jury instructions the judge delivers, and how they are interpreted by the jury.

    Given that I believe that the defense has a very clear set of arguments they can make and these arguments span the whole gamut of evidence that has been presented.

    Moving backwards in time based on witness order, the first issue they have to present to the jury is that the PTSD issue has nothing to do with the actual killing. That really has to do with Jodi’s behavior in the weeks following the killing. The jury has two choices, and neither one of those really has anything to do with culpability. The first is that all the comments to Flores, the visit to the memorial etc were brought on by some PTSD involved quirk. The second option is to believe that they were in order to hide the fact that she killed TA (for whatever reason). Both are plausible and neither points to the reason behind the killing. Also, even though DeMarte denied PTSD, the very test that she administered pointed to a clinically significant level for a diagnosis for PTSD. But either way the PTSD has nothing to do with the onset of the killing. I think the defense needs to make this very clear.

    As far as I can see the real issue with the evidence of the psych experts really lies in two aspects, whether or not domestic abuse existed and could have risen to the level of the physical and whether or not there was a viability of dissociative amnesia. Actually only the first goes to the actual killing, the second merely serves to buttress Jodi claim of amnesia. There has been no evidence presented that negates the phenomenon of the cycle of abuse and the escalation of levels of abuse. There can’t be, because that’s a well accepted and known fact and the defense needs to hammer it in. There is no doubt about the fact that at the very least TA was emotionally and psychologically abusive. The various communications clearly show that and whatever little arguing Baby Doc did against that will not hold water with anyone. There is clear talk about punishment, and again this is not refuted. Also at a clinical level Jodi shows many of the traits of abused women. All the experts, including the prosecutions expert agreed to that. There is clear evidence that battered women will not report abuse and minimize the impact thereof. This is again agreed to by all experts, including the prosecution. There is clear evidence that TA was not just abusing Jodi, but also using her. There is clear evidence that in this particular case, even though she knew something was wrong, Jodi had a hard time moving away from TA. Again, from what I gather the symptom of many abusive relationships. The reluctance may be brought on by BPD etc, but it was a wide gaping hole that TA clearly exploited.

    In as far as the dissociative amnesia is concerned, both experts are in agreement that the scenario, as related by Jodi, is likely to lead to this sort of amnesia. The real issue here is the degree to which, once in the fight or flight mode, the subject is capable of organized thought and processes, and in this case it turns out to be that the two experts disagree as to whether her actions meet the standards. This is actually where Jennifer, if she is smart can totally wreck at least some of the prosecutions bases of argument. The IQ tests conducted by the prosecution show that Jodi is actually a fairly smart young lady, the prosecution argues that she planned this with a great degree of thoroughness. However, the actions after the killing actually reflect a great amount of disorganization, and Jennifer touched on this to some extent.

    So now the defense can, through non-refuted evidence and the agreement or concession of all experts we have the following: there was an abusive relationship, such relationships can get physical, that Jodi displays signs consistent with an abused/battered woman. We also have clinically significant levels of PTSD on the prosecution’s test, albeit above average on the defense’s tests. And we definitely have disorganization after the killing consistent with dissociative amnesia.

    Now moving further back in testimony, the next important part for the defense to stress on is the physical forensic evidence. The blood spatter evidence definitely fits Jodi’s account. Just as the slash to the throat is a sticking point for the defense, there is just no getting away from the aspirated blood spatter at the sink. That has to come from a wound capable of putting blood into the airway. There are only two such wounds, the gunshot passing through the sinus and the throat slash. There is no way that came from the throat wound – ergo it came from the gunshot. That means the gunshot came very early in the game. The blood spatter on some of the walls and door jamb came from an impact on a blood source approximately 12-inches off the ground. That means at some stage in the tussle TA was on the ground in that area, with some impact occurring, whether from a knife or fists on a blood source. This again means there was a prolonged (relatively) tussle. Furthermore the wounds on the back, based on the ME’s testimony are under-mined, i.e. they had a sideways slant, are relatively shallow (i.e. they did not cause any marks on the underlying bone) and are consistent with someone reaching over TAs torso and slashing away. Their grouping again shows repetitive slashing in a localized area and their positioning is consistent with Jodi being left handed and below TA. So in fact this part of the forensic evidence would be consistent with Jodi’s story and inconsistent with the ME and Flores’ assertion of the shot having come last.

    Then you have the photographs. The prosecution has implied that Jodi had the knife with her when the shower pictures were taken. They have now stipulated that she had neither gun, nor knife in her hands when the frontal face picture was taken. That belies the argument that she was holding him there by threat. They further imply that the “dragging” picture shows him with blood on his shoulder that came from the throat wound. However, there is substantial cranial wounding prior to that picture (he had various cuts to his head and the gun shot) that the ME has conceded would bleed copiously. So again, there is no conclusive evidence of what TAs state was when that picture was taken. Hence there is no clear cut timeline conclusion to be drawn from those pictures.

    We still haven’t seen anything from the prosecution about the shelves, and we may never see anything other than JM’s own question.

    So were now left with the precursors to her arrival in Mesa. The car rental in Redding – which had a clear logical reason and will be explained. The gas cans – which I have no idea about but are somewhat belied by her constant use of credit cards leaving a trail, that belies careful planning (remember the most direct route to SLC is the northern route, the one she took back home), the hair coloration that predates even the May26th fight by weeks, the upside down tag plate – which would actually attract more attention, and the turned off cell phone, which she turned back on while she was still in AZ. And against all of this are her actions on reaching Mesa – which again go against any careful planning.

    So really this case boils down to being able to coherently argue the evidence. I think the advantage that the defense has at this stage, at least based on the jury questions, is that there are at least some jurors who have not bought the prosecutions case fully. Furthermore there are some jurors who believe that Jodi’s story has a ring of plausibility. (Of course there seems to be at least one juror who seems to be completely in lock step with the prosecution and in fact folks like HLN). Such a jury split actually favors the defense in a couple of ways. Firstly, given this condition the DP is probably out. Secondly, since at least one juror seems to get the defense’s case, you can have either a compromise verdict to one of the lesser included charges or a hung jury, assuming that juror remains on the final jury panel. Of course one of the pro-prosecution jurors may also get knocked out. Lastly I believe this jury is very engaged, and that is reflected in their questions, which means one is likely to get a valid deliberation as opposed to any sort of rush to judgement.

    So I think that this is now going to come down to the closing arguments, and I believe that the defense has to deliver a coherent, persuasive closing. I believe they have enough evidence to be able to do that. Much as I hate it I also believe the chance of an acquittal is somewhere between slim and none and none left town a long time ago. The throat wound pretty much put an end to that. I believe she will be convicted of one of the lesser included charges and that a manslaughter conviction is possible.

    • tonysam says:

      How would the throat cut “put an end to that”? Overkill can happen in self-defense, especially in fight-or-flight mode.

      Just because there is a throat cut doesn’t mean there was premeditation at all.

      • Al says:

        Absolutely, Overkill can happen in self defense, and in fact one of the jury questions to ALV addressed that exact issue, however, AZ law makes a distinction for the overkilling situation. Their standard is the reasonable person standard. So if a reasonable person believes that there was a way to stop at a certain stage, and if you go beyond that stage, then AZ law classifies that as manslaughter.

        So this question boils down to whether a reasonable person would believe that the throat wound was within the bounds of self defense, or whether that same reasonable person believes that, in that condition, with those circumstances they would have stopped shy of that wound. So there is a huge subjective decision at that point.

        Now, here’s how I see it. I believe that if that throat wound, which may be viewed as a very deliberate controlled act did not exist, the chances of an acquittal would be a lot higher. I think with that throat wound the chances, regardless of what the law says, of conviction on one of the lesser included charges goes up substantially. I also believe that unless the defense has clearly damaged the state’s case, as they did in the Casey Anthony or OJ cases, the jury will deliver some sort of a verdict that deliver some responsibility to someone for a homicide. That is not a legal argument. That is purely a gut feeling. In this case, I think the defense has not clearly decimated the prosecutions case. I don’t think the prosecution has been able to show premeditation, but I also believe that there is a very distinct possibility that the defense has not been able to shake the prosecutions case against self defense in its entirety. That is just my opinion. And so I do believe that there is a very distinct possibility that what you are going to get here is a verdict on one of the lesser included charges.

        • cindyp says:

          I have read that law about the ‘overkill,’ and what a ‘reasonable’ person would do. But – wouldn’t a reasonable person become unreasonable in a self-defense situation? I know I’ve had to defend myself in the past and each time it seemed I was not in control nor reasonable. It was instinct that took over and each time I looked back and wondered why I reacted the way I did. So from my experience, one may be reasonable if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to stop them. (It is unlikely you will run over to them after that point and start stabbing them.) But it is entirely different if, during a battle, you are frightened and the survival instinct takes over; your instincts lash out to do whatever to keep you alive.

          So – my question is; are there any instructions or ways to deal with that aspect of self-defense in AZ law?

          • Al says:


            All AZ law says is reasonable person. This is how the jury instruction reads

            “A defendant may use deadly physical force in self-defense only to protect against
            another’s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of deadly physical force.
            Self-defense justifies the use or threat of physical force or deadly physical force only
            while the apparent danger continues, and it ends when the apparent danger ends. The force
            used may not be greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the apparent danger.
            The use of physical force is justified if a reasonable person in the situation would have
            reasonably believed that immediate physical danger appeared to be present. Actual danger is
            not necessary to justify the use of physical force in self-defense.
            You must decide whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe that:
            physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s [use] [attempted use]
            [threatened use] [apparent attempted use] [apparent threatened use] of unlawful physical

            So in my view its rather subjective, and yes in fact if the jury decides that a reasonable person would have gone all the way, then so be it.

          • seek2understand says:

            The problem with the throat slit in a pure self-defense case is that it appears specific & purposeful; it does not give the sense of an intense, flailing, flowing fight or flight set of actions. The haters see it as a coup de gras (sp) of an intentional, vengeful killing. It needs to be explained, if not by my theory I posted yesterday, than some other way.

    • cindy jewell says:

      Al.. You rock as usual!! You really are quite the journalest.

    • sirlips says:

      Al, Good morning!

      Referring to paragraph 7, in your post: I believe the “thing to be gained” by the defense for the PTSD diagnosis is all about “after the crime” also. I think they are doing the leg work now, for the possibility of a “sentencing phase” of the trial. If she is found guilty of M1 or Pre-Murder, she will need to change gears and start showing evidence to combat the idea that she wasn’t remorseful, or that she didn’t intend to do more harm after the crime. This PTSD diagnosis and even the BPD diagnosis will go a long way on those fronts. IMO

      Referring to 8-9, in your post, about the amnesia, the possible lack of JW hammering home(during Dr.D’s questioning) the idea that there is evidence that supports abused woman act a certain way, etc…; I think the defense is purposefully NOT going to deep into these things. I believe the smart tact here would be to let JW “hammer it home” during the closing arguments. This way it if left up to the jury to decide, rather than them simply going by what the experts told them to think. Unless I’m mistaken, If the Expert claims something and both parties “stipulate to it”, then the jury must take that as fact, regardless of what they may have personally thought. I would think JW and Nurmi want the theme in the deliberation to be “what do we think” instead of “what have we been told we have to think”. They know the pros has people on the jury, they need to hope that the people that are not in either camp or in the defense camp, can argue with reason to get the others to change their minds, or Hang the jury.
      I would also imagine that during the closing arguments that the attorney has to stick to saying things that have been testified to. I’m sure they cannot miss characterize the testimony. By keeping some of these points “vague” now and not having specific testimony to the contrary will allow them to paint a bigger broader picture of doubt later.

      Referring to 10: The blood, scene; 100% agree. I was not sure at first, but for the same reasons as above, I am glad the defense DID NOT have an expert witness testify about this. If they had, then you can be assured that the defense would have a rebuttal witness to testify to the opposite. This would allow the pros to negate any expert “facts” for the jury to take back with them. The “witnesses cancelling each other out” idea would probably happen again. It would no longer leave the jury deciding on what they see, but rather “which witness do I believe”. The fact that the prosecution did not have a scene expert testify to the splatter, etc…tells me they don’t want to stir that pot up, leading me to think the evidence DOES show it was along the lines of Jodi’s story, or at a minimum NOT along the pros story. They don’t have to agree with Jodi’s story, they just have to disagree with the pros story. I will be extremely disappointed if this is not a HUGE part of the closing arguments for the defense. JM will have a very hard time in his closing arguments rebutting this information from JW as he cannot testify. He can simply tell the story of what he says happened, and reiterate the testimony he wants the jury to remember.

      Conclusion- I agree with you that the DP is gone. I also find it extremely likely that they can get M1 or Pre-med. There has to be 1 juror that will not budge from the ideal that “possible” does not have to mean “probable” and that possible is enough for reasonable doubt. Gas cans, gun theft, car colors and license plates are all explained by “possible” stories, even if you don’t believe they actually are what happened. I know some here won’t like this, but I have said it several times… I don’t believe Jodi told us the truth on what she really knows and remembers. I don’t think she is innocent. I do believe she is innocent of the crimes she was charged with. This trial isn’t about her being guilty of lying, etc… It’s about her guilt of the charges. She is innocent IMO, of those charges.
      I would say Manslaughter is the ONLY charge they can prove. It should have been the only charge to consider in the first place. JM isn’t worth his weight in shit. He is the poster child for “our legal system is broken”. Self-defense? I don’t know. But that in itself is enough. If I don’t KNOW, then that means it is possible. We have to give her the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think it happened any more than I think it didn’t happen. We just don’t have anything to prove that it wasn’t self-defense.
      In the end, anyone here that says they KNOW Jodi is innocent, is full of shit. None of us KNOW. What we do know is that they have not proven she is guilty. I KNOW she isn’t guilty. Maybe the site should have been called “Jodi is not guilty”. Lol love you-sj

      • sirlips says:

        “I also find it extremely likely that they can get M1 or Pre-med”. TYPO!!! lol

        I also find it extremely UNLIKELY that the can get M1 Or Pre-med

      • Al says:


        Wow, looks like one of my proposal assessment debriefs. Paragraph by paragraph, no less.

        Hadn’t thought of the point you raised in your paragraph, the mitigation aspects and that makes sense. I guess I was just so focused on not having an M1 verdict that I overlooked the fact that it could happen, and then they would have a real bowl of spaghetti on the floor.

        I think in the second paragraph you’re saying pretty much what I was. They have a bunch of non-refuted testimony and some really important concessions from the prosecution expert. Now it’s up to the defense to knit that into a coherent and persuasive argument. The closing arguments do indeed have to relate to admitted evidence and the attorney sure can’t testify. However, it is quite possible, and common, to have them say stuff, have the opposing side object, and get sustained, but now the cat’s out the bag, and how the hell do they get it back in. In this case both sides have used that tactic and so don’t be surprised if a whole bunch of that shows up in the closings as well.

        I hear what you are saying on the blood/forensic thing. I agree that the curent course is the “second” best course. I think that is the strongest evidence in the defenses case and since it actually relies on hard physical evidence, its often hard to refute. Let me explain what I mean when I say “second” best course. If the defense had any cojones, here’s what I think they should have done (of course I have the luxury of not having a young woman’s life in my hands). I would have combed the world for medical reports that showed people surviving and in fact being active after head shots from .25 caliber guns. I would have then taken those reports, and I know they are out there, and recalled the ME to the stand. I would have then walked him through each and every one of those reports. I don’t care what the prosecution does after that they’re toast. If they impeach the witness they are impeaching their own expert. If they counter by showing other reports that doesn’t matter, because the defense has shown that survival and activity is possible after such a wound and that’s all you need, and the evidence comes through the same ME. I bet the prosecution would have capitulated the same way as they did with the photo enhancement, because impeaching their own ME would not only bollocks all their future cases with this ME, but potentially all the past ones too. As far as the blood spatter is concerned, I think you’re right they don’t need to do any more, just argue it.

        The issue with the rest of that evidence – gas cans, color of hair, etc really lies in the rules of evidence. This is all circumstantial evidence. When you look around the country different states treat circumstantial evidence in different ways. First, there are some states that follow what’s called a two-inference rule. In those situations, when there is circumstantial evidence, and there is more than one possible explanation the law requires the jury to accept the reason that does not show the defendants guilt. Other states have rules that vary from that. AZ is on the other extreme of the spectrum, and the jury instruction the judge will deliver will state that there is NO difference between circumstantial and direct evidence. Which makes it all the more important for the defense to not just explain it but make sure that the jury understands that in this case their explanation is in fact the more probable one.

        As far as the charges are concerned, I agree that the M1 charge is really hard to prove in this case. It’s not just the evidence it’s also the actions once Jodi got there that totally confound that charge. If the prosecution manages to get past the self defense hurdle, then there is an interesting tussle between the other homicide charges and it all has to do with degree of intent. So if you set out with the intent, that’s M1 (premed.), if the intent arose spontaneously, that’s M2, and if there was no intent to kill, that’s manslaughter, except for the case where the intent to kill was in an attempt to save yourself, but some reasonable person believes, well maybe you should have just cut his arms off not his head, in which case it’s manslaughter. So where the jury ends up on this is a real fine judgement call. I think the lines between M1 and M2 have gotten really blurred, in that an instant of premeditation is now considered adequate. And any intention requires some thought, so where do you draw the line there, and given that AZ has a special set aside for heat of passion or sudden quarrel (i.e. no premeditation) manslaughter, where do you draw the line between that and M2. This is where the subjective nature of a jury, and their “Solomon-like” hair splitting all shows up.

        But at the end of the day the defense’s closing is what’s going to make the day. And here’s the big dilemma – who delivers it? I think both of them can be persuasive in their own ways, and maybe the defense team has some idea from body language or whatever as to which one of the two the jury better connects with.

        • sirlips says:

          “AZ is on the other extreme of the spectrum, and the jury instruction the judge will deliver will state that there is NO difference between circumstantial and direct evidence. Which makes it all the more important for the defense to not just explain it but make sure that the jury understands that in this case their explanation is in fact the more probable one.”- Holy ball sacks batman! If you were not the scholar and gentleman that I know you are (just go with it) I would say you are few straps short of a duffle bag.

          I appreciate the talk about m1 and m2 lines being blurred, because I just can’t wrap my mind around a definitive explanation of the two.

          To the layman I would say it’s simple;
          You planed the murder, you acted on the murder and you did the murder=M1
          You caused the death of someone during an action that the average person would know could cause a death (robbing a bank and the cops shoot your partner) AKA Felony Murder or you killed someone when you were not defending yourself or others (not self-defense), you caused the death of someone and it wasn’t because you were put into an emotionally grave situation (walking into your bedroom and seeing your wife blowing 3 Mexican midgets while a guy named Charlie rides her like a donkey, ie., heat of passion/burning bed/provocation, etc… defense)= M2
          But, it is clear that the AZ law is not for daft minded laymen like me. How does anyone on a jury make sense of all this? I would guess that it comes down to the instructions from the judge. Wouldn’t that mean we are putting an overabundance of power in the judge’s hands? Maybe my juvenile mind is broke, but I thought the constitution basically calls for the lawyers to “lawyer” the judges to keep the rules and the jury to decide the case? But then again, I just said it…”the judge to keep the rules”, so if it is AZ law, she is just enforcing the law. It just appears that she is going to have way to much say in what the outcome of the case will be. I don’t like that. One, because I think this judge is a few gallons short of a full tank, but also because Jodi deserves to be judged by a jury of her peers not a judge.

          I have a feeling that the prosecution is going to try and “give the jury instructions” in his closing arguments. I know that’s the judges job, but I don’t see her stopping him. Maybe it’s something about the way he objects to her, but it’s almost like he is telling her how to rule, than stating his argument and letting her decide. He obviously won’t say “here are your instructions”…but I do see him “blurring” this line as well and getting away with it. It’s obvious that she has great respect for his authority in the court room.
          Who delivers the closing arguments? Great question. My gut response is Nurmi. I have several reasons, none of which I have time to explain here, now. I have a feeling we will be debating that very soon though.

          • Al says:


            Like a lot of states AZ has what are called statutory jury instructions. So these instructions are pre-written, normally by a mix of lawyers and judges and sometimes appeals and supreme courts, and then made statutory by law. The judge has to read them out, exactly as written. Which jury instructions the judge reads out are determined first by law, as in if you’re charged with XYZ the judge must read ABC, and secondly at the judges discretion. The attorneys for each side request which ones they want read and then the judge decides.

            And typically the attorneys will go further and “explain” the law to the jury during closing, prefacing with things like “the judge will tell you…….” And that is when the proverbial kaka hits the fan.

            And I do agree with you about Nurmi giving the closing. I think he has a demeanor and a way with words that can be very persuasive.

            • Also Abused says:

              So you both argue and arugue but nelcuct to tll us
              ignore that there is still a possibility that as an abused woman, she might still be eligiible for those instructions?

              Then what is the point? Please tell us, oh learnred one.

      • TrialWatcher says:

        I agree with SJ 100%, even though Al’s post is right on as well. I think it is just as biased to say she is “innocent” as it is to say she is definitely ‘guilty’. People think in mostly simplistic terms (lazy minds) and there IS a case for something “in between innocent and guilty”. We all have a tendency to prove that our initial perceptions of a crime (or any event) are correct…..and that is NOT objective. Once an opinion is formed….usually upon first hearing of the crime…….no matter how sincere and reasoned, people tend to stick with what they believed in the beginning. The truly objective and analytical among us are willing to change their minds. I would not want to be on this jury.

        With that said, it is often something I too struggle with.

        • sirlips says:

          Trialwatcher, i am guessing you meant me not sj when you wrote that. If so, thank you i appreciate your comment and thoughts. If not, i still appreciate your comments, just not as much ;)
          I also agree that it is very hard to stay objective once you have made your initial assesment. I too struggle with this. Obviously i use levity and vulgarity, for some reason it helps me step back and keep perspective on what i am writing. I think it also helps others stay engaged and interested, because like you said “its more work to keep an objective mind”

  32. TB1 says:

    ITA AL, I said that last night after the juror questions, lessor will have to be included and we will end up with a compromised verdict or hung jury. I think the throat wound is what is going to keep this jury from full aquittal. But either way anything less than death will be considered a loss for JM and the Alexanders, which I don’t think would ever get through the appeal process.

    • tonysam says:

      The throat cut is a sign of overkill, not of premeditation.

      • Tony says:

        Jodi probably did that to end TAs suffering.

      • TB1 says:

        That could be true, but it is the most difficult wound for the jurors to get around and because of it, I feel they will want some type of verdict.

        • Tony says:

          Say, does anyone know if the pic of TAs throat wound is available? I’d like to just see how deep it is.

          • cindy jewell says:

            Tony how’s your stomach? Its gruesome
            the slash goes back to his vertebrae.

            • Kira says:

              Yeah, pretty gross. I thought I read somewhere that the decomp makes it look even worse because the skin around it has shrunk.

          • Ann says:

            I’ve seen it somewhere, can’t remember the site..it’s bad gaping.

          • Joe Yinzer says:

            It’s very deep. Quite nasty. Almost decapitation deep.

          • Joe Yinzer says:

            Check out the reaction from all the parties concerned when JM goes for the shock value in showing the slashed throat pic in court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa-qwxUhlw4
            Look at Jodi’s reaction at the very end. It’s like she can’t believe that it’s her that did that. Eyes wide open in shock.

            • coldcase53 says:

              I wonder if Travis’s siblings knew Martinez was going to show this photo? I know they reacted like they were sickened or horrified and left the courtroom immediately BUT It’s hard to imagine even Martinez would pull such a trick without warning them first.

            • maria rigadopoulou says:

              I’m sorry but I SO not agree with you on that.Actually,during Martinez cross examination of Lisa,Jodi was writing in her notebook as usual.She wasnt looking at Martinez.When that photo was so heartlessly shown she was caught as off guard as everybody else in that room BUT NOT BECAUSE OF the photo but because of JENNIFER’S standing up and OBJECTING-she immediately looked AT THE JUDGE NOT the photo.Just rewind the clip,NOT THIS ONE that you posted but the actual trial clip from that day.When she finally realized what had been shown during side bar she CRIED HER EYES OUT,HID HER FACE BEHIND HER HAIR AND JUST KEPT ON WEEPING.Jennifer had to pat her shoulder in sympathy when returning from the side bar.Jodi was APPALED by the other autopsy photos,she wouldnt have remained this calm had she seen that particular photo.WE ARE NOT DOING HER JUSTICE if we are to believe what that YouTube person claims in his video.She has her eyes wide open?WHILE looking at the photo?NO,NO,NO AND NO!This is a HATER’S video,it’s EDITED to fit their theory and venomous attitude towards Jodi.

              • Nikki says:

                Maria, you are correct. I have started to watch the first days of the trial that I missed, so went back and watched Jodi’s reactions very carefully (although I avoided looking at the photos of Travis) and I saw what you saw. I had heard that JM blindsided everyone with the photos so I approached with caution.

  33. BevM says:
  34. Moni says:

    Very Good California Morning to you all!!!!!

  35. Introspective says:

    Just wanted to repost this, wondering if anyone noticed or had a chance to see that segment. Not sure, if its significant or not for the DT to know….

    Introspective says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    The 2 ‘drew-jurors’ were on Dr. Flu’s show. Well the other one next to Wick, said something interesting.

    Apparently, this afternoon in the court, the bailiff came over to JM and said something (they believe it was re. JA having a headache and needing to leave). So, JM laughed aloud (this part was confirmed by tweets that came in at that time on Wild About Trial) and said something, and so all the people in the courtroom and EVEN A FEW JURORS heard him!! Then of course, the judge announced that they were done for the day. Right at that point Dr. Flu cut into a ad or shut down or something. I felt he wanted to minimize it.

    If someone can please do research and see if what I heard was correct or not. I am so tired right now and don’t want to start something that may not be true. If anyone has some time tonite, go and see the last segment. It was at the very end. Thanks much.


    Now this incident occured BEFORE the court started. A bailiff apparently went over to jm to advice him of what’s to come. So, where could the jurors have been if this was before court started, to be within hearing or seeing distance of this ‘laughing’ matter? This was out of the camera view, and when everybody else, except, judge, DT, jodi and jury were present. So, TA’s fly, media, and other spectators. How could the jury have been privy to this? Perhaps, the doors were open, and they were hovering outside?

    This is NOT the same incident that took place AFTER the jury left and the judge was seen hiding her face and sharing a joke with whoever sits on the left of her and then JM joining in with his ever cheesy smile/laugh.

    • B.Berry says:

      I missed this. I did see Nurmi laugh in court a couple of times yesterday. I also was caught off guard by JW smiling at somewhat inopportune times, such as JD saying she couldn’t interview TA because he wasn’t alive. Usually I like that she smiles and seems warm, but there were two occasions that the timing wasn’t good.

  36. zoe says:

    thank you for all your posts- was wondering what you thought about jury questions to dr d -in particular the bear/tiger one. been mulling it over and not sure what the jury was after…

    • Brenda says:

      I think this juror is on JA side and believes Samuels when he said there wasn’t reason to re-test Jodi because the actual details of the trama don’t change the outcome of the test.

      • TrialWatcher says:

        My first thought was that the juror asked this question in regard to the answer Jodi originally gave about the trauma she experienced from a “stranger”. Of course now HLN (who else) is speculating that it was asked because of her second story that there were “ninja’s” who actually killed Travis. My guess is that it was asked because of the former.

  37. vebe says:

    good morning to you all
    I am really glad this Dr is off the stand. .
    Seems to me JM could not wait to get the Dr off the stand, obviously for different reasons.
    He either did not like what she was saying or he thinks he he has more important witnesses following……. or could there be another reason? maybe he just wants this trial to be over with

  38. vebe says:

    PS how are you feeling about the moment when the Family is getting the opportunity to voice their opinion, sorry I do not know how it is called, during the sentencing phase? I have been dreading that day

    • zoe says:

      it’s called “impact statement” I’m sure if they have the chance they will milk it for all it’s worth- 15 minutes of fame…

      • DCFAN says:

        I think they only get that during the sentencing phase…should there actually be one and Jodi is not aquitted.

  39. Introspective says:

    Re; THE JUROR Q’S:

    Noticed that JD used ‘please’ when she asked the judge to repeat a Q. Never used that phrase with JW. Also, her tone was nicer and more pleasant toward the judge.

    The Judge, also used a VERY different tone and attitude when reading the Q’s to JD. She seemed to use a abrasive, caustic and even sarcastic tone when reading the Q’s to ALV.

    Seemed also that the jurors did not bother with their usual sarcastic Q’s and tone towards JD. More respectful towards this youngin’ vs. our very own sageful Yoda – ALV and also our Mr. Miyagi – Doc Samuels. Also, they asked HER OPINION (as if?) in relation to the behavior and clinical conduct of ALV AND Doc. S – as if, SHE is the authority vs Dr. S who has 30 some years on her in experience? Did not like much of the vein in which these Q’s were asked. They are giving her more credibility? What?

    So does this mean, they are on ‘the’ other side? or maybe I’m just being too nitpicky?

  40. tonysam says:

    The BPD diagnosis is obviously bogus and is being used by JM to “prove” Jodi was a crazy stalker who terrified Travis, but in fact there is no evidence at all Jodi had any kind of mental problem prior to killing Travis. All of the problems since that time have stemmed from the trauma from that event. That’s what Dr. Samuels and Alyce LaViolette were trying to explain.

    I hope the jury sees through that obvious nonsense by the prosecutor.

  41. zoe says:

    got my 75 yo mother hooked on the trial- she said she did Not think jodi pre-med anything and that travis was ” a big pervert!” hahaha hopefully if someone from her generation thinks that way others will too…

  42. JoshDavis says:

    The second i heard her vocal fry tone
    I wanted to kill myself

    This video sums it up perfectly

    The Vocal Fry Epidemic


    • tonysam says:

      She needed to spay some WD40 down her throat.

      That was awful.

    • D says:

      Careful, Josh. You are setting yourself up for a pattern of suicidal ideation.

      • TrialWatcher says:

        I am glad you brought up “suicidal ideation”. How often have you heard someone who is depressed or unhappy about something say “I wish I was dead right now”? Or “my life is over, or it may as well be”, etc? This is a common phrase a lot of people use…..like “I’m am going to KILL you” if you do this or that again. This MOST OFTEN does not lead to actually trying to kill yourself, or killing someone else….or even seriously thinking about it. Jodi did not ever say in her journals that she was seriously thinking about suicide and JD is a fool to use that to confirm “suicidal ideation”. What total BULL!

        The only time Jodi thought about it seriously was after she was arrested and in jail…..and she couldn’t do it.

    • D says:

      That video is priceless. I had never heard the term “vocal fry tone” before, but I agree with the gal in the video. I also would like to throw poop at the source of that very annoying voice.

  43. Brenda says:

    I’m only 1/2 through the juror questions but I wanted to comment that a lot of the witness’s answers help the defense and support Samuels and AVL as well as reflecting her in experience. It’s clear to me the jury will be divided. This will come down to which side is the more persuasive during deliberations. I can’t see supports of the defense coming all the way over to M1

  44. stan says:

    just watching the news about Boston bombings and the said there was going to be a special Friday hearing of jodi arias trial, anyone know anything about this

    • Brenda says:

      I think they still might try strike this whitnesses testimony from the record based on her expierence and statement that she is testifying in an area she said she is not an expert in. It will be denied

    • TrialWatcher says:

      Closed door hearing…..no one knows what is was about. It was not televised, of course……so HLN of course is speculating wildly about it. (Mike Brooks: “oh, it is probably Nurmi asking for another mistrial, which he has done every other day so far”. What a flat out EXAGGERATED LIE!)

  45. Tony says:

    I’m missing my “Renee’ Fix” this morning!:-)lol

  46. stan says:

    it seems it is starting in a few minutes

  47. geebee2 says:

    I would recommend that Janeen thinks on this, 1 Corinthians 13.

    Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

    Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

    Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

    • coldcase53 says:

      Thanks, geebee2

      It probably wouldn’t hurt if the “haters” thought about it, too. Words of wisdom for all of us actually (Including me).

  48. Nk says:


    Can someone explain that whole Christmas trees story to me? What exactly did Martinez twist? I didn’t have the chance to watch the testimony yesterday.

    • Ann says:

      The only thing I remember is a story of one of TA female friends saying a bunch of people was staying all night at his house and the next morning found her sleeping under the christmas tree when they got up. Hiding behind the Christmas tree story is a new one for me. I remember Jodi saying, she stayed all night at his house one night and after everyone was asleep TA came down and they talked for a long time. Him sitting/laying on the couch and her laying on the floor. This was around Christmas time. Jodi seems very comfortable on the floor. I have 2 nephews that can pile up and sleep on the floor anywhere.

    • Diane says:

      The story is that a bunch of people were sleeping over and Travis asked Jodi to leave because there was no room so she left, but the next morning she was found sleeping under the christmas tree. Not what I would call “hiding” but I’m presuming DeMarte is equating this with stalking.

  49. zoe says:

    yes jvm on hln blathering on… they said will start within the hour anyone know what this is about?

  50. stan says:

    hearing starting soon great seal is up

  51. Renee' (HRS) says:

    WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial

    There is a closed hearing at 10:00am for the #JodiArias trial. This was last minute so I am not sure what it’s about. Will stay on it.

  52. tonysam says:

    So there is a hearing today…but no trial? Is that correct?

  53. stan says:

    anyone know whats up with this hearing and if our link to live trial will be on

  54. stan says:

    watching news on hln and there showing great seal of AZ

    • tonysam says:

      There is nothing on a live stream.

      • zoe says:

        may jw caught dr d lying about how many times she testified to the jury

        • stan says:

          one can only hope

          • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

            She may have caught DeMarte on getting some of her information from HLN. DeMarte seemed defensive about where she got her info, always explaining where she got it even when she wasn’t asked. And Jennifer W. would repeat after her, you got that from the police report? As though she didn’t really believe it. I was getting the impression DeMarte’s anger came from watching all the crap on TV.

  55. Renee' (HRS) says:

    WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial

    Just got confirmation that the hearing will be closed so it will not be televised. We will bring you the results after it is over.#JodiArias

  56. TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

    If it won’t be televised then why is the seal up?

  57. stan says:

    the link on azcentral is showing live pictures of i think the court house steps

  58. Ann says:

    Disclosure question? If JM is bringing in a Walmart person to say no Kerosine can was returned, has the cash refund records been disclosed to the defense in time for them to review?

  59. seek2understand says:

    Did anyone else happen to pull up Azcentral live feed in last 15min? Camera was accidentily on & was showing Jeanne Casarez primping for newscast. It just got cut off. Pretty funny.

  60. stan says:

    there off again but i guess there getting ready to broadcast when anf if anything happens

  61. melvis says:

    anyone know about a closed door seesion in judges Chambers is about? happening as we speak according to HLN

  62. sirlips says:

    Im guessing this is about a “time line”. Maybe to do the court calander for the next couple weeks, maybe to give the jury a time frame.

    I have a question, when a jury is NOT sequestured, do they go home everynight durring the deliberation phase, or are they stuck in deliberation until they come up with a verdict? I would find it VERY VERY VERY hard to believe that they would let the jury go home each night, durring the deliberation phase…but nothing would suprise me after seeing what we have all seen so far.

    • Ann says:

      I bet they go home at night.

    • LC says:

      Good question! I also wanted to know: while deliberation can the jury request to look at videos of the trial to go back and refreshen any thoughts???

      • Al says:

        I don’t know, but I doubt it because the videos are not official records.

        As far is the actual testimony is concerned Rule 22.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that “after the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they desire to have any testimony repeated, the court may recall them to the courtroom and order the testimony read.”

      • Marguerite says:

        I was on a murder trial a few years ago and when we had questions about testimony, we had to be brought into the courtroom and the court reporter read it to us. It sucked. But it may be different state to state. We also went home every night during deliberations.

  63. Meowington says:

    Good morning everyone! Thankfully it’s Friday and payday!!! :)

    So, I need to throw this in first: Demartian’s smiling is creepy. Do we all agree? Yeah!

    One thing that’s been lingering is the lack of information on cult churches. I know some of you have talked about this in previous posts, but having some experience myself in a cult like church makes you change. Being in a cult like church while living a double life not only brings confusion, but lots of guilt and instability. That lifestyle forces you to pretend “I’m good, I’m happy, everything is awesome” when in fact it’s not. You’re forced to give up your identity and free will. Jodi showed us how brain washed she was. Travis took advantage of his so called leadership by manipulating Jodi to do things justifying it was ok and doing them made her feel she was obedient. Red flag! Hello this is a big sign of being emotionally unstable. All this would fall under BPD. Why didn’t these experts or jurors bring that up?

    • Ann says:

      How dare she bring up Jodi’s breast, when is obvoius she had Chester Cheeto dental work done..
      I’m feeling a little mean this morning.

    • Rhonda in Alabama says:

      I agree I was hoping one Juror would ask that Dr. D if she owned a BOOK OF MORMON that would
      have answered a lot of her Bias right there for me. Her constant glare an twisted mouth while speaking
      an the SAME look of all the Mormon/LDS that get on Joke News Daily an spew out the rumors the same feelings of Jodi when they first met her.

      Which to me is LYING for the CHURCH. They want Travis
      to be a SAINT which he was not. An not even faithful to his CHURCH’S LAWS. He spread those FALSE TRUTHS in order to tarnish Jodi in the end an it worked. An make his Mormon friends an co-workers believe he was truly hunting a ‘VIRGIN’ for marriage an he was a 30 year old ‘VIRGIN’ disgusting to me that he would lead such a FALSE LIFE but then he was pretending to following a BOOK made up of False prophets so I am not shocked really. Leading SALESMAN tells me a lot also. GOOD BULLSHITERS make the best at SALES of any product an they do not have to BELIEVE in it even.

  64. Elizabeth says:

    Off the subject…

    But I just wanted to shed a little light on what happened on our soil, 18 years ago today. Please take a moment and allow Oklahoma City into your thoughts and prayers today as we remember all those we lost.

  65. Misty says:

    Ok I was reading an article from some new organization(not HLN) that was going over what happen during trial yesterday. The article was a straight forward accounting of that fact the JW finished her cross of JD and that the juror questions were asked and answered, that part was really no big deal and didn’t have anthing in it that I didn’t all ready know. But at the end of the article it stated something about JW losing some hair on the crown of her head. Since the article wasn’t really bias toward the defense or prosecution I was a little surprised to read that. I honestly did not notice that. Is she really losing her hair? I don’t think it was put in there to be mean because the article seemed to suggest that Jennifer did a good job on cross. Has anyone noticed this? For the life of me I can’t find the article I was reading or I would post the link.

    • Ann says:

      I think she just needs a root touch up.

      • vebe says:

        they keep mentioning this on fb haters side when they are running out of arguments against JM

      • Moni says:

        Me too…that’s all!!! Took care of my roots last night:>))))))

      • joujoubaby says:

        Her part changes from day to day and sometimes light reflects off the top of her hair because it is glossy. They have deluded themselves into thinking it is a bald spot. That girl has hair to spare. Their analysis if JW’s baldness is about as accurate and meaningful as their trial watching.

    • TrialWatcher says:

      I noticed the top of her head and the PART in her hair. That is all it is.

  66. BeeCee says:

    I found some online PTSD tests…they probably are not exactly the same as Pearson’s for clinical testing..

    But, baby doc used smell as one of the examples of a difference between tiger and bear…I don’t see any questions that are specific enough that the test can’t apply to both.


    If you do a search for PTSD test questions you can find more.

  67. Finishtouch says:

    Reports that Juan is going to call Lenore Walker as Rebuttal witness. She was on HLN the other night and said she still uses 6 point criteria to evaluate victims of DV. Poor Alyce, Lenore Walker is her hero.

    • tonysam says:

      If that’s actually true, she doesn’t know anything about the trial. She would be essentially worthless as a witness.

      • FUJuan says:

        I dont believe this is true…. Otherwise she would not be on HLN…. just someone trying to stir up drama for the weekend.

      • TrialWatcher says:

        She did say on HLN that she “didn’t see any evidence in the trial” of Jodi being in fear. (she was apparently watching the wrong trial). That was the first clue this woman was and is not watching this trial. I seriously doubt he can call her if she WAS watching the trial.

        I really wonder where JW got her information about Lenore Walker not using that six criteria anymore. She is not stupid or gullible…..so she must have gotten that information somewhere. Perhaps there is updated criteria that Walker has added….but she does claim she still uses that six point criteria.

    • Misty says:

      You really think she(Lenore) is going to be a witness? She shouldn’t have been running her mouth on HLN then. Has anyone seen that horrible show HLN After Dark. They have a fake jury and convict Jodi for everything they can possibly think of? Last night the question was…Is Jodi Arias a danger to society? They use member’s of the audience as juror’s the majority said she would be,what a joke. Stay classy HLN Stay classy…geez.

      • tonysam says:

        I was just horrified at that show. Last night was the first time I had actually watched it. You’d have thought it was some kind of game show.

        The Bill of Rights means nothing to HLN. You’d think the lawyers on that program would know better, but obviously they aren’t practicing law much at all anymore or even at all.

        Civilization is clearly on the rocks.

      • BevM says:

        The front like staff on HLN appear to be washed up lawyers.

      • TrialWatcher says:

        Ha ha. “STAY CLASSY”?? when were they EVER classy? HLN used to be focused on “headline News” years ago….but since Nancy Grace arrived they have polluted that once very informative channel.

    • Brenda says:

      She wrote a forward on ALV’s latest book about DV. She also didnt interview Jodi. Don’t see the point in calling her.

      • JosephHenry says:

        I agree that she doesn’t hold pertinent information regarding the case, but if Martinez did call her, it wouldn’t be hard to figure out why: Jennifer said Walker didn’t use the ‘six criteria’ anymore, when Walker went on TV and said she did.

  68. Misty says:

    Team Jodi–I didn’t know you did posts on days there are no court that’s really great. We can vent on the previous and relax a little…this is one intende trial my nervies are starting to get bad. I’m gladn the experts are done. O know they needed to testify but to be honest I’m a little expert weary :-)

  69. Misty says:

    *Intense I meant.

  70. Jeff says:

    Baby Doc lost what little she had by insisting a bear attack vs a tiger attack are very different. I would have laughed in her face on that response.

    • tonysam says:

      I thought that was a totally bizarre answer.

      If you are being attacked, you aren’t going to care how they look or smell, other than looking at their teeth.

      • Jeff says:

        It proves to me she would say anything to support her employer.

        • TrialWatcher says:

          I ask you: have you EVER heard a doctor or medical person ADMIT they were wrong about ANYTHING?

          This arrogant doctor would NEVER admit to being wrong about anything, whether on the witness stand or sitting in her chair in her office.

        • maria rigadopoulou says:


    • LC says:

      So Jeff and tonysam, what do you guys think doc would’ve answered YES, THE SAME or the attack from a bear and a tiger would’ve been the same????

      “I” would’ve thought, well then why is it that in Jodis case, you are not seeing the attach as traumatic, right? See… this question STILL would’ve made her look bias. The question was just brilliant, either way. It tells me that the juror that asked knows she was full of shit for not blv the test was valid just because jodi lied about the attack.

      • coldcase53 says:

        She assumed she knew what the juror was asking. If she was a really good psychologist, she would have probed deeper. Maybe, the juror was asking about a man-eating tiger who had killed 12 people vs Yogi Bear or Smokey the Bear. She assumed she knew the truth without collecting all the information as she did with Jodi. Of course, if the juror was asking about a real tiger vs a cartoon character, she would have been correct.

      • Jeff says:

        I agree the question shows that at least one juror does not buy her argument that it invalidates the entire test. Lions and tigers and bears oh my. An attack by any of them would be equally traumatic. What Jodi experienced was traumatic whether ninjas were there or not.

        Baby Doc proved she was simply a shill for Juan.

      • TrialWatcher says:

        What about the juror question about the pictures on the camera……if she did not know pictures were deleted would she still have the same conclusion that she was hiding evidence or was very organized”? Her answer evaded the question about the pictures and she only answered she was not a camera expert”. I hope the juror who posed the question muttered “she didn’t answer my question”.

        I think Jodi deleted pictures she did not like….before the killing even happened. I may be wrong about that as I don’t recall her testimony about it, or whether JM proved by time stamps that she deliberately deleted incriminating pictures. Anyone recall the details about that issue?

    • Ann says:

      Even Pickles did a slight head cock on that one.

    • JosephHenry says:

      Independent of her answer, bears and tigers would absolutely attack differently.

      • BeeCee says:

        yes, however, I doubt there are questions on the test that are that specific.

        “Did the attacker go after you with claws or teeth first?”

        “Did the attacker lumber at you or leap on you?”

        Maybe one of the resident psychologists can answer that question.

        • TrialWatcher says:

          I think what JD was alluding to is that Jodi “lied” when she answered a question on first being tested that it was a “stranger” that caused the trauma.

          I seem to recall that Jodi’s brother told someone that Jodi had been attacked at knife point when she was very young….by a stranger.

    • Al says:

      By the way does she have a license in either bear or tiger attack analysis?

  71. Brenda says:

    Are they still in hearing ?

  72. Rose Fleng says:

    Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. Demarte’s Conclusions Pursuant to
    “SARA” is discussed.


  73. LC says:


    Watch at 8:39 Nurmis face!!! Hhhaaahhaaaa this doc KNOWS TA was abusive and she refuses to admit it!!

    • Ann says:

      Yep…Oh that is just a pattern within these email. Who buying that, not me.

    • Meowington says:

      She sugar coated that statement LOLOLOL

      Unhealthy my a$$

    • Dorothy says:

      JD says,”He (TA) had an unhealthy communication pattern.” Nurmi LAUGHS!
      That was priceless! I missed it yesterday!!!
      Wonder if Nurmi was thinking…”OMG this “DR” will avoid saying, at any cost, that TA was ABUSIVE with his words to Jodi…NOW JD is labeling verbal abuse as an ‘unhealthy communication pattern’ …What other nonsense will she come up with next”
      JM must have instructed JD to AVOID the words “abuse, abused, abusive, and abuser AT ALL COSTS when associated with TA.

      I wonder why the jury didn’t pick up on that and ask, “By ‘unhealthy communication pattern’ are you REALLY saying TA HAD a PATTERN of ABUSIVE language toward Jodi? Did you just choose that description to soften or smooth over the fact that 16 pages of ranting and name-calling, along with the many OTHER instances of vile, repulsive and debasing written communication that TA directed toward JA was somehow less than abusive? Do you NOT want to acknowledge that TA was being verbally abusive and JA was subject to character assassination? Why, with the extensive education, knowledge and experience in the field of psychology, that you claim to have, do you describe it as merely “an unhealthy communication pattern”? Would acknowledging it as a “pattern of abuse” have redirected your assessment perspective and might it have altered your “open and unbiased” evaluation of Jodi?

      • Al says:

        That was right alongside the “maladaptive communication” she used earlier.
        In my opinion here’s another person suffering from cranial rectal inversion. (i.e.head up their ass)

    • maria rigadopoulou says:

      Nurmi’s spontaneous laugh is priceless!!!!
      ”Unhealthy communication patterns” WTF????W e should sure give credit to Baby Doc for having a vivid imagination,linguistcs-wise!

  74. Tanne says:

    Hey guys…..I have a “What would you do” Question for you all. It’s off topic, but I’m kind of freaking theee HELL out over here and I don’t have anyone to talk to at the moment.

    So, I was watching television about the bombing etc. Then they had a piece on sexual predators and how this one police captain was going to put signs in the offenders front yard to warn the neighborhood, right? So, my curious little self pops open the laptop and does a sex offender search for my zipcode……nothing. But, I live in the country where multiple little towns are smooshed together so I punch in the next zipcode over and what do my eyes see????? To my HORROR, the FATHER of one of my sons friends of who he just so happens to be sleeping over at tonight!!! I have twin boys, age 12. They actually both spent the night over at the OFFENDER’ house last weekend. OMFG!!

    Okay, I know of the family but don’t know them well. My boys played basketball with their son this past season and that’s when the boys all got close. The sex offender registry only tells you the crime without much detail. So, this man was charged with 2nd degree sexual assault of a child. I really had to do some digging to find out exactly what happened.

    Here’s the scoop: It occurred 16 years ago. This man is also a chiropractor, which is the only reason I believe I was able to get any dirt on the situation in the first place because his license was suspended. Okay, he apparently raped a 14 year old girl that was employed in his chiropractor’s office one night after he drove her home after she finished working for him for the day. AND, This happened TWICE from what I could gather.

    Oh boy!! So, WTF!!!???? What would you do? I’m kinda freaking out a little here. He is married, I don’t know if that makes a difference or not. It was with a girl, not a boy. But, just the simple fact that he raped a 14 year old child is disgusting and I don’t want my son near anyone like that!!!! He (my son) is supposed to be going home on the bus with the little boy tonight.

    Well…….help me out. Please…….

    • FUJuan says:

      If you live in the U.S. which I am assuming you do, he’s not allowed to have contact with any children by law. You need to report this.

      Look up the laws in your state for his crime. See what the laws state. Usually 500 yards to 1000 yards from any children.

      I would not allow my child around someone like this………. Did he attend any of your son’s games? That is also a violation of his SEX OFFENDER charge.

      • Tanne says:

        I was able to see the copy of the License and Registration review thing for the Chiropractor Assn. which was where I got ALL of my information from.

        I think you are correct and also about living near schools, etc. Of course he went to the games. The only thing mentioned in the License thing was that when he got his license back he was not allowed to have females under the age of 21 work for him or be allowed into the rooms alone with clients.

        I will check my state laws on this. He is a lifetime registrant.

        • TR says:

          In most states, the registrants are usually the highest level sexual predetors. I would in no way, shape or form let my children go there. I would also contact the local police department and discuss it with them. If they can’t help, they can make a referral to whatever State Agencies handles these issues. Thank goodness you found out now.

      • Tanne says:

        The little tidbit I did find out is that once their sentence is complete, they are no longer monitored. Which means they can be around children apparently.

        In a news article it said that of the 10,000 sex offenders in my state that all 10,000 could hold a conference at a waterpark where children would be present because they had completed their sentences and all the state now requires from them is their address.

        • Tanne says:

          Correction: 10,000 is only half of our sex offenders, but they are the half that has completed their sentence. So we have 20,000 offenders. YUCK!

        • FUJuan says:

          Can I ask what state you are in so I can better assist you?

          • Tanne says:


            • FUJuan says:

              Looks like once the probation is up, he only needs to registry yearly with updated information ( address,car, employment, hair, eyes, weight, height, etc).

              Under his sex offender registry, orders that he is to follow.

              Because of the nature of this sexually offense he will be listed for the rest of his life on the SEX OFFENDER registry.

              • Tanne says:

                Exactly, but nothing about limits about being around children other than the ones placed on him by the licensing board.

                • Marguerite says:

                  If they’re letting him keep his only children, it sounds like maybe there isn’t a restriction? I don’t know though!

    • Jeff says:

      I don’t know what I’d do. Not to make excuses for this guy but we don’t have all the facts. You said he was charged but I assume convicted or he wouldn’t be listed. We don’t know if the 14 year old girl was physically mature and led him on. If he knew her age of course its still a crime. But full details may tell us whether to fear him.

      Also this was 16 years ago. I’d like to think people who make horrible mistakes get a chance to redeem themselves. Perhaps he did. Good luck with this one. It will probably anger your son if you bring this up.

      • Tanne says:

        I got the information from his license review thing a ma-jig. It did state that is was sexual intercourse with a 14 year old female without her consent.

        Sentenced to 8 years in prison but it was stayed/imposed and he did 1 year straight time in jail with 12 years probation and lost his license for two.

      • Tanne says:

        I would NEVER tell him. He’s only 12. I just don’t know what I as a Mama should do.

        • Jeff says:

          I think I’d be more concerned if you had a daughter over there but I’m no expert.

          • Jeff says:

            Course by Baby Docs standards I am an expert since I raised 3 girls.

          • Tanne says:

            That’s what I told my husband. :/

            • FUJuan says:


              It doesnt’ matter if it was 25 years ago. He’s a registered sex offender. He’s to follow the LAW…. which I am assuming means no contact with children.

              God was calling on you today, letting you know something is not right. Follow your heart. You can NEVER replace your child, or their Innocence .

              Why in the world would his wife stay with him…. ask yourself that question. If that was my husband, we would of been in DIVORCE court hands down.

              My child come first and foremost in my life.

              Working at 14 years old … hmmm What the law in your state or country? Twice with the same individual?

              Call your local authorties. ASAP…… And your correct, you don’t need to explain to your child who’s only 12 years old.

              • TR says:


                There are some good videos available to help parents talk to their children about these topics. I worked in child welfare services for 20 out of my 30 year career in Social Work, which gave me a clear view of what was “out there” in our society. I began talking to my daughter about this when she was in pre-school. Clearly I did so with age appropriate materials. I started with a video made by John Walsh and the creators of the Baby Einstein videos. I was a great way to start. Since your children are older, there may be some better more age appropriate resourses that a local Psychologist or Social worker could recommend. All of my training taught me that the earlier children know about these issues, the better. Child molesters are very sneaky and have honed their skills to prey on children. Unfortunatley, in our society, our kids need to be armed very early agaist this scourge.

                • Tanne says:

                  We’ve had discussions about molesters and creepy people many times. I just don’t know how to and if it’s appropriate to tell him about his friend’s father, that’s what I meant. It’s a bad spot to be in for everyone. Literally. Boo. :(

                • FUJuan says:


                  Honesty is the best policy with children. Be str8 forward with them, and don’t sugar coat it. Children are a lot smarter than we give them credit for…. You don’t know this father’s motives, and how his head is screwed on. Therefore, hold your precious children tight.

                  If you ask questions make sure they are questions your child can relate to…… don’t probe, this makes the child want to hold back information.

                  The children in your care love and trust you. A child who has been abused may start talking to you about it. He may do so because he trusts you and wants to share the burden he is carrying with you. Hearing a child talking about being abused is very difficult. You may react in different ways. Your reaction is very important to the child. If you react with disgust or don’t believe what he is saying, he may stop talking to you about it. He will feel that you don’t trust him. This will prevent him from getting help. It also prevents the abuse from stopping.

                  Be very sensitive and listen carefully when a child is talking to you about abuse. Keep in mind that it is very difficult for the child to talk about being abused. This is especially hard for children who have been sexually abused. The child has gathered up all her courage to tell you about the abuse. How you handle the conversation will determine how you will be able to help the child.

                  Keep the following considerations in mind when talking to a child who is disclosing abuse:

                  • Help the child feel comfortable. Talking about abuse is not easy for the child. Respect the child’s privacy and talk to him in a quiet and private place. The place should be familiar to the child. This will help the child feel comfortable.

                  • Reassure the child that it is not her fault. Most children who are abused feel, or are told by their abusers, that they are to blame for their own abuse. It is very important to tell the child that she is not guilty and that she is not responsible for the abuse. Let them know that they have not done anything wrong.

                  • Don’t react with shock, anger, disgust. Your reaction to that the child tells you is very important to the child. He will be watching your reaction closely. Be calm. When you react with disgust or anger, he will not feel comfortable talking to you anymore. He may also feel scared and confused. This will prevent you from acting promptly and getting help immediately.

                  • Don’t force a child to talk. Give the child time. Let her talk to you at her own pace. If the child is unwilling to talk or seems uncomfortable, don’t pressurize her to do so. If the child seems uncomfortable when talking about certain specific things, don’t press her for details. You can change the topic to something that the child is more comfortable talking about.

                  • Don’t force a child to show injuries. If the child is willing to show you his injuries, you may allow him to do so. However, when a child is unwilling to show you his injuries, you may not insist that he do so. Also, you cannot insist that a child take off his clothing so that you can see his injuries.

                  • Use terms and language that the child can understand. If the child says something that you don’t understand, like a word for a body part, ask the child to explain or to point to the body part. Don’t correct or make fun of the words the child is using. When you use the same words as the child does, it helps the child feel less confused and more relaxed. The child will feel that you understand him.

                  • Don’t ‘interview’ the child. The purpose of your discussion with the child is to gather enough information so that you can make an informed report to the local CPS agency or to your supervisor. When you have the information you need, you must stop the discussion. Don’t try to prove that abuse has happened.

                  • Ask appropriate questions. The questions that you ask the child must be appropriately worded. Choose your language carefully. This ensures that you get correct information from the child. For example, if you see a bruise on a child and you suspect that it is the result of abuse, you may say to the child, “That looks painful. Do you want to tell me how you got it” or “Do you want to talk about that bruise you have”. It would be inappropriate to say, “Did you get that bruise when someone hit you?” Remember that you can do more harm by supplying a child with words and ideas. Let the child tell her own story and give you the answers.

                  • Don’t ask ‘why’ questions. Why questions like, “Why did he hit you?” or “Why she do that?” will only confuse a child more. Remember that children who are abused often do not understand why it is happening. These types of questions will force them to think about the reasons for the abuse. ‘Why’ questions also will not give you any helpful information.

                  • Don’t teach the child new terms or words. Don’t teach the child new words or give her new ideas. This is harmful. When you do this, you are biasing the child. Also, when you teach a child a new term or word, you are changing the child’s original disclosure. This is important in relation to the court and law.

                  • Find out what the child wants from you. A child may ask you to promise not to tell anyone. He may ask you to take him home with you. He may ask you what you are going to do. It is good to know what the child is expecting from you. This will help you in deciding what your course of action should be.

                  • Be honest with the child. Let the child know what you are going to do. This will build trust. Be honest about what you can do for him. Don’t promise him things that cannot be done. For example- let him know that you may have to tell someone so that he will not be hurt anymore. Then he will not be surprised or afraid when he finds out that someone knows.

                  • Confirm the child’s feelings. Let the child know that it is okay to feel scared, hurt, confused or angry.

                  • Be supportive. Let the child know that you are glad she told you about the abuse. Let her know that you believe her and that you care about her. Some children may think that you will not like them anymore because of what they told you. Assure her that you are still her friend.

                  • Remember: the safety of the child is most important. Be sensitive to and aware of the child’s safety. Keep in mind that a child might be further abused if he reports that he has spoken to someone about the abuse. If you feel that the child is in danger, you must contact CPS immediately.

              • LC says:

                I’m with FU, and Noooooo way (even if they’re boys) and even if it was 100years ago; let your kids around this perv. There’s no way that you’ll be able to sleep tonight knowing that your kids are there. When I was younger, my parents would NEVER let me spend the night over at any of my friends or families. I couldn’t understand why and at times I’dbe so upset BUT NOW I know and I thank them ffor it. I have two little girls and ill do the same with them. Your just never 100% SAFE, unless they’re sleeping in they’re own bed… and of course youll sleep better too! Good luck!

      • Dorothy says:

        14 year old “led him on” Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? You aught to be ashamed of yourself!!!! I am appalled! Evidently, this was an ADULT MAN and a 14 year old child! Insinuating she “led him on” and taking into account if she was “physically mature” or not…are TYPICAL and BIASED! WHAT is wrong with you? Seriously!!! It is THAT school of thought “Well, HEY IT was HER FAULT! He couldn’t HELP but RAPE her” “LOOK how she’s dressed! She MADE him do it” “It’s not HIS FAULT! IT”S HER’S!” …It’s that school of thought that women have been up against since the beginning of time!
        You leave a BAD taste in MY mouth!

        • TR says:

          Well said. I have the same bad taste!!!!

          • Dorothy says:

            I felt sure someone would jump down my throat for writing that…I almost didn’t press the “post comment” button. I guess his comment pushed a button. I am generally not one to voice my opinion directed in that personal way.

        • sirlips says:

          Dorothy, you are 100% right, but take a breath, he didnt say that. He did say “she could have led him on”…but that is a common response from MANY people. Its 100% wrong…but that doesnt mean he is really blaming her. Lets keep it civil, im the only one allowed to rant around here, read the rules. ;)

          luv yah.

          • Dorothy says:

            Hey sirlips,
            I generally am civil…but what’s the difference between “she could have led him on” and as I stated, “led him on”? Either way, Jeff’s implication and taking into consideration that the 14 year old girl COULD have been at fault for an adult RAPING her, is ludicrous. You further support my argument (that women have been up against this since the beginning of time) when you state, “…but that is a common response from MANY people”.
            Didn’t Jodie Foster play a part in a movie (The Accused, 1988) based on actual events, that addressed this issu? The subject was an ADULT woman who was gang raped. If I recall correctly, in that movie the consensus was that victim ASKED for it because she was sexy?…Hmmm 1988…If you think Jeff’s comment didn’t warrant my …uncivil… response…well you are entitled to your opinion.
            I hereby step down from the rant platform and turn it back over to you ;)
            luv yah

            • sirlips says:

              wink wink

            • TR says:

              Don’t step down and give it over to anyone. The comments are really disgusting and once again blame the child victim. Is this any different than what the hate filled mob is doing to Jodi. This site is establised not only for Jodi, but to stand up for victims of abuse. SJ has made that very clear, and I for one appreciate it. We need to rant, because clearly as a society we still do not understand abuse of our most vunerable victims. Civility sometimes has to go to the wayside, and passion has to take over. In our history, very little has been accomplished by mere civility.
              Sirlips, not sure if you have children, but if it were your child I think you would surely see it as blaming the victim.

        • FUJuan says:

          AMEN Dorthy…………….. this is exactly why men get away this behavior and a slap on the wrist. It sicken me to think that a married 34 year old man would take advantage of a young girl who is 14 years old ( NOT ONLY ONCE BUT TWICE).

          Women We have a Voice…………. Break the Silence….!!

        • Tony says:

          The bastard ought to be castrated IMO!!!!!!

      • Kira says:

        Sorry, but “no” to the 14 year old leading him on comment. A 14 year old is legally a child. HE, as the adult, has the blame here. I don’t care mature she may have thought she was or if she flirted with him – a grown man should have the judgment to NOT sleep with a young teen.

      • kmea says:

        Led him on? My beautiful precious daughter is 15 and at 14 she already had developed a cute little figure and at that age they are discovering their sexuality, sort of subconciously, gaaaa, I dont know how to explain exactly what I mean. They are finding their way and at that age their body and minds are overflowing with feelings they dont yet understand and they may come across as sexual to an idiot older man but are purely innocent of any knowledge of real sex and for you to say a child, a 14 year old child led a grown man on??? That is beyond wrong and I hope you truly rethink that way of thinking. Years ago or now, it is and was wrong for a grown man to even think sex with a 14 year old

    • coldcase53 says:


      I don’t know much about the law but I have read stories where a girl may be just under the age of consent (e.g., almost 16) and the boy just over the age of consent (e.g., just turned 18). And, they are in a girlfriend-boyfriend relationship. I have heard where the boy has been charged and placed on the sex offender’s list for having sex with his girlfriend. I don’t know if an almost 16 year old girl would be described as a child though.

      You probably need more information. Just a layman’s opinion.

      • Tanne says:

        That would/could work if he wasn’t her employer and she his employee. He was 34 and she was 14. And, he was married with children. :(

      • sirlips says:

        Anyone under 18 would be called a child, anyone under 12 would be called “young child” in most states. Most states have an “interstate compact” type agreement. Some call what you are refferring to as “statitory rape”(however you spell it..lol), but that would be 3rd degree crim sex, not 2nd…2nd means “force” without penetration.

    • Al says:


      Whatever the heck you do or don’t do.


      And depending o how mature they are it may be worth talking to them.


      • SR0606 says:

        agree with Al.

        dont take that chance.

        • tonysam says:

          Second that opinion. This would scare me to death.

          • Renee' (HRS) says:

            I agree as well.

            There is NOTHING to justify taking a chance like this.

            As a sexual abuse survivor, I can say it can ruin your life… it changes you in every way.

            Please, protect your kids.

            Trust your judgment.

            • Tanne says:

              Renee’, thanks for sharing. I too, was molested by my step-father so I am hyper-sensitive to these issues, for very good reason as you know.

              My stomach is still turning tho’…..

              Thank you again :)

              • FUJuan says:

                Repeat Offenders

                First, the notion that recidivism (repeat offending) is inevitable needs a second look. Recently sex crimes researcher Jill Levenson of Lynn University in Florida and her colleagues found that the average member of the general public believes that 75 percent of sex offenders will reoffend. This perception is consistent with media portrayals in such television programs as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, in which sex offenders are almost always portrayed as chronic repeaters.

                The evidence suggests otherwise. Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years. The figures are clearly out of alignment with the public’s more dire expectations.

                Also contrary to media depictions, most offenders do not “specialize” in one type of sex crime. Most are “generalists” who engage in a variety of sex and nonsexual crimes as well. Hanson and Morton-Bourgon found that sex offenders had a total recidivism rate (for both sex crimes and nonsexual violent crimes) of approximately 36 percent over a period of five to six years. Nevertheless, perpetrators of different types of sex crimes exhibit varying rates of repeat offending. The 15-year recidivism rate is 13 percent for incest perpetrators, 24 percent for rapists, and 35 percent for child molesters of boy victims.

                • Tanne says:

                  Yes, I think most people think little boys are safer than little girls but I’m like a Mama bear with all my babies! LOL!! I also have a 15 year old daughter too! :)

                • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

                  I agree with Al. Keep them away.

    • joujoubaby says:

      If it were me- just a lay opinion- I would make up an excuse why you changed your mind and need him at home, debrief him to make sure nothing has happened before and give him the tools to know what to be on alert for with this dude as well as others, politely refuse future invitations, and confine all future extracurricular social engagements with the guy’s kid to my house.

    • Renee' (HRS) says:

      Tanne, if I were you, I would not let my child set foot in that house again.


    • sirlips says:


      I didn’t get to read all of the replies, so i apologies if i restate what others have said.

      First, when i hear of this sort of thing, i am often more apt to NOT believe it, than most. Simply because i think people tend to sensationalize these events. Or, at a minimum exaggerate them. But first, as i respect Al a great deal, i did read his post before replying and i think you need to listen to his advice, or at least the part about NOTHING is more important than protecting your children.

      With that said, allow me to explain my first comment….
      We need to be careful when seeing the words “sex crime”, or “sex offender”- this does not mean they raped someone…your is a great example:
      This man did not rape a 14 year old girl. it’s that simple. I know this because of the charge. 1st and 3rd degree are “penetration” crimes, 2nd and 4th are “touching” crimes. 1st degree would be Forced penetration as in “rape”. BTW, there is no such charge as “rape”. Its 1st, 2st, 3rd or 4th degree sexual misconduct. (not that the name matters, but just to clarify) Anyway… I was saying, this was not “rape” as the charge was 2nd degree sexual misconduct, this would mean FORCED touching, no penetration. Now, that’s NOT ok, but it may help quall your fears for a few minutes. 2nd is a felony and very very serious still.
      3rd degree would be penetration with NO force (20 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend and they had consensual sex) and 4th degree would be touching with NO force. (20 year old with 16 year old girlfriend, consensual touching, with no sex) 4th degree also includes MANY other things like “flashing” etc…

      My point is, since you already jumped to a conclusion that wasn’t true, it is better now to make sure you know what the truth is. Here is the best way to find out….ASK HIM! I know it is hard, but that is the best thing to do. Keep in mind these people are usually great minimizers and justifiers, but you will get an answer. You can do this in a public forum, if you are more comfortable. I WOULD NOT tell your boys before you find out the facts, in this case, as you have already made a wrong judgment.

      Side note: I know some may say he could have pled from 1st degree to 2nd degree, but that is not the case. These offenses are not linear. 1st degree would plead down to 3rd, 2nd degree would plea down to 4th. The major factor is the “penetration”(1st/3rd) or “touching/no penetration”(2nd/4th)

      Another possible avenue is to contact WI BCA, they keep records and are able to release offender info to the public.
      You could go to the police station and talk to a detective (no a cop)
      I would NOT ask a cop. (If you need further explanation, I can send you a link to you-tube that explains this …but the short answer is NEVER talk to cops)

      One last thing about the “contact with kids, etc… Laws 20-15 years ago were very diff than today, If he was charged with 2nd degree he probably got 5-15 years’ probation along with his time. After probation or 10 years of registering and completing probation (whichever is longer) he would no longer have to register. His record could also contain a stay of imposition, which would allow him for have the felony changed to a gross misdemeanor after all requirements are complete.

      One last thing. His boys are 12… this happened 16 years ago…so I’m guessing he was pretty young. early 20’s. I know you said that she was 14, but most 14 year olds don’t work in a chiropractor office, so this could very well be a “22 yr old with a 17-16 year old girlfriend” type offense. AGAIN, that is still wrong, but we are now looking at 2 TOTALLY different situations. 1. a child rapist 2.A young MAN with an under aged girlfriend, that he “touched”. I can’t reiterate enough that both are serious crimes, but there is a HUGE difference in the way these 2 things should be handled. IMO

      • Tanne says:

        Interesting. I appreciate what you are trying to say but I do have the facts and they are:
        These are his charges….948.02(2) 2nd Degree Sexual Assault of Child Felony BC Guilty / No Contest
        2 940.225(3) 3rd Degree Sexual Assault Felony D

        And he did have sex with her. It was without her consent. It’s that simple.

        Here is the facts that I copied from his review when his license was suspended for two years.

        3.On August 26,1996, Respondent was charged in Milwaukee County Wisconsin Circuit
        Court case number F-00000 with onecountofviolating5948.02(2),Stats.,(SecondDegreeSexual
        AssaultofaChild),aclassBCfelony,for having sexual contact on or about July25,1996 with a 14 year old
        4.On September25,1996,Respondent was charged in Washington County Wisconsin Circuit Court
        case numbe r000000 with one count of violating §948;02(2),Stats.,(SecondDegreeSexualAssault
        ofaChild),a classBCfelony,for having sexual intercourse in July of 1996 with the same 14 year old girl and one count of violating 5940.225(3),Stats.,(3rdDegreeSexualAssault)for having sexual intercourse
        with the same 14 year old girl in July of 1996,without her consent,a class D Felony.

        Like I said, I had to do some digging to find this out, but I know what it says and I know what it means, so forgive me for not understanding why you don’t understand what this is. It was a 34 year old married man who was a chiropractor who employed a 14 year old child. In Wisconsin we are allowed to work when we are 14. Then he violated her and got caught. He also has to register on the sex offender registry for lifetime. His sentence is complete, yes. Therefore, he is only required to register. That’s about the only information I could find out as far as him not having contact with children. I tried to make myself as clear as possible, but I did not jump to a conclusion that wasn’t true. Thank you very much.

        Sorry if I seem pissy and all but I did my research on this before I said anything.

        Thank you!

        • FUJuan says:

          Well stated Tanne…. I am on your side……………In my state under the age of 16 is rape……. FELONY. This scumbag did it twice with the same girl…. Should of been locked up. One year is nothing…….. and probation. Wonder if he was ordered to attend some sort of classes?

          I don’t condone this behavior, and I would NEVER allow my children around his children. Also cannot believe he wasn’t charged for underage worker….

          Relax, and take a deep breathe………….. you did the right thing… :)

          • Tanne says:

            Because in Wisconsin we are allowed to work at age 14 with a permit. It’s totally legal.

            • FUJuan says:

              Thank Tanne, missed read your post above about being allowed to work at the age of 14 with a permit. IT’s been extremely long week for me.

        • sirlips says:

          Tanne, Thank you for clearing that up. I think we were both correct actually…
          948.02 is the 2nd degree charge. this is for “contact” that would be “forced” with no sex. As you can see from the first spot it states “for having sexual —>contact<— on or about July25,1996 with a 14 year old" However there is a spot later than does clearly sexual intercourse and calling it 948.02 again.
          The 3rd degree charge is also for sexual intercourse, but that IS what that charge should be.

          I think there is a typo in that report, where it calls the 2nd degree contact, but then later refers to it again with the "intercourse".

          The thing to KNOW here is that there WAS force "2nd degree" and there WAS intercourse "3rd degree". This is MOST DIFFIDENTLY NOT A "20 something with a mature teenager situation. ALSO, if he was made to register "for life" back then, this was a more serious offense. As back then, they didn't always do "life time" registrations like they do now. Now if you catch a sex offense, your registering as a sex offender for life, period. It was NOT very common back then, unless it was a "rape" or serious serious offense. (not that they all aren't..but you know what i mean)

          What i don't get is they charged him with a 3rd degree offense and a second degree offense. Yet, if it was forced penetration it should be 1st, and forced touching, 2nd.

          The strangest part of this is the last line, as it clearly says 3rd degree, intercourse, forced.

          I'm in MN, and our laws are VERY close to WI on this, but there must be some differences that explain this. Or, where ever this came from, as this is not a court document or report, it could have mixed around the charges. It still doesn't change the fact that you have evidence that this guy is bad news.

          My sons and daughters wouldn't be anywhere near this guy. I would call him out on it.

          ALSO, you mention in the first post that they are talking about being able to put signs in the front yards of sex offenders….THIS IS A GREAT IDEA! I already do that at my house, it works perfect, salesmen leave me alone and none of the neighborhood kids walk on my lawn. ;)

      • Kira says:

        Uh, no. He was 34, she was 14. Whether it’s penetration or forced touching, it was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

        This reminds me of people making excuses for Travis on the hater sites.

        • sirlips says:

          Not making excuses, i was using it as an example that she may have had bad facts, so not to jump to conclusions. I make no excuses for the people that break these and many other laws.

          She showed the report, and this person did do some very bad things. I’m surprised he is licensed again, based on the charges she showed.

          • TR says:

            Seriously?????? Jump to conclusions???? For cryin out loud, what do you think the Sex Offender registry is for. It is there to warn people about the OFFENDERS in their area. Where I live, all offenders are required to put signs in thier windows on halloween so people know to stay away from those homes for trick or treat. Please do a search for offenders in your area and see just how many there are. I for one, wish to not give them all the benifit of the doubt and determine who is a “real” offender, based on some crap like the age of the victim. The Legal system has taken care of that for me.

            Rape is rape…this is no different than the wackos out there saying TA didn’t rape Jodi, even though he states he did, because she went along with it.

            • Sirlips says:

              I agree, except for the “The Legal system has taken care of that for me.” because i do not trust the legal system. Thats why we are here, isnt it?

              Heres an example, my 28 year old, married with kids, cousin is now a registered sex offender….? did he rape someone? nope. Did he touch someone? nope. Did he take advantage of someone? nope.

              He works in a downtown area. The employees have to park on the top of the ramp, outside. One night after work he was about to get in is truck and decided to releave himself. Of course this was on camera and the booth worker had a cop waiting for him when he went to leave the ramp. I’m sure they were looking for DUI suspects, but when he hadnt been drinking, they charged him with indecent exposure. FIne..life goes on… UNTIL, 3 years later, he was with a bunch of friends on the “root river”. This is basically a big party, people tub down this small river and camp in large groups. Drinking, etc… Often guys will yell things like “show us your tits”, “flash us” etc… Well, boys will be boys and they initiated a wet tee-shirt contest. All was fine, until the cops showed up. Several people were booked for underaged drinking, some got charged with possetion of weed, my cousin, as the “leader” of the wet-tshirt contest” was charged with 4th dgree sexual misconduct, because it turns out one of the many woman flashing there hooters was 17! with the previous “indecent exposure” charge, he was bumped up to a higher lvl on his eveluation, and has to register.
              He’s a fuck tard, yes. Is he a “rapest” now? no. But, just think of how many people out there figure”well, he has to register, so he is a perv/rapist/etc..”.

              The legal system is broke. He will never have a good job now. He will never work with kids. He will never coach his kids sports teams. He will never be able to stop looking over his shoulder, as he has ran into several people that stalk the “offender lists” as a “public service”..or so they think. He has recieved threats. His kids have been told by other kids that they cant come play at is house because their dady is a “raper”.

              I know this doesnt probably happen often, but this hits close to home for our family. We need to keep kids/people safe. That should be 1st. But it should not be at the cost of other kids/people.

          • BeeCee says:

            I can’t believe they let him get licensed again either.

            I do understand what you were trying to say before sirlips about getting more information first. That is how I ended up here for jodi. I did not take it as truth right away that she premeditated the murder. Now I am on her side.

            Once it was confirmed it was a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD and a married man though, there is no question in my mind which party is responsible. I don’t care if she looked older, I don’t care if she had a crush on him, like teenagers can do…I do not care!! HE was the responsible adult who is supposed to make good choices.

            Makes me wonder if he still has a problem that he just couldn’t control himself.

    • Kira says:

      If it were my son? No fucking way in hell would I take the chance.

    • Oliviero says:

      Get your Kids out of there fast, Never leave your children with Predators the damage that can be done is a lifetime

  75. geebee2 says:

    Another bit of news – I have received a personal reply from Jimmy Wales on the wikipedia wiki.

    So that may well be sorted in due course :)

  76. Al says:

    My commentary on the Juror questions:

    1, 2, 3 are very obvious experience related and really just did no more than had already been addressed. I don’t think those do any further good or damage to either side than what was already out there.

    4,5 – The bear and tiger questions. This is a guy who isn’t buying her BS. This is good for Jodi. Those weren’t questions, those were digs.

    6 is a tough one to gauge. It sort of depends on where its coming from. I was hoping Jennifer would ask that question and then she did. No matter what answer Baby Doc gives, it shows either her or the prosecution in a less than graceful light. If she says no, then she contradicts her own prior statement about evaluating the kids. She had to acknowledge compassion there or she would have looked cold. If she says yes, then its OK for ALV and Samuels as well.

    7,8 about the BPD are probably from someone who wants to know if Jodi’s actions could have been due to the BPD and so explainable. This is OK for Jodi.

    9 is from a guy (or guyette) who doesn’t buy her whole organizational argument. So that’s probably good.

    10’s just someone looking for more info, and I think Jennifer addressed that issue on her follow up and showed that the Doc didn’t have a full grasp of what was going on.

    11 and 12 I think are from an anti Jodi person. They don’t even have context with this witnesses expertise.

    14 – 17 could be from the same person. This, I think is a pro Jodi person and is calling her on her BS with RS filling in the answers and also pointing out that she used tests that she thought would favor the prosecution and then probably selectively cherry picked results as well.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if 18 came from the same person who asked 11 and 12. This is some guy who thought that the answers given were not Jodi’s. Hopefully that’s been put to rest.

  77. BirdOnALimb says:

    Although I don’t share my opinions out there, know that I am a full fledged Jodi Arias supporter. I agree with my fellow Arias supporters, and I feel she has served her time and should be released upon the conclusion of this trial.

  78. Mary says:

    Watch this – Geraldo agrees it was domestic violence. I love him!!!!!!

    • SJ - Team Jodi says:

      Yes, it was a good segment… just a shame Greg Gutfeld turned it into a comedy show with his BS comments. Next he’ll be making jokes about Boston. That’s the reason I posted Geraldo’s earlier interview with Mark Geragos instead – (see link below):


      Team Jodi

      • coldcase53 says:

        Boy, that guy interviewing Geraldo was a piece of work. Fox must have searched under a lot of rocks before they found him.

        • TrialWatcher says:

          He is on the Fox show “The Five”……all but one of them is as much of a smartass as he is, this so -called “comedian” , and that is the lone democrat of “The Five”.

          He was way off the mark on most of what he said but he has me curious as to what he was referring to about Jodi “saying terrible things about the prosecutor”. As far as know she only made remarks about short man syndrome on twitter. I didn’t read any other remarks she made about JM.

      • Mary says:

        Great video SJ. Geraldo has the cahone’s to speak the truth and doesn’t care about the ratings. Shame on the rest of the media.

      • tonysam says:

        That was a good video.

      • Dorothy says:

        I have a question: In this video with Geraldo, Geraldo mentions the “stumbling of the defense expert, the domestic violence expert, getting caught in a lie” To what is he referring? I watched ALL of ALV’s testimony and do not recall her getting “caught in a lie”. Anyone? Clarify?

        • Diane says:

          One of the jurors questions was how many times she had testified for a man and she said twice. Later she said she actually did not testify those 2 time, that she had actually just written a report regarding those cases. I think that may be why she has to come back to court as well as for approaching one of Travis’ sisters.

  79. Tanne says:

    Thank you guys so much for lending me your ears and some advice when I didn’t have anyone to talk to today!

    Much appreciated. :)

  80. Ann says:

    I thought of something that may reflect on the these juror questions. Since the picture stipulation/agreement came out… perhaps some of jurors are thinking to themselves this must be important “big” since both side agreed Ms Arias didn’t have a gun or knife when this photo was taken…so this time around jurors are a little more open minded (giving them the benefit of doubt they are being honest about not talking to anyone and not listening to the media).

  81. coldcase53 says:

    Does anyone know if there are word-for-word transcripts of each day of the trial that are available online?

    I’ve searched without any luck several times. I see someone working on them every day during the trial – at least I think that’s what the person, who sits near the witness, is doing.


    • Al says:


      Typically there aren’t. At one time the whole transcript thing was public record. But over the years the keeping of court records has shifted to private companies for the most part. So chances are that the court reporters actually work for a company. Those companies typically provide a copy to the court for the official record, and that is it. Even attorneys for both sides have to buy records, and they can be pretty costly. In a federal court case we were involved in the records were about $200 per day.

  82. Phillip says:

    TR, an answer to your question concerning the neck wound, my opinion is that it was done with precision. TA was a kick boxer and had bruises/injuries to his legs, ankles, and feet that are consistent with defending himself. The throat is extremely difficult to cut, if the person knows the knife attackers intentions. Most of the stab wounds and lacerations seem such that Travis was not being cooperative with the assassins. The wounds to the head, behind or below his ear, the neck and collar bone area indicate that he was pinned down but still able to move his arms, shoulders and head. The wounds seem to come from behind and from the right side. The wounds behind and below his right ear as well as the broken right thumbnail seem to indicate that he was guarding his throat. The wound to left collar bone area is near the left thumb injury if he was guarding his throat with his left hand and the cut on the inside if his left hand indicates that he grabbed the blade when the attacker attempted to slash his throat from left to right and from behind TA which would allow for the blade to be in the appropriate position to to cause that injury. He lost function of his left thumb due to the severed muscle and tendons. The abrasion on the right forearm caused during the struggle to control his arms. His head was likely pulled up to expose his throat and the slash started on the left side but not deep enough to severe arteries avoided the hyoid bone and extra hard pull of the blade intending to severe right side jugular/carotid. TA seemed to have an abrasion under his nose possibly caused by something used to expose his neck. The rounded of the slash also lead me to believe his head was pulled up and back. The position of the blade on the chest wounds indicate a right handed person from behind. 3 major vessels severed on the right side, cut tendons, and a perfect hit between 3rd and 4th rib using the sternum as a landmark and to assist the knifes path, I think it’s fair to say the attacker had some knowledge of the anatomy and this most likely wasn’t his first rodeo. One more very important thing is that the kitchen knives were not used based on the force used such that it cut into the sternum and the skull and considering the design the hand would’ve slipped and caused major cuts to the killer, thereby leaving 3 or more persons blood and DNA on the crime scene. Hopefully the Mesa PD tested all blood found on scene because it could have the true killers DNA, but not likely because they didn’t check for additional prints on the sheetrock cut out, once Jodi’s print was ID’d. TA’s hands didn’t have blood spatter, adding support that his hands ans arms were held or bound. They could have duct taped his wrist, the duct tape wasn’t submitted as evidence it would have had hair or saliva or blood. So, TR, a flailing, or inadvertent throat slash would not have been that long, and surely not with the precision as this slash. The Prosecutor is using the word “slash ” subliminally “tire slasher” equates to “throat slasher “, which we know Jodi is not.

    • annieEP says:

      ummm I think jodi is left handed. wouldn’t it make more sense for the throat to be cut from right to left?

      • Phillip says:

        So am I and like most lefties, ambidextrious. Jodi testified that she killed TA, based on the logic. The evidence that she was the only person with TA. Basing the killing on the laws of physics, who then?

        • FUJuan says:


          Even know most lefties are ambidextrious, it’s a natural reponse to use the hand you use most often being Jodi’s left hand.

          So, I would agree with the other poster, it would of been right to left… Just my opinion.

    • BeeCee says:

      I can see what you are saying.

      While I do believe Jodi was abused, I still am not sure her memories are accurate and I fully believe that it could have been done by someone that TA pissed off.

      She suffered a traumatic experience, regardless of whether it was TA coming after her again, or unknown assailants came after her.

      She was stuck in jail a long time with no one believing her, dumb detective didn’t, even her own psychologist didn’t believe her. We all know some people will confess to things under pressure. I think I wouldn’t be sure of my memories by then either. I would be thinking did I dream the intruders up or did I do it myself in defense.

      I know when I have had traumatic experiences I have trouble remembering the details also….

      • Mary says:

        I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think she’s been brainwashed.

        • Renee' (HRS) says:

          This is my husbands FIRM belief. He is a smart man, he is not a conspiracy theorist, and for a LONG time he believed her guilty of premed…

          He dug around the other day and changed his tune.

          He will not even engage with me any conversations about it unless it is about his new theory.

          He believes 100% Jodi is a patsy. That she had the gun and knives when she was arrested not for a camping trip, but for her protection.

          We do know she was involved in 3 cult type things: PPL, Mormon church, and the Law of Attraction. I am starting to lean to his way of thinking. Especially because Florres was saying to her, you couldnt have done this alone, who are you protecting, Jodi………..

          • FUJuan says:


            I have a hard time believing she didn’t this crime alone. Do we know if any of her friends or her brother smokes? Didn’t the car rental guy state ” the car smelled like smoke?” I thnk/ believe there were two or three people involved in this crime…. she’s or someone is stabbing him while somone is killing or beating his legs. I believe the gun happened first, then the slits, and stabbings. Really don’t know how she could of done all this damage by herself in 60 seconds. I have tried playing this out in mind, and just cannot come to the realization that she didn’t it by herself . Is Matt involved? Ashely? ( which we will probably never know).

            She talked to the Bishop which Jodi stated ” he’s not judging her and understands” Why didn’t this Bishop testify? Or the psychiatrist in jail?

            As for having PTSD, Jodi could have this from her childhood…….. and then it got worse after the killing. This was never brought up……

            In the video with her dad, he thinks it’s a 022 and Flores said a .25 gun. Which is it, why isn’t this being brought up in court? THe bullet?

            OMG so many unanswered questions to put a beautiful girl to death just sickens me.

            • Meowington says:

              My mom hasn’t seen the trial and she doesn’t believe Jodi did this alone. You can look at Jodi’s body language and I think she is fragile.

              Didn’t anyone say someone saw another person in the rental car?

            • BeeCee says:


              I can’t speak for Renee’

              However,one of the reasons I don’t talk much about my thoughts in that direction is exactly because of what you just stated.

              If I say I don’t think she did it, that in fact someone else killed him, sometimes other people take that to mean I think Jodi didn’t do it alone, so therefore that means they think Jodi premeditated his killing with someone else.

              Based on the meager evidence, and the copious amount of information on Jodi’s personality, I do NOT think it was premeditated in any shape or form by Jodi.

              Now, do I think it was premeditated by someone else? I don’t know, that is another matter.

              There are a lot of things that don’t add up.

              UNLESS, someone came in as TA was attacking her and helped defend her.


              • FUJuan says:

                You know we all have a voice, and I am not afraid to throw my thoughts on the table …. We are all intelligent people on this form, and we are all for JODI to be FREE.

                Yes, there are a lot of things that don’t add up. Please read my post at the bottom of the MMPI test. This DR Quack was off her rocker…….. and have worked in this field for 20+ years, I am applauded by her facts, and testimony. Just to get a SWEET paycheck. That is not the oath we take as psychologist. DO NO HARM……

                • BeeCee says:

                  “You know we all have a voice, and I am not afraid to throw my thoughts on the table …. We are all intelligent people on this form, and we are all for JODI to be FREE.”


              • Renee' (HRS) says:

                I also am just completely unsure what happened. I am 100% convinced this was NOT planned by Jodi. I am not 100% that someone else couldn’t have came upon the situation in progress… or what if the roommates found him and slit his throat to atone for him…..

                or that Jodi is completely innocent and the the first story she told was the correct one…. this goes through my head often. What if there were intruders? What if she is freaking terrified to tell the truth?

                too many questions, not enough answers.

                • maria rigadopoulou says:

                  I agree with BeeCee and Renee.Needless to say,that whatever doubts/questions/things that dont just add up there are I am and will always be 100% pro Jodi.I wish she remembered a bit something after the shot.Because room for speculation begins right there!When the defendant herself says she has no recollection of the actual killing ,to me that’s a sufficient reason to make me consider all kinds of alternatives.Assuming someone else did the stabbing and throat slashing,and Jodi’s ‘part’ ended there,after the shot,she had already being assaulted by TA and is totally justified to have reacted the way she did.So,convicting her would be unfair.If she was alone and did everything herself,she’s again justified because she had to defend herself ;as to the overkill,it’s not uncommon to SD cases so once again I pray for her and that these Jurors will judge her with understanding.
                  <3 Jodi!

                • Mariana Dimitrov says:

                  Hi everybody,
                  I was just thinking, what if she shot him by accident, realize that and ran out of the hose with the gun. The roommates or somebody else found him and slit his throat to put him out of his misery. That explains why the knife and the camera were found in the house, but not the gun. If Jodi wanted to hide evidence she would have taken the knife and the camera too. Just a thought;

              • tonysam says:

                That last sentence might explain it, that somebody else walked in on the attack and helped defend her against Travis.

                Unfortunately, we will never know.

          • coldcase53 says:


            Two of Travis’s renters reported to Flores they saw “Travis” at a time when, unknown to them, he was already dead.

            Enrique reported he saw Travis possibly on a “conference call” when he got home Wednesday evening, June 4. He claimed he usually got home from work at 1800 to 1830 hours. Enrique remembered being in the kitchen eating when he saw Travis walking downstairs and talking on the phone.

            Zach reported to Flores the last time he remembered seeing Travis was Thursday morning (June 5 apparently because he had reported on June 10 the last time he saw Travis was (4-5 days earlier?) – I’m not sure of the exact number of days he reported). Zach said he was leaving the house @11:30 hours that morning on his way to meet his girlfriend, Amanda. He saw Travis in passing as he walked out of the house. Not sure if “he” in the last line refers to Zack himself or to Travis. I’d have to go and read Flores report again to make sure.

            After Enrique and Zack were informed by Flores these sightings were impossible because Travis had died around 1730 hours Wednesday, June 4, they both claimed they must have been mistaken about the date.

            But, note that neither of them apparently spoke with Travis and Zach just saw him in passing and it’s impossible to say how well Enrique saw Travis from the Flores report.. Did they see a man in Travis’s house and just assume it was Travis. Hard to say for sure.
            Probably they were just mistaken about the date but…

      • LC says:

        Right BeeCee I would think its VERY POSSIBLE for anyoneoto get PTSD after witnessing what Jodi did that day and then being threatened that the same thing would happen to her and /or her family if she did talk. That would make sense why she would go out and buy a gun AFTER that day (to protect herself if they came for her)?

    • LC says:

      Great post Phillip. Some of of had asked how hard or easy it would be to accomplish the throat slash and I remember someone here respond was that her husband was a hunter and said that her husband said it was slashing a DEERS throat, so it be pretty EASY to accomplish. I didnt know what to think about it so I left it alone, but your statement makes A LOT more sense. That abd the fact that I STILL blv that there was someone else involved. There had to be a fight in that bathroom/hallway, a fight bigger then what Jodi supposedly gave TA that day. More like a man vs man fight, a fight that even the other man had to fight pretty hard to get TA down. Impossible for Jodi to have overpowered TA even with a gunshot to the head first (the struggle TA put up sais it all).

      • Phillip says:

        Harvesting deer, then hanging deer, then cutting deer with gravity’s help, easy. Try cutting the throat of a live deer. One husband, one knife, and one live 12 pt buck. I got my money on the deer.

    • Mary says:

      So do you believe it could have been a blood atonement. I believe it was – even though Jodi admitted to killing him. She is either scared or brainwashed.

      • Renee' (HRS) says:

        I think it very likely could have been…done by Jodi, or someone who knew what kind of Mormon Travis was. Someone who feared he would not get into heaven because of his deviancy.

        • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

          I agree about the blood atonement thing. If Jodi WAS the one who cut the throat, it might be something she would do after reading so much about Mormonism. Jodi is an avid reader and converts tend to study their faith more than those who are born to it. She’s probably read about blood atonement and maybe even discussed it with TA at some time. The defense lawyers would probably NEVER bring it up, but I would say if Jodi cut the throat, she did it for that reason. She washed the body afterward. That’s all part of blood atonement. It would have been to save his soul. It’s just so unusual for a woman to do an act like that. It seems like a logical explanation.

          If it was someone else, they would have done it, I think, for the same reason.

          • Oliviero says:

            It makes sense I thought of that , Many people who are fundamentalist interpret things too literally, and lack a certain reading comprehension, that is the reasons cults are dangerous. If she did it. i stated the same thing it was ritualistic, but Mesa has a lot of Mormons. Jodi said she had not read the Mormon book since 2010,

            • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

              She said she read a good portion of the Book of Mormon when Travis gave it to her on their first “date” in 2006. Who know what else she studied about Mormonism? There are many websites that describe the Mormon blood atonement.

              • Oliviero says:

                What ever the two of them read it certainly did not seem that Jodie had a Clue about Mormonism especially sexual behavior, and relied on Travis for instruction. not to say its a long standing joke with those that are familiar with this cult, how many of them are severe sexual deviants.

      • Oliviero says:

        Brainwashed and scared!

    • cb says:

      Wow . . Phillip . . your description is vivid and easily visualized. Not to mention this part of the case alone tells more than what most of us will never get privileged to. There’s alot being snuffed and even tho we will never know what it is, if 1% of a 100 of our guesses were correct, it’s an ugly and scary 1% that would not be wrong. Mesa AZ is evil.

    • TR says:

      Thank you for responding to my question. I’ve been trying to research this, but was not able to find information as good as your assessment.

      I really believe that throat injury will be a major point that the jurors will look at. Many web sites, articles etc. refer to this injury, so it stands to reason that it will be a major deliberating point.

      Your assessment seems spot on. I just don’t see Jodi having inflicted that wound, nor do I see TA doing it to himself, even taking into consideration the Blood atonement ritual of Mormonism. After reading your response, I think I am now more confused than I was before. Thats not to say that I don’t fully believe her accounts of TA’s temper and abuse and that she had to fight for her life. I do however think she did not have injuries on her hands that would indicate that she did all the stabbing, and the throat slitting. Makes me think someone else who had a vendetta (possibly the Hughes as they doth protest too much) did the throat slitting. Just too many strange things that point to Jodi not having anything to do with it, and being scared for her life from those who did it, and since nobody believed her she finally confessed to the self defense as it was her only option. No matter which way it happened, Jodi needs to be found not guilty and freed.

      Do you have any theories about who would have done the throat?

      • cb says:

        No theories here but alot of questions on basic forensic knowledge. Cadavers are in rigor on average of 4 hours, decomposition starts soon after, body gas emits, it’s unmistakable and permeates great distances even in a shut up building. . where were the roommates and who cared for the dog for 5 days? Carnivorous animals are known to eat bodies when hungry., Where are the smears dragging ta across floor, physical attendance prints or other trace evidence. She’s didn’t clean up the crime scene and maybe could have dragged him thru blood slicked floor but not stuff him in the shower. Adrenelin theory is short peak, she would have run out of steam before getting all that done.Someone is not being truthful, if the roommates were gone for that length of time as soon as they opened the door it would be a tell tale sign by odor to not enter and call police. The coroner lied by threat or bribe would be a guess. From readings, anyone of official nature in Mesa are owned sheeple. It’s no secret some entities will spend more to get out of something than just pay what’s owed, which is by far less, to avoid owning up to responsibility. and how they start one off balance is by correcting and berating the literacy of the person who is the victim. Weird but true.

        • FUJuan says:

          Adrenaline is a hormone produced in the medulla of the adrenal glands, from where it is released into the bloodstream. It has many different actions depending on the type of cells it is acting upon. However, the overall effect of adrenaline is to prepare the body for the ‘fight or flight’ response in times of stress, ie, for vigorous and/or sudden action. Key actions of adrenaline include increasing the heart rate, increasing blood pressure, expanding the air passages of the lungs, enlarging the pupil in the eye (see figure), redistributing blood to the muscles and altering the body’s metabolism, so as to maximise blood glucose levels (primarily for the brain). A closely related hormone, noradrenaline, is released mainly from the nerve endings of the sympathetic nervous system (as well as in relatively small amounts from the adrenal medulla). There is a continuous low level of activity of the sympathetic nervous system resulting in release of noradrenaline into the circulation, but adrenaline release is only increased at times of acute stress

          feeling as though time has slowed down.

          • tunnel vision, where you only see what is in front of you and not what is around you.

          • a sensation of your mind wandering or floating, making it hard to concentrate.

          • decreased coordination.

          • difficulty in thinking clearly.
          This hormone release also increases your heart rate and blood-sugar levels, improving the body’s performance for the short term. Those experiencing adrenaline rushes typically feel temporarily stronger, faster and more tolerant of pain.

          The duration of an adrenaline rush varies by person and situation. Typically, the epinephrine and norepinephrine triggered during fight-or-flight are metabolized as the body deals with the physically demanding situation. When the threat is resolved, the body begins to return to its normal state. However, as mentioned above, you may need to exercise in order to metabolize remaining hormones and decrease lingering feelings of panic.

          • cb says:

            Thank you, super explanation. Good example might be like a car accident . .. fear, survival instinct/strength, change in bio chems .. all driven by adrenaline usually in short period of time but the residuals may last forever

      • Phillip says:

        TA was the same size as Mike Tyson when boxing, TA actually had bigger biceps. He was a wrestler. He was an orphan. He was a kick boxer. I’d rather take on 2 boxers than 1 wrestler. A boxer will send me home with a headache and a blackeye. A wrestler will first off body slam you, then break your foot, arm, wrist, legs or neck, choke you till death however we choose, by using arms or legs in multiple ways. Orphans are survivors, they are feril cats as opposed to a lazy living room house cat.
        If it was a home invasion I’m sure he put up a heck of a fight, and did some bodily damage to the invaders.
        There is fight or flight, but no one ever remembers that there is also the will to quit or submit.
        Thomas Brown the roommate said Travis was doing a protection rite the morning he died.
        Another peculiar thing was the poses in the shower, they look ritualistic or like he was concerned about his heart and throat.
        He might have agreed with the blood atonement but changed his mind last second, remember like Tyson he was a alley cat.
        The blood atonement ritual is not a surprise attack it’s a scheduled event.
        Det Flores said they first believed it was 2 or 3 attackers, he should have followed his instinct. He should have detained and seperated all the friends and roommates when he arrived on scene. He lost his ability to be rational we he got surrounded by the mob yelling Jodi’s name.

        • Zoe says:

          where did you read Travis was doing a protection rite?? This is fascinating,

        • FUJuan says:

          Who is Thomas Brown? Zachary Billings and Enrique Cortez are the roommates.

        • Angela says:

          How would Travis have done a protection rite the morning of the day he died (when Jodi would have been there already)? Did she not get there around 4 and they slept until 1

        • Introspective says:


          You’ve got me seriously thinking here….

          1. Thomas B. told Flores that he saw TA perform the Protection Ritual that day.
          2. Someone (not sure who) also said that while they were with TA that morning, TA recd a call from JA stating that she was outside their front door. It was also stated that it was abt 4am when this happened.
          3. That same person also said that TA seemed SURPRISED that JA was there! Like this was an unexpected occurence – he was not expecting her arrival.
          4. But, the guy didn’t say that TA was upset, nor irritated that she was there. Instead if I am not mistaken TA was PLEASANTLY surprised!
          5. This reaction by TA – happy vs. irritated at her presence, strikes me as incongruous (sp?) IF he was preparing for his atonement. TA knew full well that everytime JA was around they ended up having sex. Yet, if his state of mind was atonement, and he had already purified himself, why be happy at her presence, and let her in?
          6. But, given TA’s lack of self-control, he could’ve considered a 1-last-sin, since ‘atoned’ for it and all the past ‘sins’ anyway?
          7. Perhaps, TA had invited her (as JA had stated) vs. him feigning surprise at her ‘unexpected’ arrival, because she was in essence his ‘one-last-wish’!!
          8. So TA gave vent to all his fantasies, unbeknownest to JA. She did not know what’s to come and that she was his ‘last meal’ !
          9. The 2 intruders aka ‘the atonement team’ were NOT expecting anyone else besides TA.
          10. JA was let go becoz this WAS a religious thing and NOT a random killing, nor anything else.
          11. TA set her up by inviting her.
          12. The ‘Atonement Team’ made her the fall guy, and ‘bought’ her silence by instigating guilt in her or something more profound.

          There you go… my mind has gone haywire now! :)

    • SD says:

      Phillip, that was fascinating reading. I have entertained the theory that someone other than (or in addition to) Jodi killed TA.

      “There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come,” he preached in an 1856 sermon. “This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it….” Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon Church.

      It just seems so implausible that Jodi, who was inferior in size to TA could have done all of that on her own. I wonder if there are things Jodi remembers that she is just unable to tell beause of fear for her own life of the lives of her loved ones.

      For those of you who have had this nagging feeling, have you speculated on who else might have been involved?

  83. FUJuan says:

    Meaning of the Number 9

    1.Nine is not yet the full or complete, number ten, but it does mark the ending. It is the last of the single digits, in our decimal numbering system. Thus it can represent the conclusion or ending of a matter.

    2.The number nine represents finality or judgment.

    3.Nine is the square of three, and three is the number of Divine perfection, as well as the number peculiar to the Holy Spirit

    Jesus dies at the ninth hour. He appears nine times to his apostles and disciples after resurrection. There are nine fruits of the spirit : love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, trustfulness, self-control, goodness and gentleness.
    There are nine choruses of Angels which are ordinary angels, dominations, cherubs, seraphes, thrones, principalities, powers, vertues, and archangels

    The number 9 in the Bible means ‘finality’ or ‘judgement!’

  84. eb says:

    Phillip and AL exceptional posts. In my boredom today went back and reviewed both Alyce Laviolette and Dr. Samuels testimonies and jurors questions: they both took their time to educate the jury in a rational and friendly manner. Then I went over Demarte’s questions. I do not believe the majority of the jury is buying her crap. I agree like Al on questions 11 & 12 being from an anti-jodi juror. Overall,I think it looks good for Jodi

  85. stan says:

    any news about the hearing today

  86. Al says:

    So here’s what I have been able to glean about possible rebuttal witnesses left:

    A person from Tesoro
    A person from Walmart
    A guy named Robert Brown who is apparently a computer forensics person at Mesa PD (Wonder what that’s all about. The only computer testimony on the defense side was from Lonnie Dworkin, so must have something to do with that.)

    • Ann says:

      Oh crap…he’s really after 3rd can, to impeach Jodi. Computer guy to say no porn no virus??

      • Al says:

        I guess

      • VickyT says:

        That third can was ridiculous. If she didnt return it I don’t understand why she would lie about it. Who cares if you had 1, 2 or 10 it still doesn’t make you guilty of 1st degree

        • FUJuan says:

          I agree Vicky… Don’t understand why she would lie if she had the third can. Would not make sense. But nothing in trial three ring circus has made much sense.

          • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

            Plus, she bought extra gas for her trip home from Ryan Burns’ in Utah to Yreka. So the idea that she bought extra gas to hide herself isn’t right. I don’t understand why she would lie about returning a third gas can. I’m certain that if Walmart doesn’t have record of a returned can that they’re just mistaken.

    • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

      Someone on this site said that Travis often visited a site that hides your IP address. Their point is that Travis would visit that site first, and then he could go onto porn sites and his IP address would be hidden. I don’t know if his own computer would keep a log of those sites. I’d like to see the defense ask the computer expert about THAT. Just short, simple questions with simple answers to make it clear to the jury. Of course Juan will go NUTS objecting, “OUT OF SCOPE!!” but maybe they can squeeze one good question in.

      • VickyT says:

        Assuming thats what he did that would be great to hear from the DT and it would in no way be out of the scope

        • Phillip says:

          Proxy sites used by people hiding their tracks. Search engine within a search engine, but collects no evidence nor leaves evidence, supposedly.

      • FUJuan says:

        JW: Did you find a proxy site on TA computer that tracks and hides evidence of sites you visit? YES OR NO

        BROWN: YES

        JW : Explain what was the site, and how it works

        BROWN: Allows you to visit sites without being traced.

        JW: Like PORN sites? Yes or NO?
        BROWN: YES

        JW: Your honor no further questions at this time

  87. Leslie says:

    Excellent daily updates. Thanks~

  88. viri says:

    Hi ya all. I’ll be reading your comments later.

    Just want to give you all ((((((((((((((( HUGS ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    and give Jodi and KN and JW and Dr S and ALV ((((((((((((((((((((( HUGS ))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ….watching what’s going on in Boston…..

  89. Al says:

    Thought I’d post this again, just because I’m so proud of the invention.

    Dorothy quoted JD as

    “JD says,”He (TA) had an unhealthy communication pattern.” Nurmi LAUGHS!

    And the day before she used “maladaptive communication” when referring to another of TA’s rants.

    So I think she’s suffering from a cranial rectal inversion (i.e. head up her ass)

  90. FUJuan says:

    The MMPI needs to be interpreted in light of many factors often not considered by the computer programs. Computer programs frequently require only information about the client’s sex, age, and achieved education level, not other factors such as current life stressors or other life experiences or environmental factors.
    The importance of having a skilled and competent psychologist to interpret testing results, including the computerized MMPI, cannot be stressed enough. Here are some things to watch for in evaluating whether a psychologist is adequately handling the MMPI:

    1. Most psychologists trained in clinical psychology refer to the MMPI scale evaluations by numbers (2-4 or 4-6-8). If the psychologist mainly uses the scales’ official names or stresses these official names, look further; the psychologist’s primary training may not have been in the field of clinical psychology.
    2. If the psychologist does not readily integrate the MMPI scale information, but is content with mainly singlescale descriptors, take care in using the psychologist. Not only may the psychologist be ineptly interpreting the MMPI, but the psychologist’s testimony would be very vulnerable to attack by a skillful cross examination or on rebuttal by a competent psychologist.

    3. If the psychologist does not integrate the MMPI data with historical information and other testing data, and account for anomalies, then the work is not adequate.

    4. To be most helpful, your psychologist consultant should be acquainted with the major developments in MMPI interpretation. The psychologist should be acquainted with the work of the Minnesota group and the Caldwell group and those associated with the work of those two groups. Caldwell has developed an alternative way of looking at and interpreting the scales that helps one understand that the 2-4 of the rape victim is different from the 2-4 of the convicted felon and helps one understand why that is so.

    • Al says:


      That’s some good info.

      Also earlier, I think it was sable who had discussed hard and soft sciences and the desire of some in the “softer” sciences to be able to get more objective results. Now I belong to one of the “hard” sciences, and even there an end “product” is the result of science and art. The problem that arises is that the variation in the parts, and the conditions that govern the behavior of most “products” is so large and their interactions so complex, that at some stage experience and the art starts becoming an important factor.

      Now in the case of psych tests we have a greater twist. The subject is a human being and their native predilections and interpretations of things start having an impact on things. So being able to get an objective assessment based on a set of tests, being interpreted by an algorithm just don’t add up. Tests such as the MMPI base their analysis on statistics. Statistics are great at being able to predict the reaction of a large sample on a smaller sample (for instance statistics are good at being able to predict election results, or how a large market will react based on a sample of a smaller market) but they are horrible at being able to predict the action of a single entity on the reaction of a large set. The reason behind this is that in any statistical sampling, under the best of conditions you get what is called a normal distribution (the old Bell Curve). That means that a bulk of the population lies within a certain range. The distribution of the overall population however is based on that bell curve. This means that a certain percentage of the population will always lie outside that big bunch in the middle. A measure of how that population is lumped is called the standard distribution. Now about 68% of the population in any such survey lies with 1 standard deviation of the mean. This is why you can use these sorts of surveys to predict things like elections or market acceptance because a majority lies within the standard deviation. The problem is that a whole 32% lies out side the 1 standard deviation mark. Now when I looked at the MMPI page, they said that the clinical level was marked by (if I remember correctly 1.5 standard deviations). At that level almost 18-20% of the people tested will be assessed incorrectly if you rely purely on the MMPI. The fact that the makers of the test seem to keep wanting to tweak the tests’ interpretive scales shows that this is an ever evolving thing, that is and should only be used as another tool in a full range of interpretive and diagnostic tools.

      Imagine if we had to keep tweaking Ohm’s Law, or Avogadro’s number.

  91. Pamela Roulson says:

    I just wanted to say that even though I’m new here, I am a real person and any posts I make are from me and nobody else. I do not use my Facebook anymore so feel free to bash me there. My relatives love a good joke! LOL

  92. eb says:

    optirectomy, for her and her demeaning “dr.God” attitude, lol

  93. eb says:

    That was about Demarte, not about the newcomer, just to be specific.

  94. Al says:

    Posting this way down here so it doesn’t get lost.

    This has to do with various theories about someone other than Jodi killing TA. These have been floating around here for a while, and there are all kinds of shards of “evidence” that lead people to say this. I for one don’t believe it and here’s my explanation. Remember, again folks, it’s just one guys opinion.

    So if we leave out self defense and politically motivated (enemies of the state etc) there are only a handful of reasons for someone to kill someone else

    1. Love and its related jealousy.
    2. Money
    3. Revenge
    4. Silence someone who knows something
    5. Psychosis (like some serial killers)
    6. A religious ritual

    In all of these cases the killing is either done in a cold calculated manner, or in rage.

    This was not a cold calculated killing. Even the most inept of people would have done better than to walk in when someone else was there, with a single 25 caliber gun and go through what happened here.

    However, in all cases, the biggest issue is that Jodi is alive. That is a risk no one would have taken. If this was some money related issue they’d have no compunctions taking her out too. If this was a jealousy issue, more times than not the target would actually have been Jodi, or the both of them. There is no way Jodi would still be alive. In all other cases there is just too much risk of Jodi telling. All she had to do was talk to the police, any police anywhere, let them know. The first thing that would happen is that her family would go under immediate protection. And then that threat is nullified till they either get the person, or move her somewhere they can’t be traced easily. This was not done by someone with an extensive reach, that would allow them to ferret them out wherever. That sort of a person would have despatched Jodi alongside TA.

    If this was religious, the Mormon church had just as much justification for taking care of her as well. After all by their standards she too was in sin.

    That’s the whole sticking point. There is just no way any person doing this would have let Jodi go. Even if it was an amateur, once they’ve taken the one life the other one comes easier. And obviously if such a person exists they do care if they’re caught or not because they’ve kept shut since then.

    I also don’t believe that this was someone who walked in on TA mistreating Jodi, then a fight ensued and TA was killed. Again, the fact of the matter is that firstly that person could never be sure that Jodi wouldn’t talk. They can always get her family into protection and then look for the guy, or heck once she’s in custody they can just go get the guy, he won’t even know they’re coming for him.

    So, no I don’t believe someone else was involved. It just doesn’t add up.

    • FUJuan says:

      What about Ashely Reed Thompson? or do you not think they are related at all?

      What about Matt?

      • Al says:

        I don’t think Ashley Reed Thompson was connected to this in any way whatsoever. Too much time had passed. If someone had to do it they would have done it earlier. I know there’s this theory that they waited long enough that no one would connect the two. Balance that against the danger that she’d tell someone. Again it just doesn’t add up. Lets assume that they kept her threatened. If they managed to keep her quite for two years, just let her be. There’s just a huge danger that something goes wrong when you try and kill her, whereas if whatever leverage you’ve had has worked for two years then it’ll still be good.

        Of course we could keep adding what if’s to this, but that just becomes a sort of self fulfilling conspiracy theory, where one just keeps connecting disconnected events to explain the original flight of fantasy.

        I don’t know what you mean by what about Matt. Which Matt, and what happened to him?

    • FUJuan says:

      Can you explain how Jodi did this crime in 62 seconds?

      • tonysam says:

        I don’t believe she did it in 62 seconds because I don’t think that photograph depicts what people are claiming.

        Personally, I don’t believe he was dead in that picture.

        I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: That photo never should have been admitted as evidence because it is unclear what is happening there.

        • FUJuan says:

          Exactly my point Tonya. That would of been one HELL of a aderaline rush……….. MAD DASH

        • Phillip says:

          The perfect handprint in blood. That was deliberate by the killers. They Forced Jodi. Have you ever been finger printed it takes skills to get it done right the first time…skills by both parties. Ptinter and printee.

          • Renee' (HRS) says:

            I find it odd too, that her story didn’t change from the intruder story until right around the time Ashley “committed suicide” (NO way did she kill her self)

            also, Chris and Skye Hughes are in this up to their slarmy eyeballs.

            • Introspective says:


              Could TA have ‘handpicked’ them to be his ‘Atonement Team’ , as he held them in high esteem, and also since the meddling duo were privy to all his ‘sinful’ proclivities?

              And, by him inviting JA that day , knowing full well what was going to transpire that day was becoz, either it was his ‘last practical joke’ on the ‘atonement team’, or ‘JA was his ‘last meal/wish’ or the ‘atonement team’ told him to bring her there so she would be the sacrificial lamb that would be sent to the gallows by being ‘atoned’ by the law?

              So many Q’s, so very little time!

          • maria rigadopoulou says:

            That effing fingerprint bugs me too! So perfectly left on the wall.How come there werent others all over the place?Why did she have to touch only that particular side of the wall?How come she didnt touch multiple spots while drag such a heavy body?So many questions….And no satisfactory answers.

            • FUJuan says:

              I have also thought about that handprint numerous times wondering why there wasn’t prints all over the place. Fk the bedroom, hallway, railing, kitchen, laundry room, bathroom, shower, closet, bedroom door etc

            • Oliviero says:

              I posted that a long time ago the evidence looks very staged just my opinion. I personally have a hard time believing she did it. But The Media has been ruthless.

          • rb says:

            Phillip, any thoughts on why there apparently was no gunpowder residue found on that palm print?

            • Al says:

              Wrong hand. Also in an Automatic, GPR typically collects on the blowback exposed regions. This would be the upper surfaces of the index finger, the region between the index finger and thumb, and the outer part of the back of the hand, not necessarily on the palm. Also do we know if the blood was ever tested for GPR.

              • rb says:

                I just remember someone saying that there was no GPR found. I haven’t seen anything else about it. But by the trajectory of the bullet from Travis’ right side of forehead to lower left cheek, wouldn’t we conclude that he was shot with the left hand?

                • Al says:

                  Sort of depends on his head’s alignment to the angle of the muzzle and we have idea what that was. Also remember how Jodi said his head was turned and tucked down which would account for that trajectory. And by the way, I wish she had never said that. I’ll leave the reason for my statement as an exercise for the reader.

          • Al says:

            I don’t know what you mean by perfect hand print. I for one haven’t seen the actual print and how much of it was intact. I also have searched for a report and haven’t been able to find one. The reason the finger print exemplar guys take so much time is because they try and get all of the finger, which is why they roll you fingers and press hard. This allows them to get a match no matter wat part or partial they get at a crime scene.

      • Al says:

        I have no proof, or belief that it was done in 62 seconds. I believe that the ceiling picture was probably taken during the tussle. It is also distinctly possible that the “dragging” picture wasn’t really Jodi dragging a dead TA. However if you want to see how close you can get to 62 seconds, here’s a simulation fro everyone’s favorite TV channel.


        • FUJuan says:

          Saw that a few weeks ago when it was aired…. Only thing I have watched on that channel pertaining to the trial. I agree that it could of been someone else “dragging” TA…. Also, believe that Zachary Billings knew enough about cameras that he could of messed with the camera in the washer.

    • SD says:

      What if Jodi was had been knocked unconcious by TA and remained so when someone or some others entered the room? Let’s say for instance she did use the gun and was subsequently attacked by TA so as to render her unconscious, at which time someone other than her perpetrated the whole stabbing/slashing business? In that event, she wouldn’t have seen anyone and so they wouldn’t have felt the need to kill her too. If it was a blood atonement killing, then I can see how the perpetrator would have been worried about Travis’s soul, but probably wouldn’t have worried about Jodi’s because they thought she was an imposter with regard to the religion anyway. I don’t know….just rambling away.

      • maria rigadopoulou says:

        Well,if it’s rambling time I’ve also entertained the idea that if indeed someone else did the stabbing and the throat wound,no they would not kill Jodi for the one and only reason that she was the perfect scapegoat.She was there(yes,I know,nobody supposedly knew)but the camera was there too!!The only thing the ”killer” had to do was look at the photos,delete them to make Jodi look as if she was covering up,put the damn photo in the washing machine where he/she knew it would undoubtedly be found by the police and bam!Placing Jodi right there,in the crime scene the exact time the killing took place.Plus,knowing all the bad reputation and defaming Jodi had undergone by TA himself,it stands to reason that her name would be among the first ones to come up as soon as the police arrived.So,why kill someone who would be the perfect baitfor a detective??

        • FUJuan says:

          Don’t forget that Zachary Billings was good with a camera. Maybe that was the slip up with him washing clothes…. then he needed to back track his steps.

    • Renee' (HRS) says:

      One reason for leaving her alive is to have some one be a patsy. If they had both been killed, the police would have turned heaven and earth to find their killers.

      Oh, wait, isn’t Florres Mormon as well….

      • SD says:

        Hmmmm. But doesn’t Al have a point, Renee, that they would have been scared she would talk if she witnessed the crime?

      • LC says:

        Yea Renee this is what I blv. The person IS scared that jodi would talk thats why they threatened her life and her family. She already tried to tell the detectives that two other people where involved/ intruders BUT NO THEY WOULDN’T BLV HER EITHER, so how would they put a protective order on her and her family if they would even blv her????

        • Renee' (HRS) says:

          Right… she was terrified. I dont believe she was going camping, I think she feared for her life.

        • Al says:

          That may have held until they charged her with M1 and the DP. At that stage she has no more incentive to cover for anyone. She can ask for protective custody, which would be easy while she’s in jail, get her parents covered and then tell the cops who did it.

          Of course that plan would fail because of the mole the bad guy had in jail would find out and tell the bad guy, who would kill her family and arrange for Jodi’s murder in prison. Oh then she could start with telling her attorney, who could take it to the cops on the outside. But that would fail because Nurmi’s paralegal and one of the cops is a part of the conspiracy.

          I don’t mean to snarky, but see how these things grow like some amorphous ever-expanding conspiracies get out of hand.

          • viri says:

            She would know that no one would believe her, and that the police would be reluctant to put full protection on members of her family. If she has been framed and threatened, she probably would accept to die rather than take a chance with the life of her younger siblings.

    • BeeCee says:

      All good points Al!

      BUT, If someone were planning to frame Jodi and in fact did steal the gun from her grandparents house in order to do so, then they have all the more reason to leave her alive if she happened to be there when they showed up to kill him.

      Not that they couldn’t make it look like she killed him and then killed herself…but that is probably more difficult for a novice to do.

      Did anyone every hear anything about the gun that was allegedly found near the dam? IF someone did in fact find a .25, I could see Kermit saving it until the last minute and not letting the defense have much time to run tests on it…just like he has everything else. I do not know law though, so I don’t know how likely this would be allowed.

      • BeeCee says:
        • stan says:

          since that was over a month ago it must have been checked, my guess it is either not grandfathers gun or it is and is not the gun that shot TA and prosecution is not releasing it because it would clear jodi of premed

      • stan says:

        neither side is allowed to spring new evidence on the other, they would have either not use it or give defense time to Annalise it

        • Al says:

          Actually if they found the gun, and it was even remotely possible it was of any benefit to the defense then the Brady v Maryland law requires that all such exculpatory evidence be tured over to the defense. Of course JM et al didn’t think those emails and texts were exculpatory so who knows.

      • Al says:


        To do what you are proposing, the perpetrator would have to do the following:

        1. Steal a gun from Jodi’s grandparents about a week before the killing and before, if yoy believe Jodi, she had decided to go to Mesa.

        2. They would then have to convince Jodi to go to Mesa.

        3. They would then have to follow her to Mesa and do the killing.

        The chain actually breaks down at step 2. How did they convince her to go to Mesa.

        • BeeCee says:

          oh no. In my crazy theory world they aren’t planning on her being there…that was a freak coincidence!! They planned to pin it on her, not actually have her there.


          I know, not real plausible…but hey, it’s no worse than the theories the haters come up with.


    • TR says:

      Okay I’m hearing your logic. But, how do you account for the throat slitting. Sorry but that’s the part I’m stuck on, and I think the prosecution will drive it home to the jury in closing, just like he did with the poor witness Lisa. I absolutely believe this is NOT a premeditated murder and think Jodi did defend her life, as TA was an abusive SOB and attacked her. I fully understand a woman, even though much smaller than the abuser, doing everything possible to save their life. The one time I was attacked by my ex, I wasn’t prepared, but after that I knew if he ever did it again, I would probably kill him before he killed me. Fortunately I got out before that scenario happened. So, I can understand the gun shot and then the stabbing once the shot didn’t stop him. What I still can’t wrap my head around is how she slit his throat. Phillips explantion speaks to the fact that someone would have to be subdued to be in a position for their throat to be slit. If this is true, then the slitting wouldn’t be as a result of someone flailing and hitting him in the throat. I just can’t see Jodi, even with adrenaline flowing being able to do that. Once I learned, from posters here, about blood atonement ritual, it seemed to be more than a coincidene to me. How do you explain that wound if nobody else came into play?

      • Al says:

        OK here’s a scenario.

        Gun shot first, lots of blood pouring out, he’s looking in the mirror, shock start setting in, he knocks Jodi onto the floor again, she has knife by now, she starts flailing away, 9 cuts to the back, assorted other cuts, now the bleeding gets stronger, she pounds on his head with the knife ad these are strong hacks, the ME said they caused denting of the bone. More pain, more blood, enhanced shock. She gets out from under him and runs to the hall, down the hall towards the bedroom. He follows, more knife work on the torso, now that shock’s really starting to set in as well as the pain from all the cuts and knicks. Now the stab to the vena cava region, and he drops to all fours. Still in a frenzy she jerks back the head and Voila.

        The forensics match this scenario, and only one person involved.

        • joujoubaby says:

          That’s exactly what I think happened

        • TR says:

          I hear you, but I think I’ll have to mull that one over for a while. I’m with you right up to the point of the neck. I could maybe see her doing the neck if TA told her he was dying and she needed to atone him so he could go to the Celestial paradise…

          • Al says:

            I think it could just happen in the whole fight-flight thing. Remember time slows down. She’s probably experiencing each blow, each jerk, each step in slow motion. TAs punching and kicking, remember all the bruise. She’s fighting for her life, he’s not going down. She just keeps going. A throat slash is a pretty universally understood mode of despatch, not just in the Mormon church.

            Just imagine this in slow motion. Probably seemed like a long, never ending fight that she thought she was going to loose, unless she took every chance she could get.

            Sounds plausible to me.

            • TR says:

              Making more sense to me now. It is consistent with what Alyce L. was able to get into testimony about someone in self defense mode would do. I suppose I’m fairly sheltered as to the throat slitting, and have only seen it in Mob movies. I have never been in that of an intense fight for my life, so in fact, I may have done the same thing if the monster had continued to come after me even after I shot his ass, and stabbed him a few times. Either way, I absolutely believe Jodi acted in self defense and that the testimony of his own words proves it.

              Thanks for responding…I suppose I’m over thinking every little thing, when self defense is already so evident.

    • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:


      I go with the theory that Jodi did this alone because Jodi and her defense lawyers want us to. We’re almost at the end of the trial and there’s no other way to go but forward.

      I will say this though. I thought the intruder story was convincing. None of the forensic evidence disproves it.

      So many people watching this trial also watched the Casey Anthony trial and it’s as though they’ve transferred their fury and outrage from Casey to Jodie. If they didn’t get justice (revenge) for Casey, well they better get that justice (revenge) in this case. I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial at all, so I’m very different from most.

      But I DID follow the Amanda Knox case. I don’t understand the phenomena of false confessions, but I know it happens. I’ve heard that it’s usually young people who will give a false confession. When I look at the tapes of Jodi in the interrogation room I see a very confused young woman sitting there without legal representation. I’m not saying that Flores forced her to confess. I actually liked his style, but the fact remains that he simply didn’t believe the intruder explanation and wouldn’t consider it for even one second.

      It’s very unusual for a woman to slash a throat. Flores himself was convinced that more than one person did this. It’s right there in his police report. There are other questions that so many of us have brought up.

      I feel that we have to let all of that go and just go forward, because that’s what Jodi is doing, and it’s just too late now. But I still have doubts about her doing this by herself.

      • TR says:

        so well put.

      • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:


        If Jodi DID do all of that by herself, I would say that the throat cutting was done to save his soul. The Mormon blood atonement thing. Whether or not this is what mainstream, modern day Mormons do, it was probably something Jodi had read about. The body was washed afterward and that’s also part of the Mormon blood atonement. I just don’t think Jodi did this to torture him or anything like that. But I doubt the defense attorneys would EVER bring up anything like that. So it might be very bad for her.

        • Al says:

          Could be, who knows? I’ve often wondered what that whole body washing thing was all about. Actually that sort of disorganized behavior seems to be rampant in this situation including the attempt to wash the body and the bathroom floor, or the rug, the camera in the washer, etc.

          So I have no idea.

          • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

            Al, yes! We’re trying to make sense of a crime scene that makes no sense! Why the camera in the washer? And do you know what? I don’t think the floor was flooded on purpose. I think the shower was just left on for a long time with the shower door left open.

            • FUJuan says:

              That’s exactly what I thought about the shower. But why not turn the bathroom sink on and let the water wash away some of the blood?

          • TR says:

            I saw a lot about the “washing” and the special secret washing room in the temple on the website http://www.mmoutreach.org. Interesting stuff that would make the washing more understandable. Mormons are very interested in baptizing their dead etc.

      • Al says:

        But all the forensic evidence also backs a single assailant, Jodi.

        • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

          Al, I know. I know. It’s just hard to let go of the nagging doubts that crop up sometimes. But I do know what you’re saying and it does make sense.

          Why do you think she slit his throat though? It just seems like a very unusual way for a woman to attack someone. I know I can’t even look at the pictures of it. Did she not know that he was dying or dead after the stab to the vena cavae? Or did she know he was dying or dead and did it as a Mormon blood atonement? To save his soul?

          • Al says:

            Probably had no idea she’d hit the vena cava, or any other critical part. Hell it probably happened within a few seconds of that stab wound, while still in a frenzy.

      • Al says:


        But she “confessed” about two years after the fact, and not due to any sort of police pressure, etc.

    • Introspective says:


      OMG! do you all remember that JA purchased a guy AFTER TA was killed? and BEFORE she was to leave on some camping trip with some people?

      1. Who were the other people she was supposed to go ‘camping’ with?
      2. Could it be that this was not a ‘camping’ trip at all?
      3. Did JA suspect that she was perhaps ‘asked’ to come along for some other more sinister reason? (shut her up before she opened her mouth?)
      4. When exactly was this ‘camping’ trip planned? Before TA’s death? or After?
      5. Whose idea was this trip?
      6. What was the location of this supposed ‘camping’ ground? (Wooded? Isolated? No access to phone and/or internet?)

      Maybe she was arming herself becoz she might have known something was going to go down at this ‘camping’ trip. Hhhmmm, I never put those 2 together. Did anyone else do that? She was afraid of something.

      • Renee' (HRS) says:

        I did.

        • Introspective says:

          Renee, do you know any of the answers to these Q’s? Thanks! :)

        • FUJuan says:

          Wasn’t the camping trip with some co-workers that were male, and she wasn’t sure if any gals where coming along on this trip?

          She talked about this trip in her testimony… I am sure if we can find that video we can get some more answers.

          • Introspective says:

            FUJuan, was it really with some co-workers? Damn, there goes my theory :(

            • FUJuan says:

              During juror questioning, the part where Jodi Arias has to answer questions submitted by the jury, she was asked why she bought the 9MM handgun. This is the handgun that she bought just weeks after admittedly shooting Travis Alexander in the head. She answered that people at work were planning a camping trip and she thought that it would be fun to go. She wasn’t exactly sure of all who would be going but she was sure that two men, that she knew from her work, would be going. She said that she didn’t know these men “all that well” and was buying the gun for protection from them.

              This camping trip was not mandatory. It was not a part of her work. It was purely an attempt on her part to have fun. She acknowledges that going on a camping trip, into the woods, with two men that you don’t know “all that well” could be potentially dangerous. That is a reasonable conclusion on her part and for that matter it is a reasonable conclusion on the part of anyone

              • rb says:

                Geez, I don’t know, but if I was so worried about who was going on a camping trip that I figured I better bring a gun, I think i’d just pass!

          • LC says:

            I know she said something about never making it to the trip but I dont know if SHE canceled the trip or that she got arrested before. But yes, it does sound weird to me. I thk she made it up, an excuse to have a gun.

      • Oliviero says:

        There was no ammunition in the house that makes no sense and Jodie mentioned a holster or case later on,Which was not a good idea, She added that the last minute.

        • Nk says:

          If she was being honest, she was being honest. She was just saying what she knew. Maybe it was Travis’s mother’s gun. He may never have gotten rid of it, never did anything with it, never got ammunition for it. Just had it as a keepsake. It could very well have been in a holster.

          • Oliviero says:

            They never found the holster so the odds of a Jury believing that she went back into the closet and took the holster is slim. That is a big problem in their case too many coincidences. Not explained fully.

    • seek2understand says:

      I agree with you, Al. Nothing is 100%, since we don’t know what happened for certain, but the odds are pretty good, IMO, it was just TA & JA there. I believe there would be some undeniable evidence at the scene if there were more people involved, ie some kind of additional footprints, smudges, whatever. Now it could be said that that information is being covered up, but I don’t see that as likely.

      In addition, I am a big fan of “three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.”

      • rb says:

        Not really disagreeing, but the only evidence Jodi left behind (besides the camera) was a tuft of hair and a partial palm print. If someone else was wearing gloves and a beenie they probably wouldn’t have left anything behind.

  95. FUJuan says:

    Custody evaluations or domestic violence litigation would be simpler and easier if there were MMPI patterns or profiles reliably correlated with the “perfect parent” or conviction for domestic violence or, better yet, highly correlated with admission of guilt in domestic violence cases. There are no such “molester” or “domestic abuser” profiles identified yet, but there may be in the future

    The validity scales are extremely important in the interpretation of the entire test since it indicates the degree to which a clinical profile is a valid picture of the person being evaluated.

    Forensic history.
    a. Has the expert previously testified as an expert witness regarding the MMPI in any proceeding or setting?
    b. Is the prior testimony consistent with the testimony offered by the adverse expert witness in this case?

    c. Does the expert’s prior testimony suggest a bias or prejudice?
    Knowledge of general issues of tests and psychometrics.

    a. Does the expert have genuine expertise and understand the nature of testing as opposed to following a “cookbook” method of test use or improvising opinions?
    b. Was the standardized MMPI tests conducted under generally standardized conditions, i.e., in all essential respects that might significantly affect test performance?

    c. Is the expert aware of characteristics of the individual taking the test or the testing circumstances which may significantly influence test results and interpretations?

    d. Did the expert follow the standard procedures for administering the test and were special individual characteristics or testing circumstances adequately taken into account and discussed in the forensic report?

    e. Is the expert able to distinguish retrospective accuracy from predictive accuracy? In other words, is the expert confusing the directionality of the inference (e.g., the likelihood that those who score positive on a hypothetical predictor variable will fall into a specific group versus the likelihood that those in a specific group will score positive on the predictor variable). Cross examination must carefully explore the degree to which testimony may be based on such misunderstandings.

    f. How consistent or reliable are the test results? See if the test taker took the test on more than one occasion and whether the results were identical. MMPI test results might be different because of the time or conditions under which the test was administered.

    g. What types of scales were involved in the various tests and methods of assessment that the expert considered in selecting the instruments and diagnostic frameworks that the expert used in the case at hand?

    h. What is a T score, and what are its psychometric properties? Understanding the T score is essential to understanding the MMPI

  96. TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

    I think you’re all correct that the throat slash may stick in the juror’s minds.

    The other thing that I think they might not be able to get past is her running into the closet instead of out the door to safety. Jodi explained it, Dr. Samuels explained it, but still there were questions from the jury. Why didn’t she run out the door? I thought Jodi’s explanation was better than Dr. Samuels. She said to run out the door she would have had to open it, and then run around it because it opened IN, and in those few seconds he could have caught her. What she didn’t say, and I think it could help the jury understand, is that yes, she would have had to open that door and run around it, so she ran toward the open door. That was the closet door. It was that simple. An open door would give her a few seconds more of distance between her and him. I hope the defense lawyers bring it up in closing and say those words. She ran to the OPEN door. I know, I was actually in that exact situation once. I understood exactly what Jodi was saying.

    • FUJuan says:

      Also you mind works in mysterious ways when your in a ” fight or fight ” mode.

    • kmea says:

      I can tell you why she didnt run out the door, you dont want anyone to know what is going on in your world and running outside will let the world in on your awful secret, she hoped she could calm him down, stop him, not kill him so it could all continue, the relationship, hoping it would get better as it always did before when they fought, the good was really good while the bad was really bad, but if she went outside yelling, then the jig is up and Travis would be discovered for what he really was and she really did not want that. It happened to me, my ex came out of the room, into the living room and punched me knocking me down then as I started crawling away, the door to the outside was before the bathroom door, but instead, I crawled to the bathroom to lock myself in until he calmed down, as I crawled he kept kicking me like a dog, then inside the bathroom he tried to choke me and bashed my head on the ground. At this time, if I had a gun, who knows

      • kmea says:

        if the world found out the real Travis then she would be made to leave him and she loved him, no matter what, and after all these years he made her believe she wasnt worthy and no one else would put up with the awful person she was, he had the groundwork all laid out if she dared leave him or tell anyone what he was really like, he told everyone SHE was crazy jealous, SHE was a stalker, SHE was a liar so that if it ever came out that he was actually all of these things then they would never believe her, why oh why cant so many people not see this

    • viri says:

      about why not run out through the bedroom door:

      If she ran to the bedroom door, he could have run straight behind her, faster, and slam the door when she opened it.

      Running into the closet is the better choice: 1) the door is opened. 2) the closet has another door at the end, so to escape you can run around and around. It gives a small agile woman an advantage over a large man with wet feet, because she can grab door jambs and manage corners faster in the narrow alleyways closet/hallway/bathroom and remain hidden from the pursuer. When she realizes he was not immediately on her heels yet, she grabbed the gun on the way.

  97. Mike Roboto says:

    Anyone know why Jodi wanted to see the photos of TA dead and what his body looked like so much?

    • FUJuan says:

      Only Jodi knows the answer to the question, Mike.

    • Renee' (HRS) says:

      Maybe because she didn’t do it….

    • Pamela Roulson says:

      If she can remember only up to the shooting, maybe she wanted to see if the police were lying to her. The police ARE allowed to lie to a person. She might have thought it would help her remember what really happened.

    • cb says:

      She did mutter morbid curiosity. I’m guilty of that, same as I’ve rented vehicles rather than put mileage on mine that really gets poor gas mileage and if I have a break down, the rental agency fixes the problem, also have taken extra fuel on long trips and also taken things back to walmart without a receipt but their bar code paid in cash when under $10. And yes . . someone accost or threaten me, I’m gonna shoot them. I just won’t go to or thru Arizona because it’s pretty much run like the illumanati. Should a trip be unavoidable thru there and trouble arises, I would ask for change of venue.

      • kmea says:

        I always rent cars for long trips, I am not sure if mine will make it and dont want to put extra wear and tear on them. Also, I lived in St George Utah and that road to Cali is long and lonely and no stations for miles, I asked my husband if I should take gas with me just in case, he told me bad idea, she had no one for her to tell her, I feel so bad for this girl, I have never ever written on any case before ever but this one hit home and well, here I am

    • Truthseeker1111 says:

      After hearing how bad Travis body was in the crime photos…maybe she remembered some of what his body looked like when she fled…and maybe what they were saying basing their opinions on the crime scene photos…just didn’t match up with what she remembered…so she asked to see the photos for confirmation…

      And that is another reason that I felt that someone contaminated the crime scene after Jodi fled…

      • FUJuan says:

        This entire basket weave trial should be thrown out…………. Bias judge, unethical psychologist, tainted crime scene, witnesses not seperated from each other, family members stirring up drama that is false , det that didn’t do his job properly, only securing the house for three days, wtf………… I see mistrail and appeal all over the place in this trial.

  98. coldcase53 says:


    Two of Travis’s renters reported to Flores they saw “Travis” at a time when, unknown to them, he was already dead.

    Enrique reported he saw Travis possibly on a “conference call” when he got home Wednesday evening, June 4. He claimed he usually got home from work at 1800 to 1830 hours. Enrique remembered being in the kitchen eating when he saw Travis walking downstairs and talking on the phone.

    Zach reported to Flores the last time he remembered seeing Travis was Thursday morning (June 5 apparently because he had reported on June 10 the last time he saw Travis was (4-5 days earlier?) – I’m not sure of the exact number of days he reported). Zach said he was leaving the house @11:30 hours that morning on his way to meet his girlfriend, Amanda. He saw Travis in passing as he walked out of the house. Not sure if “he” in the last line refers to Zack himself or to Travis. I’d have to go and read Flores report again to make sure.

    After Enrique and Zack were informed by Flores these sightings were impossible because Travis had died around 1730 hours Wednesday, June 4, they both claimed they must have been mistaken about the date.

    But, note that neither of them apparently spoke with Travis and Zach just saw him in passing and it’s impossible to say how well Enrique saw Travis from the Flores report.. Did they see a man in Travis’s house and just assume it was Travis. Hard to say for sure.
    Probably they were just mistaken about the date but…

    • Truthseeker1111 says:

      Coldcase…Enrique made two statements to Flores about the last time he saw and talked with Travis…

      June 4, 2008 Weds Enrique in his follow-up interview said that the last time he remembered seeing Travis was on Wednesday June 4th. He remembered talking to Travis that morning and he told him he had a conference call scheduled that day. Travis told him that he hadn’t slept very much, only getting about 45 minutes of sleep that night. Enrique told the Detective that only 5 people had been in the home
      that week of June 2nd. Travis, Zachary, Amanda, him and his girlfriend, Kim. (Flores Page 15)

      • viri says:

        Yes, but Enrique also said that he saw him hold that ‘important PPL conference call’ that same evening at 6:30pm while he was eating in the kitchen. So why would he say that f it did not happen?
        Chris Hughes maintained that it did not happen, but apparently the missed ‘important conference call’ that he reminded Travis of at 4pm on the phone to host was not so important after all, because he did not bother to go over there to find out why Travis did not hold it, and just drove out of town to Cancun.

  99. Pamela Roulson says:

    Do any of those tests prove premeditation? I don’t think so. The DV doesn’t prove self defense but makes it more believable. Isn’t that important?

  100. Gwen says:

    It is almost impossible to swallow that Jodi accomplished this unbelievable feat in a little over a minute. alone. All I can figure is that her fear was such that an adrenaline rush overcame her to the point of superhuman strength and agility. But even if it was her, and her alone, I can only imagine the horror that she felt at being in such a position. Set her free ASAP!

  101. Phillip says:

    Any Jodi supporter with access to life insurance claims, check who got paid and how much.

  102. Fact finder says:

    Are there any licensed psychologists that post here? I have a couple of questions. Thanks.

  103. kmea says:

    I was told I am posting on old page, new here so I am bringing over my comments but they are in response to an old post, heh, so dont know if this makes sense now:

    Hey, I am new here also, only have posted a few times but I can sympathize with your post, I would never ever go to someone like her or send any of my children to her, she was so brutally cold and uncaring. To be unbiased does not mean you have to be uncaring? She turned me off completely, I found this site and was so happy to be able to share instead of being looked at as if I had two heads for believing Jodi. I never ever went to the police, for eleven years, I put up with the abuse. When it was good it was really good but when it was bad it was really bad and the worst part for me was the horrible things he would call me and say to me, I would even ask him, just hit me, get it over with, that was less hurtful than his words. I had three children, my family was not wealthy but his was so I was scared to leave, he promised he would get my kids from me, that he would make ME look crazy and jealous and in the wrong. He was tall, handsome, charming and never met a stranger, I see so much of him in Travis’s actions and in Travis’s words. I finally got out of my situation when my brother called the police and even then, I almost lied to them about what was going on but something clicked and I handed them the bloody shirt he made me change out of before they came in and finally it was over, well, almost over. We went to court and true to his word he tried his best to make me the bad person, his mom said, why didnt I ever know she was abused? I saw a few bruises but she bumped her legs (his favorite place to hit me because it could be hidden) on her desk at work, one time I did get a black eye but I “was really clumsy and bent down to get something out of the van and hit my head on the side window” well, that was the story I was told to tell. Anyhow, I could go on and on, they all finally found out when they themselves lived with their son and finally after many years believed me. How is Jodi a vixen as those jerks on HLN call her? Four boyfriends in fifteen years that she is still friends with? The sex acts, you pretend you like that to please him, so he will be nice and like you because you dont think you are worthy enough for anyone else after years of him telling you that you are not worthy and dont bring you around his friends or family. Anyhow, this doctor knows nothing of life and has no experience and anything she said should not be considered, not in this case

    • kmea says:

      also, I lived in St George Utah and was not a mormon, some would not let my children play with theirs because they were not mormon, I was looked down upon because I drank coffee and wore a bikini. You know a mormon from the temp of their caffiene I guess because I saw plenty drinking cokes and pepsi’s, you were made to feel bad and not good unless you were mormon and that is another thing Travis did, he had another thing to put her down for until she became that and then messed her head up by having sex, which is not allowed. One year in St George the 4th of July landed on a sunday and New Years eve on a Sunday so everyone there was yelling Happy New Year and celebrating the 4th of July on the 3rd of July and the 30th of January, a whole dam town, that is how powerful they are, how they control your mind and your federal holiday even! Ohh, Chilis bar and grill? They made them take down the bar part and it became Chilis Grill, one liquor store in town that was closed on Sundays and by seven every night, oh the list goes on so Jodi had many things against from the very beginning by being with Travis

      • TR says:

        You are right on that. Poor Jodi has so many things against her from the day she met him!!

      • Ann says:

        A few years ago, my book club picked the Elizabeth Smart story and Under the Banner of Heaven for reading. I had some knowledge of the Mormon and the Fundamentalist Mormon faiths. After reading those two books, I researched and read more written articles. I was really creap out. I didn’t realize towns existed in the US governed entirely by religion groups. I know what you thinking…
        Until now, I haven’t posted comment on the Mormon religious element/ascept of this trial. I can’t wrap my head around the blood atonement thing, Mormons killing Mormons. I did read the memorial message C. Hughes wrote …that was creapy. I have no doubts, the Mormon religion and their beliefs played a HUGE role in the relationship between Jodi and Travis. I thought AL tipped toed around it and explained “who had the power” well enough that the jurors will “get it”. If a Mormon is sitting in the witness box, and I do think there is at least one(Q#19). This religious element leaves the defense walking a tight rope not to offend.

        • Ann says:

          meant to say…jury box not witness box

        • Oliviero says:

          Maybe that’s what they are covering up, Jodie shoots him he is still the bullet didn’t kill him she starts stabbing him and does the Mormon Ritual which is still practiced by some in this cult. and covered up, The death Ashley Reed is disturbing. Since she contacted Flores about Travis. She was not Mormon,

        • Rhonda in Alabama says:

          Yes I think there are at least 2 Mormon’s on that Jury. An I hoped they would
          ask the young Dr D if she owned The Book of Mormon also that would explain
          a lot of her testimony.

    • Introspective says:

      kmea, Welcome! and Hi! :)

      Alot of what you’ve said rings true. Glad all of that is in the past. Healing, respect, and peace of mind, is in the present and future for you!.

      The religion factor could be wrapped around this case. Also, the darker side of TA played a major role in all that unwrapped in the end. The Abuser and The Broken – like fire and oil!

      • kmea says:

        Thank you, it was nice to find this and be able to voice what I felt, I was getting beat up on other sites. I googled domestic violence victim and came up with a Huffington post site and started commenting and it was opposite of most others on there so they were asking where I came from, did I come from this site? Well, no but now here I am so thank you Huffington Post heh. I had to add one more thing, I said Travis reminded me of my ex, I need to edit to add, Travis had charm but he was not handsome, he was pale and pudgy and balding so he met a beautiful girl like Jodi and that was another reason he had to bring her down, to make her stay with someone like him, he made her think she was not worthy, I think so many in her life made her feel that way, she didnt have someone to tell her differently and she met the master manipulater, that is why he was so good at his job, he was trained in manipulation and they call Jodi that? anyhow, thanks for your kind words, glad to be here. I work for a TV station and am so disgusted by the bias of the HLN network, they all just make me sick, and Nancy Grace? I have dispised her for years, it would be nice if they allowed healthy debate, show both sides and actually let them get a word in, but she cuts people off who disagree with her and they edit everything to show just one side, I used to love Dr Drew also but what the heck happened to him? He is becoming like her so I cant watch him anymore either, ugh

        • Introspective says:

          kmea, you are welcome :). I know how it feels to be new. I tepidly put my toe in here, announced I was new and that was my first post ever! But, nobody noticed me. Was a bummer, but I did stick around.

          With JA – her vulnerability to ‘needing’ to be acknowledged, I feel stemmed from her parents who for whatever reason refused to validate her, her abilities, or any good characteristic that she displayed. Instead, any negative or ‘flaw’ that was seen was severely punished. This opened the door for her to seek that validation and acknowledgement from outside in the world. This is not unique to her or a flaw. The best way for me to understand the motivation behind her behavior and actions, is by applying Abraham Maslows, Heirarchy of Needs Theory.
          http://www.learning-theories.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.html – This is a simple breakdown, if you are not familiar with it.

          I’ll try to keep this short :) When you apply this theory, JA, having her need for approval and love unmet, kept trying to fulfil that need, because she couldn’t move forward fully as a person to realize her full potential as a human being, unless and until her basic needs were met. Its an unconscious drive, need, and/or motivating factor in humans to get these basic needs met so that they can go on to the higher levels of being fully self-actualized. One strives to arrive at that point, while getting the lower, basic needs met. Anyways, I noticed on JA’s ms/fb page blog, that she actually even mentions that she would like to get to that point in her life.

          TA – yeah, he recognized her vulnerability (alot of abusers are adept at that) and zeroed in on that – whether consciously or unsciously, even exploited it to satisfy some of his needs – to be recognized, so he could inflate his own lack of self-esteem.

          Also, I noticed that you had stopped short of calling him ‘handsome’ :) becoz, I wondered as I read your words if you were going there! ha ha

          HLN – Well their initials tell you all… Hypocritical Lying Nincompoops!! all of them. Sell-outs. What a shame. They could’ve been the voice of reason by staying neutral and simply presenting the facts and letting guests argue both sides of it, without showing their hand. Guess no long-term vision from the team, nor do they have any altruistic traits – to lift up each other as we are all in ‘this’ together. So they go ahead and further the ‘you against me’ line, and keep on fanning the flame higher. Yes, NG, the devil has certainly been dancing since you got on air and did an about turn. I see him, NG. He’s dancing on YOUR shoulder!!!

  104. Phillip says:

    22 and 25 caliber bullets tend to have less force and tend to bounce around inside the body. TA could have been shot upright vs the linebacker stance, and the bullet following a downward path being normal, the bullet travel the path of least resistance, until it hits something that makes travel in different direction. Assassins prefer 22 or 25 caliber because they are small easily concealed and not very loud. A shot behind and above the left ear at point blank range is preferred due to the instant loss of motor skills, so the target won’t fight back.

  105. deb says:

    One thing I noticed…There are very few photos shown of Travis with his family. I wonder how close they really were

    • Donna says:

      According to the Flores report, the Alexander siblings didn’t know who his friends were or much about his Arizona life. Which may be why they are reacting the way are….guilt that they weren’t that close.

      • maria rigadopoulou says:

        I concur! It’s downright guilt!

      • FUJuan says:

        How could they really know their brother TA, two of them were messed up on drugs, one in the military, one a cop, and not sure about the other sister who just recenlty had a child. They were to wrapped up in their own drama…..

        • cb says:

          Royalties . . they weren’t close, even the one sister mentioned she was glad ta and she were in a picture, meaning there must not be many others. Their stay in a condo, all inclusive expenses and allowances are sponsored not funded most likely by “elders” watching the trial, sit back and making bets on who’s gonna crack then cheering when the bad guys score. (well they won’t be snatching the kiddies during, so) Getting a feeling all the test questions are the only defense options here to qualify for appeallet. The state will have to recognize PTSD but not BPD. This judge over rules and sustains with prejudice so it’s a no win for defense to nag her (nag for lack of better words, to the judge she’s being nagged at) when she has no intention of being fair and has her dialogue to cover her ass scripted with generic definitions just like the wordy JD . . alot of big words with little substance, redundant with a throaty growl giving it depth lol

  106. I have been confused every time the jurours have asked questions .
    To all of the witnesess sometimes I think thats great for the defence .
    An then boom I hear a shocker I think is good for the state.

    I feel L V was the most mixed bag of good an bad jurours questions.

    This at least indicates that the jury is not of one opinion wich can only be adventagious to Jodi.

    • Haveing grown up within an abusive household,
      Violence mainly from my Father towards me my Mother an two brothers an two sisters.

      I was the 5th an youngest child an when one grows up with abusive parents the selfish but understandble thing to do.
      Is get out of there as soon as its legal to do so wich is what all my older bros an sis did until I being the youngest was left alone.

      This kind of upbringing is not condusive to close familys.The older ones whom leave feel guilt an those left behind .
      Feel resentment abandonment an betrayal.

      Ive never been close with any of my sibblings so much so I havent been in touch with any of them for decades,
      We dont even share the same continets Australia Europe ones In American another S Africa .
      Im in the uk
      So to sum up sibblings that grow up in abusive suroundings can either become very close an bond for life.

      Or more common drift apart an live seperat lifes wich has been my direction

  107. Truthseeker1111 says:

    As of 8:45 pm…they just announced on Fox news that they have the second suspect in the Boston Marathon in custody…

  108. TR says:

    The discussions have been very interesting tonight and I went to do some research on something someone mentioned about a protection ritual that TA was doing the day of the killling. I have just spent some time on a great web site that details “what the Mormons won’t tell you”. All I can say is that SJ is so correct when he calls this entire sham the “Mormon Coverup”. Wish I had saved the web site to direct you all to, but if your’e interested I’m sure you can find it. All I know is that there is too much f’n freaky, bizarre, secretive and ritualistic shit going on in this cult to ever believe that poor Jodi is guilty of anything. I am now convinced more than ever that the throat slitting has everything to do with the blood atonement. TA, with all of his sins and deviencies, would never have made it to his Celestial home without it, according to the teachings of his own cult. With the cover ups and all out deception of this Cult, Jodi would never have had a chance in Mormon country AZ to be set free, if anything re: the Cult’s involvment ever saw the light of day. She and the defense team had no other choice but Self Defense.

    I’m am now so distressed to see that she is quoting Brigham Young via twitter, and I wish someone would help her to be deprogrammed from the brainwashing she recieved from TA. Anybody who wants to tell me that she has the right to practice any religion she wants, might as well save it, because she has every right to be rescued from the Cult so she can live freely once she is found not guilty.

    • TR says:

      for anyone interested, the website is: http://www.mmoutreach.org

      • BeeCee says:

        thank you for the link

        We have discussed the aspect multiple times in the beginning days, but often we had people (nice people, mind you) who would get upset and offended at that here. I do have sympathy for them…

        They did not seem to understand that most of us know that even in a cultish religion there are good people.

        i apologize, I can’t remember how long you have been posting, but if you go to the calendar on the right bar below the page listings you can click on dates to see the old SJ posts and comments…from way back when.

        • TR says:

          I have been posting for quite a while now, but haven’t had the chance to see all of the original posts. I must admit, I was fairly uneducated about the Mormon cult until I came here. I was aware of the Warren Jeffs wacko, but didn’t think the “mainstream LDS” was so bizzare. I have a whole different perspective on what Jodi went through and why Daryl B. and her family state she became such a different person after she met TA. Borderline Personality Disorder, my ass! She is brainwashed and was a good cult follower.

      • Truthseeker1111 says:

        TR…that’s a good link…and this is another good one written by a man who left the mormon faith…


    • Kmiller says:

      I was VERY distressed to see Jodi quote Brigham Young via twitter. I also agree she needs to be DEPROGRAMMED! How can she when the Mormon HACK continues to visit her in jail?

      If I was Jodi’s attorney I would put a stop to that shit!!
      It can be done JUST like Jose Baez kept Casey Anthony’s parents from visiting her. One in the same IMO.

      • Pat says:

        who is the Mormon Hack? thats interesting..

        thanks to all for the fine work in this thread..

        • Kmiller says:

          I’m not sure of the name I would have to look it up, but It is confirmed a Mormon elder visits her in jail weekly.

      • TR says:

        I agree, but not sure if Jodi is still so brainwashed that she wants to visit with the elder. I wish she had a family member whom she was close to, who recognized this and would convince her to stop. I think back to a documentary I watched about Jim Jones, and how some family members did everything to escape and get thier other family to go with them. They refused and ended up in the mass suicide/murder, and either voluntarily or by force drank the poison. So very scarey for Jodi.

        • Oliviero says:

          People without families or dysfunctional families like Jodie’s are drawn to Cults, Its immature and dangerous but they target certain types that are vulnerable, They need to enlist people, they use love bombing and other methods to indoctrinate members. People who are isolated from their Families have low self esteem are prime targets. They groom them, I think that in fairness to Dr.D, whom I despised, She was correct about Jodie being very immature, you could see it in her writings. Also many people like that do present themselves as always a victim. There is a certain narcissism in these Cults as talked about in the God makers. which is immature, childish and just plain stupid to most people. As demonstrated by what happened to Jodie,. In the final analysis people are responsible for their behavior, and as much as people want to protect someone, If they continue to make poor choices in life, are too proud or narcissistic to humble themselves and be able to realize that they made a mistake. They will have to suffer the consequences of their behavior.

  109. chris11 says:

    With the capture of the Boston Marathon bomber today, if there is a trial, I predict that Nancy Grace, Vinnie Pollution, Jane Mitchell, and the rest of the HLN clowns WILL not be go out of their way to make fun of him like they have with Jodi Arias.

    HLN will be scared shitless of repercussions by other extremists or terrorists to pull any of their normal shenanigans. And that will speak volumes about their bias, considering the bomber is an American citizen, and this bombing is a crystal clear example of premeditation. You will most likely see the bomber get all the rights afforded to him by the Constitution.

    HLN will not be mocking him, they will not have catty Katie Wick’s beaming face offering opinions about his hair style and clothes, they will not have Dr. Drew’s phony analysis, and they will not have their stupid fake jury “game shows” every night.

    If anything, after the Arias trial, HLNs ratings will plummet as people everywhere, whether for or against Jodi, have had enough.

    • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:


      You’re right. I wonder if the Boston bomber were female, particularly a young and pretty female, would HLN and Nancy Grace mock and so on.

      • chris11 says:

        Exactly. That’s precisely what I was trying to articulate. Casey and Jodi are young women who are easy for the talking heads to opine about in a mocking fashion. You can pretty much bet they’ll not be doing that if there’s a trial about this young man.

  110. Introspective says:

    Something that irks me when I watch JD is that her delivery and the tone of her voice sounds more like she is gossiping and bad mouthing JA, rather than giving a clinicians report. Altho she does throw in some big words, still, it is whenever she is putting down and attributing some mean characteristic to JA, that when she comes fully alive – her eyes are dancing, she almost whispers these words like she is spilling a secret to us, her face is animated and she seems excited and almost giddy to deliver these ‘truths’ to us.

    Wonder whether unconsciously she felt one-upped by JA during the interview. JD might have got a glimpse of JA’s innate intelligence, and ability despite her lack of education, and then we have the definite advantage that JA has over JD in the looks dept. Coupled with her wit, articulation and ability to still be able to hold her head high must’ve been like a kick in the gut to JD.

    Women are catty, and JD showed her claws at trial. She seemed determined that she would take JA down a peg, if not 2 and also, make sure JA knew that JD had a more superior education, titles, and a certain level of prestige out there. She wanted to stick it to her. Thats what I felt and feel each time I watch and hear her talking. That’s what my gut tells me.

    Objectivism went out the door and her punctured ego stepped in and took over. This might explain the “Reading” test – “lets see how I can humiliate her and wipe that smile off her face”, etc.

    • TryingtoFigureThisOut says:

      Oh, Introspective, you explained it better than I could!!! That’s exactly what I was seeing in DeMarte. Some sort of jealousy or something, and you’re right, she became very animated and emotional when she said the worst things about Jodi. She was the least objective, the most biased witness we’ve seen on the stand yet.

    • BeeCee says:

      that is a very accurate assessment!

      i couldn’t really put my finger on how to describe it!

    • FUJuan says:

      Personally I think the Dr. JD has issues herself. This is a trial, not a broadway show….. leave the theaterics at home. She biased, condensending, over confident, two different personalities on the stand, maybe three… One with JW, one with JUAN, one with the jurors. I cringe when I rewatched it today.

      Do no harm to you client, this b%tch, did a lot of harm to JODI and LIED on the stand. You don’t pick and choose what you want to use out of a test, that voids your results and diagnoses. She played to JUAN’s tune………..

      Hope one day she’s on the stand for the defense when JUAN gets to cross examine her testimony.

      One tried three cases in court… I thought she said the first day, it was only two cases. I would have togo back and listen unless someone knows……………

    • Kmiller says:

      Thank you for being able to articulate the mumbo-jumbo stirring in my head. I too was having a hard time articulating it.
      I haven’t posted since yesterday, and I can’t even put into words the ANGER, seething RAGE, and violent fantasies that have overwhelmed me after watching Nostrils and Dirty Sanchez take a MASSIVE SHIT in the center of our justice system while Ran around spraying air freshener!!
      I still can not believe it.

      The juror questions were leaning in Jodi’s favor, but that was beside the point. Jodi’s LIFE is on the line, and Nostrils needs to be held accountable for her criminal behavior. Yes, what she did should be considered, at BEST, criminal.

    • SD says:

      Introspective, you have nailed just what I have been thinking, but have been unable to articulate!

    • Introspective says:

      Thank you all for your wonderful responses. I just couldn’t put my finger on why I was engulfed with a sense of unbalance – there was a lack of homeostatis in what she was saying and her demeanor. I truly had to stop, close my eyes, and just feel and accept the ‘explanation’ that my gut told me. It finally felt right, and I no longer felt uneven, per se, when I listened/watched her. You, all are such a bright bunch of people.:D

  111. joujoubaby says:

    It seems that Chris and Sky Hughes have taken to twitter now.

    • Dorothy says:

      Sky Hughes has been subpoenaed, last I heard…So I don’t think she is allowed…

    • tonysam says:

      I see that. He’s certainly a vile little liar. Says just the opposite of what the evidence shows.

    • Introspective says:

      Well, JJB, post those tweets already!! :)

      • joujoubaby says:

        Too many! But here is Sky aghast with offense, about what, I wish I knew:

        @Justice4_Travis I’ve reported the offensive account to Twitter NUMEROUS times. I’m disgusted that it has not been removed! #Justice4Travis
        Reply Retweet Favorite More
        8:05 PM – 19 Apr 13
        Tweet text
        Reply to @MyJeweledSky @Justice4_Travis
        Image will appear as a link
        Nicole Rasmussen ‏@NicoleRasmuss75 3h
        @MyJeweledSky @justice4_travis I have also. Sad thing is she will just open another one. It’s so easy and ther not stopping her. Sad

        • LC says:

          I thk shes tslking about jodis art here, being auctioned online. Sky is a jealous bitch, jealous that she has no talent! !!

        • Introspective says:

          JJB, I hope I didn’t get you in trouble, by asking you to post those tweets. Saw some were deleted. Hope all is well. Sorry, if I got you in trouble. :( (((((hugs)))))

      • joujoubaby says:

        Actually, Chris is the one with all of the “gems”

        Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 7h
        @LJMack2 @MsLamanda Yes, we confirmed with our own handwriting expert that Nurmi’s claim was 100% false. Unbelievable.
        Tara ‏@tarahill27 6h
        @cshughes @ljmack2 @mslamanda why did he email them to you? Was he hoping to get u as defense witness? How stupid. #JodiArias
        Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 5h
        @tarahill27 @LJMack2 @MsLamanda This was prior to a hearing. He was trying to sway our testimony & get us to throw TA under the bus.

        • FUJuan says:

          UNFKBELIEVEABLE …………. these two misfits will do anything to ruin a person. Guess that’s the CULT way …………. WHY talk now CHRIS, bc he’s hoping the jury is reading these sites, and he can get them to lean to their side. They are TWO VERY SICK individuals on a destructive mission.

          • Rhonda in Alabama says:

            I guarantee it is because on TWITTER JODI has more followers
            an he reads this site an not long after that was posted there he
            was out there with his LIES !!

            Travis 6,000 followers ………..Jodi 30,000 on TWITTER HAHAHA!

      • joujoubaby says:

        Some more:
        Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 7h
        Why am I talking about the #jodiarias trial now? Because I want to. I don’t want drama. But wanna share the truth.
        Kelly ‏@kayalyn81 6h
        @cshughes can u talk about the context of the email or do u want to wait until trial is over?
        Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 6h
        @kayalyn81 Bottom line. JA lied to us. Travis was still in love with Deanna Reid. We were saying it was not cool. That’s all. DT twisting.

      • joujoubaby says:

        • LC says:

          It doesn’t matter Chris and sky, its all into evidence; the email YOU wrote to TA talking about his abuse. You can’t take that back and that’s a FACT, so keep talking BS and spreading rumors cuz only stupid people will blv whatever you make up. The TRUTH is the TRUTH and the truth is on your email! !

        • TR says:

          what happened to your post?

      • joujoubaby says:

      • joujoubaby says:

      • joujoubaby says:

        But I think this is my favorite:

        Chris Hughes ‏@cshughes 8h
        In Mar/Apr 07 we told TA #Jodiarias was “off” & 2 dump’r. We caught her 2x outside our bed room door lstning to our conv. Kcked’r out in a.m

  112. Truthseeker1111 says:

    A courtroom observer posted on another website that these two jurors turned in the most questions on Thursday, Day 50…

    Juror 8…older nice looker male with goatee that looks like he may be the juror foreman
    Juror 9…slender male with long white pony tail

    Since these two jurors sit side by side…can they look over and read each others questions before they submit them for the witness?

    Do the jurors get to talk with each other about the trial each day?

    • Ann says:

      NO! They shouldn’t say a thing to ANYONE!

    • Can't Take it anymore says:

      In Oregon – No the jurors are not allowed to discuss the case with one another until the trial is over and they go back to deliberate. They do not want jurors to discuss and sway one another opinions until all of the evidence and testimony is in.

  113. Can't Take it anymore says:

    I wish one of the jurors would of asked our little friend yesterday……………Seeing how PTSD & BPD display several similiar symptoms, hypothetically speaking, if you would of been retained as an expert witness for the defense team would your diagnosis remain the same?

    • Introspective says:

      I wish the jurors could’ve been fairer and kept things balanced by asking JD just as many (if not more) sarcastic and disrespectful Q’s as they had for ALV and Doc. S. She got away easy, I think. Shoulda made her sweat out ALL that water she drank!!!! Gulp, gulp, gulp … Drop by drop…

      Fortunately (for her), the court was not charging for water. Otherwise all the $$$$$$$$$$$$ (yes, thats alot) she earned, would have gone up in smoke :D

      Hhhmm… Talking about smoke, well, she did try to blow smoke up our ***es, no?

  114. RB in AZ says:

    (Excuse me if you I’ve already posted this. I tried earlier and it didn’t seem to take – I couldn’t find it – but when I tried to post the same thing again I got a message that I had “already said that.” But here goes another try)

    There is a Facebook page out there called “Only Idiots Think Jodi Arias Is Innocent” and it’s set so that if anyone types “jodi arias is innocent” into Google, this Facebook page comes up at the top of the list.