site
stats
Menu

Jodi Arias Trial – Day 9

in Latest News by

CLICK HERE FOR DAY 9 VIDEO RECORDING

After calling 3 witnesses this morning, the state rests.

Trial is set to resume again on January 28th @ 10 am, when there’ll be an evidentiary hearing. Jury will return January 29th.

The Rule 20 motion is under advisement.

All in all, another awesome day for Team Jodi!

Leave your comments on Day 9 below. Recording now uploaded.

SJ

PS. If you missed day 8, you can watch it right here.

 

301 Comments

  1. Aaauuhhhggg….. I missed the first few minutes!!! WHO was the first person /lady on the stand today? And I blv the judge said they won’t be back until the 29th???? And is that it, are they DONE for today?????

    • Yes LC, no court until the 29th now. It was “unexpected” per judge.
      The Jury is done, the attorney’s are discussing. Nurmi wants premeditated thrown out, so they can go fro 2nd degree. Martinez is arguing why it is premeditated.

      Sounds like the prosecution is done though, on the 29th we will start with the defense.
      I’m very ready for the defense…

      I too missed the first few minutes, so cannot tell you who the first person/lady was.

    • Wow who makes these hours, whos the person that would make up the trial schedule,. I wonder if there’s a reasons for today’s short day.

      • Was she considered a hostile witness? (the friend)

        Martinez threw the pictures of Travis bleeding body at her and said did your friend ever tell you she did this?

        Or is this just Martinez showing his arrogant short guy syndrome again?

        • Yes, that’s exactly what I thought. His ‘short man syndrome’ acting up. She was a witness FOR the prosecution & she says that Jodi was sweet & soft-spoken then Martinez got angry at her & showed her the pictures. Clearly Martinez wasn’t expecting her to say some nice about Jodi.

  2. The Prosecution rests it’s case which means the defense will have their chance Tuesday. The Jury is being sequestered from the media.

    • Judge Stephens takes the motion under advisement and adjourns until Jan 28, when there will be an evidentiary hearing.

      So I don’t know if it will be live or not.
      I guess actual court will not start until the 29th as stated before?

  3. Well that was quick. Does this mean the state has finished and it is the defense’s turn now to call witnesses and what not? And why not until January 29th?

    • because Jodi’s defense moved to have the burgerly and the premeditation charges dropped. the judge is taking it under advisement.

  4. I think that Martinez showing Jodi’s friend the naked photos of her will backfire on him. It seems like he takes any and every opportunity to show those pictures of Jodi and I feel it’s in very poor taste. I’m surprised the judge allowed it. I mean, is it common for people to know EVERY detail of their friend’s sex lives? She said she knew they were sexually active. Would it be normal to know what goes on in people’s bedrooms?

      • I thought the prosecutor should have blurred the private parts out. It wouldn’t be tampering as long as they retained the originals and handed them to the jury to see. Seemed disrespectful to both travis and jodi.

    • I thought Nurmi did an EXCELLENT job of turning that around on the prosecution, as well, when he asked if she was aware of that part of Travis’s life.

      I suspect we’re going to see a lot more of that bullying behavior on the part of Martinez during the defense case, when he is cross-examining witnesses. That may work for him in “normal” criminal cases where he is dealing with reluctant/uncooperative witnesses. But I agree that it’s likely to backfire on him here. Especially when it’s contrasted with Nurmi’s polite, soft-spoken demeanor.

      • Good point, Michael! That was my favorite Nurmi moment today when he asked if she was aware of that part of Travis’s life. My second favorite was when he pointed out to the judge that the photos are proof Jodi was welcome in the home. I also thought he looked extra-handsome today in his suit. He sure is a good dresser.

        • My favorite part was when he argued for dismissal based on the alternative charge of felony murder. It has never made any sense that she was charged with that anyway. He made the point that she was an invited guest and that state failed to prove that any other crime took place. He said it was either premeditation or not and NO to the other charge of felony murder.

          • Yep, Nurmi did a great job with that argument. He’s getting a lot of shit from the pro-pros websites, just like Jose did, but I think he knows his stuff. Martinez is a clown.

            So the state rested already? I thought they’d call many more witnesses; seems like a lot of reasonable doubt is on the table.

          • Martinez’s rebuttle was ridiculous!
            “The moment she began stabbing Travis, she was no longer a welcome guest.”

            I guess whatever way you can argue it Martinez, but really, that’s your answer?

            I didn’t get to see the whole day today, but what I saw looked great for Jodi.
            I sure do like Nurmi.

          • That was my favorite part today too!!! She was an uninvited friend, but he opened the door for her to come in, they had sex, they took pictures. She didint break in right? So that doesn’t look like she was an uninvited friend. He was down for it n she was more then invited!! Then he goes
            on saying, if we’d ask TA if he wanted her there when he was being stabbed I know he would have said no. REALLLLYYYY???!!!! lol who would say yes to that?!

      • Martinez is behaving extremely narcissistic. Not surprising to see unprofessional and narcissistic misconduct coming from the az state attorneys office. They are known for this behavior.

    • I don’t think so Sam. I think she wouldn’t want people to know that she took pictures with someone. I know I dont talk about every detail with friends.

      I was very surprised we didnt see texts, computer records, emails showing Jodi as the stalker they say she was. I think now, it becomes more about why didn’t we see that? The answer would be because they would show the ongoing pattern of abuse on part of Travis. I think if the state had evidence showing Jodi to be threatening, abusive, etc, they would have submitted that before they rested.

    • Hell no!!!!! I agree, he has even made unnecessary comments. I know the whole rules about lies and all the junk detectives do to get her to confessing, but that part on the video that he tells her that he’s seend all of her, that was way out of line n he didnt HAVE to say it that way.

      • Yeah, I thought that was creepy, disgusting, and totally uncalled for.
        When have you crossed the line into sexual harassment territory.

        I understand he was just trying to get her to admit to his idea of what went down, but really,, gross.
        I would’ve fallen out of my chair!

        • WOW. Just readin back over this. The detective said that? “i’ve seen all of you”?! I missed that. What a way to break someone down.

    • I must have misunderstood, so someone please clarify for me…When Leslie Udy said she was unaware of that part of their relationship, I thought, being that she’s Mormon too, that she meant she didn’t know their relationship was sexual. It’s my understanding that most of Travis’ friends and family didn’t know he had/was having sexual relations. Isn’t it the same circumstance for Udy, or was she aware of that aspect because she was a friend to Jodi, too?

      • Leslie did say that she assumed the relationship was sexual.
        What she said she didn’t know about was that Travis and Jodi would take naked photos – her response was to the naked photos of the two.

        The prosecutor was trying to prove that Leslie didn’t know Jodi or Travis well enough to have an opinion about the two because earlier when she was being questioned she was basically disproving that Jodi was a stalker and that Jodi was a nice person.

        It was a far reach in my opinion – as I don’t want to know if my friends are taking naked photos with their boyfriends or not. Just because I don’t know this about them doesn’t mean I don’t know them, in my opinion.

  5. Even In Session called the prosecutor’s redirect of the last witness “harsh” and in my experience, they usually say anything negative about the prosecutor.

    Also, they said the last witness was suppose to produce a “bang” for the prosecution yet he failed. The last witness became a witness for the defense in essence.

    • Martinez seems to take it out on his witnesses when he’s irritated with the defense’s cross-examination. I can’t imagine that the jury is very impressed by his demeanor.

  6. I sincerely hope my post here is found by Jodi’s friends and/or family because as a criminal defense attorney, I could easily have the premediated murder charges tossed out. Unfortunately, I’m not Jodi’s attorney, but here’s how to have the premediated murder charges tossed out.

    Her current public defenders MUST use the Medical Examiner’s testimony against them to have these charges dropped.

    The Medical Examiner testified that Miss Arias stabbed Mr. Alexander to death FIRST and THEN shot him in the face with a .25 caliber gun. (Personally, I believe the use of weapons was the other way around after reading Dr. Horn’s autopsy report, but that is neither here nor there at this point…but, I have valid reasons to believe this.) Anyway, more to the point…since Dr. Horn has testified that Mr. Alexander was stabbed FIRST and shot LATER, then this fact ALONE is sufficient to disprove the premeditation charges!

    Why?

    Because the prosecution is arguing that Miss Arias stole the .25 caliber gun from her grandparents, then drove 15-whatever hours to Mr. Alexander’s residence with said gun and the entire trip she is supposedly ‘premeditating’ the murder of Mr. Alexander.

    There is only ONE problem here…it trully begs the question…

    Why did she then stab Mr. Alexander FIRST (according to Dr. Horn’s testimony) INSTEAD of using the .25 caliber gun she supposedly stole solely for the purpose of murdering Mr. Alexander???

    Thus, in this particular case, for premeditated murder to exist, Ms. Arias would have HAD to use the .25 caliber gun FIRST to kill Mr. Alexander which could then demonstrate the possibility of ‘premeditation.’

    If I were her attorney, I would recall Dr. Horn to the stand and then HAMMER this point home to the jury by using Doctor’s own testimony against the prosecution’s case of premeditated murder IF I couldn’t get the charges dropped beforehand.

    I’ve been watching every moment of this trial from the start and NOT once have I heard either of her public defenders point this out! It’s infuriating to me! The girl’s life is on the line here! If ANYBODY here has contact with Miss Arias or either of her public defenders, please advise her/them of this so they can get those damn charges dropped, thus completely avoiding the grim possibility of the death penalty! THEN the prosecution would HAVE to motion for lesser charges!

    It’s a crucial point which could greatly turn the tides of her trial into a much more favorable verdict from the jury.

    • Furthermore, there was NEVER any mention of a knife being stolen from her grandparent’s residence! So, it’s pure speculation to say that she stole the knife from her Yreka residence and then used said knife to kill Mr. Alexander. Thus, after recalling Dr. Horn, I would then recall that police officer who responded to the Yreka burglary call and DRIVE IT HOME to the jury that no knife was ever reported stolen or missing.

      Now therefore, reasonable doubt of premeditation murder exists!

      • Your Soooooo right!!! I wonder if the defense will bring this up, the same way you put it? And also your right is crucial for her defense to do this asap. Maybe someone can get in contact with her family by the paintings on eBay. It is her mother, I blv selling her paintings on eBay. That could probably be a point if contact.

      • But if her intent was to kill him with the gun she stole from grandparents, why use a knife last minute n make it harder when she already has the intent to use the gun?

      • Yes, but that is ALL pure speculation. They have no other proof of premeditation other then the stolen .25 caliber gun from Miss Arias’ Yreka residence and the fact that a .25 caliber gun was used to shoot Mr. Alexander in the face.

        Also, please remember, the .25 caliber gun was STILL in fact used to shoot Mr. Alexander, thus demonstrating that the opportunity to use the .25 caliber gun always existed.

        😉

        • David,

          So what is their strategy? It seems to me that their focus is on Travis, the abuse, and trying to show that Jodi wasn’t capable of first degree murder?

          Oh Nurmi did argue when he asked for the mistrial, that he should be able to have his own medical examiner look at the evidence. Was that his attempt to refute the ME?

          • Their strategy is much like you said, to focus on the abuse and corroborate with the allegations of Self Defense.

            Here’s my theory…free of charge 😉

            I truly believe Mr. Alexander was actually shot with the .25 caliber gun FIRST and THEN stabbed LATER.

            Why?

            Well, it has already been stated (I don’t recall who’s testimony) that Mr. Alexander was NOT shot in the face at point blank range. Thus, there was some distance between the shooter and Mr. Alexander according to testimony. Again, pure speculation on my part here, but if I my intentions were to kill a person, would I not target their head?

            Yes, I would. So, I take aim and ooops, I hit the person’s face instead of their head…for whatever reason, maybe I was shaking, maybe the person moved last second…who knows. But, logically speaking, when you target somebody with a gun, you take aim at their head, NOT their friggin’ face, especially at such a close range. I don’t know ANY shooter that would intentionally aim at a person’s face. Right?

            Okay, so AFTER Mr. Alexander is shot in the face, the gun malfunctioned or maybe the shooter had only one bullet…who knows… Also, keep in mind, a .25 caliber gun is seriously about as powerful as a super soaker squirt gun. If you look at the X-Ray of Mr. Alexander’s skull, the bullet was lodged in cheek area. Therefore, it’s very conceivable that he did not die after being shot in the face.

            NOW, it’s conceivable to have this supposed ‘struggle’ in the hallway area (as per the testimony of that forensics lady…I don’t recall her name.) You cannot have a ‘struggle’ in the hallway area if Mr. Alexander is dead, right?

            So, IF the gun did in fact malfunction, then the killer would find other means to ‘defend’ herself or ‘finish’ the job. This is when the knife comes into play. Knife is used in the hallway area and an intense ‘struggle’ ensues. After Mr. Alexander’s throat is slashed, he finally dies and the killer THEN drags his body back into the bathroom and stuffed into the shower stall. (This theory corroborates with the testimony that his body was supposedly dragged down the hall.)

            Now, I understand that they found the shell casing of the bullet in a pool of blood near the sink. This would indicate that the blood was already there and the bullet then fell into the puddle of blood. And sadly, this is the very reason why they believe the gun was used LAST. But, this goes against ALL logical reasoning and testimony! That damn brass casing could have EASILY been kicked/knocked around, especially on a slick HARD tile surface! I believe the casing fell onto floor FIRST and then it was later kicked/knocked around until it finally ended up in the pool of blood.

            We all agree here that it is ludicrous to believe Miss Arias dragged Mr. Alexander’s body all over the place and then to Hell and back according to that comedic diagram of the crime scene.

            This is the only logical explanation I could come up with of how things truly went down on that tragic day. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense! Period.

          • Very right CJ, and then we would be here on team Jodi defending her. If David is right then why wouldnt Martinez call it out that way?

            I still blv there was someone else there that she is covering up for. There is still l those strange unexplained questions that obviously look like a set up. Like a photographer lvg the memory card along with the camera in the basing machine………

          • @CJ

            No, in fact, just the opposite! Claiming Self Defense would then be MUCH easier to demonstrate which is precisely WHY her defense team is so intensely focused on the sequence of weapon use.

            Like I said in a previous post, a .25 caliber gun is a very weak weapon. Just because the bullet passed through Mr. Alexander’s brain absolutely does NOT indicate instant death! Instant death almost always occurs when the bullet passes through BOTH hemispheres of the brain, this much has been proven. But, this is clearly not the case here. The bullet only passed through the frontal lobe of Mr. Alexander’s brain. The frontal lobe of the brain is where our human emotions are stored, hence the use of labotomies back when the Roman Empire ruled much of Europe. They would shove a rod through your nostrils and scrape away the frontal lobe of your brain in order to discard your human emotions. The person was still very much alive even after this horrid procedure.

            Therefore, it is conceivable that Mr. Alexander was still very much alive after being shot. Self Defense comes into play because then the defense could argue and say, “Mr. Alexander attacked Miss Arias, therefore she shot him! He continued to wail/beat on her, but the damn gun jammed! Miss Arias grabbed a nearby knife and stabbed Mr. Alexander several times in a dire effort to protect herself.”

            Do you see my point now on how it would be much easier to make a self defense claim if the sequence of weapon use was reversed?

          • But David, why no drag marks? No expert here, but in my personal opinion I’m not seeing drag marks in the blood patterns in the photos. Now, maybe there are more photos I haven’t seen, and again not an expert in anyway shape or form on any of this stuff. I’ve been questioning any type of dragging from the get go, I don’t think there was dragging. Prove me wrong, I really want to understand this!

            I also am a bit confused, if she used the gun first, and the prosecutor is saying she stole the gun and premeditated the murder, wouldn’t her using the gun first prove premeditated murder? Wouldn’t the prosecutor then ask the defense why in fact Jodi has the gun so close by if it was merely put in her purse for protection on the long ride to Travis’? And how would one answer that question? Why would she have a gun in the bathroom (where I assume this started as shown in the timeline of accidental photos) if she only brought it to protect herself from possible harm on the way to see Travis?

            By no means trying to argue, only want to understand this. I do appreciate other points of view.

          • @M

            Again, I’ll reiterate, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, NOT the defense. To get a conviction, the prosecution needs to PROVE to a jury that Miss Arias did in fact murder Mr. Alexander in a premeditated fashion.

            The defense need NOT prove anything at all, they only need to cast sufficient DOUBT (in the minds of the jurors) on the prosecutions charges/allegations.

            “But David, why no drag marks?” You asked.

            Whether or not there were ‘drag marks’, it really doesn’t matter at this point because according to the testimony of that one forensics lady (I don’t recall her name), she testified that a body was in fact ‘dragged’ across the carpet. As a defense attorney, I need not prove to you the status and/or theories of the crime scene.

            Your next question, “I also am a bit confused, if she used the gun first, and the prosecutor is saying she stole the gun and premeditated the murder, wouldn’t her using the gun first prove premeditated murder?”

            It woudn’t necessarily ‘prove’ the existence of premeditated murder, but YES, it would strengthen prosecution’s case against Miss Arias. But, this is the very reason why I mentioned above to USE the prosecution’s own testimony against them in order to get the premeditated charges dropped. It’s MUCH more difficult to argue against the testimony of an expert witness than it would be to demonstrate the fallacy of the premeditation charges. This would SEVERELY damage the prosecution’s case against Miss Arias! They would NOT ask ANY of those questions you mentioned later in your post because that would then cast a tremendous amount of doubt on their very own charges.

          • @David

            I’m understanding where you are coming from. Thanks for the info.
            I know very little concerning the way things go during a trial.

            Do you think the slit throat will come up? When do you think that happened?
            Or does it not even matter at this point?

          • @M.

            Oh, you bet it will come up! That’s the BIG ‘White Elephant’ in that court room right now! Her defense team HAS to contend with that ‘White Elephant’ at some point if they plan on furthering their claims of Self Defense.

            I’m sorry to say, but Self Defense just plain and simply cannot exist if Miss Arias stabbed Mr. Alexander FIRST and shot him LAST. This is the very reason WHY the sequence of weapon use is such a BIG deal for the defense and expert testimony is severely damaging their case. Believe me, they KNOW this!

            At this point, it ONLY matters that the knife was used AFTER the damn gun! Specifically what time it was used? That’s irrelevant..so long as the time was AFTER the gun!

          • @David

            Again, thanks for the information. This case is definately full of more questions than answers. To be a fly on the wall.

            It will be interesting to see what the defense has planned.
            Hope to hear from you as this trial proceeds.

          • @ David: Have you taken a good look at the photo’s of the bullet casing sitting atop the pool of blood? Its practically pristine. One would have to overcome the lack of splatters, smears, smudges on the casing itself for your theory of it being kicked around in a struggle and landing in the pool. As well, the area around the small pool on which the casing lay is free of a bloody rolling smear.

          • One could argue that using the gun last was “being humane”. I don’t see how one could argue it in the reverse…knife used last. ME says bullet wound would have been incapacitating (I think?). I think reason and logic in a juror would present itself that a bullet wound to the head would have at least incapacitated Travis. Whereas the knife, being present for removing previous sexual bondage materials.. makes sense as the self defense weapon of convenience/choice..and up until the neck cut, could have allowed him to continue to struggle against her. With the gunshot would only coming later…thus being explained as Jodi’s attempt to “be humane” and not see him suffer the knife wounds. Knife first, gun second seems the only plausible self defense move (she ran out of the room to get the gun in order to put him out humanely as he lay dying). This order of weapons not only explains why a knife was on hand…why a gun was not on hand but retrieved later..and also lines up with the ME/States contention of the gun last order of weapons.

            Regardless of the order…she still could have formed Intent ( premeditation) sometime between the first wound being inflicted and the last. The order doesn’t necessarily remove that potential, imo. The knife wounds to the back being one of the issues that would seem to lend itself to this theory.

          • David,

            You have provided some interesting comments for thought. I had a question on what you meant: “But, logically speaking, … you take aim at their head, NOT their friggin’ face, especially at such a close range. I don’t know ANY shooter that would intentionally aim at a person’s face. Right?”

            In a later comment, you talk about the bullet going through the brain. To me, that means he was shot in the head, albeit the fore-head. For future discussion, where do you see the face ending and the head starting? I know the bullet ended up in his left cheek area.

            In spite of all the testimony to the contrary, I believe, like you do, that he was shot first and that the gun jammed. And then she went for the knife … which at that point she was using sooner than she’d anticipated using it (just my opinion).

            And I believe that several years ago, during her earlier story of two intruders who tried to shoot her but the gun jammed … in order to tell that story effectively, she pulled from the truth about HER own gun jamming.

            And it is that aspect of the intruder story that now potentially serves as a window into what actually happened with Travis: she tried to shoot him to death, and her gun jammed.

            However, I had trouble with your comment “… grabbed a nearby knife and stabbed Mr. Alexander …” Having a knife nearby in the bathroom weakens self-defense in my mind. Having a knife and a gun weakens it further in my opinion.

            Also, it’s my understanding that the brain is much more complex than just one area, the frontal lobe, ‘controlling’ emotion. I also understand the frontal lobe is involved with many functions: Motor Functions, Higher Order Functions, Planning, Reasoning, Judgement, Impulse Control, Memory.

            Unfortunately, I may be entering nitpick-ville, but I didn’t like the distance created from what we as a civilization have done more recently, by your mentioning lobotomies in antiquity–the Roman Empire. The Kennedy’s (Joseph Kennedy’s daughter, Rosemary) lobotomized their own daughter less than 75 years ago.

          • David,

            Here’s a statement from your post I had a comment about: “Like I said in a previous post, a .25 caliber gun is a very weak weapon. Just because the bullet passed through Mr. Alexander’s brain absolutely does NOT indicate instant death!”

            Your post came on the 17th. I don’t know if by that point you had a chance to listen to the ME’s testimony on Day 3, but here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h0fje33320 and at 104:40 he talks about the bullet going through the frontal lobe.

            I don’t want to get into an argument over what “instant” or for that matter “instant death” means, but the ME said that when that bullet went through Travis’ frontal lobe, he would have been “incapacitated rapidly” Likely rapidly fatal, lose ability to function, lose consciousness, go down immediately.

            Saying that the .25 caliper is a weak weapon discounts the reality and the testimony that it had enough zip to penetrate the skull, lodge itself in the opposite upper cheek bone, and that the gas and expanses from bullet ripped up Travis’ brain.

            And it is those combination of factors that would have rendered Travis’ “rapidly incapacitated”–in spite of the weapon not being a 45 mag hollow tip–had the shot happened first. And since there were so many subsequent defense wounds wherein Travis had to be conscious and moving, the shot could not have happened first.

          • David,

            I wanted to add something about the .25 caliber as well as clarify my perspective on the “weakness of the gun.”

            If you had an attacker coming at them in an alley, and you are shooting body shots (shots to the body: chest, abdomen) , you could probably waste ten .25 caliber bullets on the person, and it still might not stop them … as you say, it’s a weak weapon.

            However, if you have a rapidly moving object penetrating your brain, and as the ME said, “gas and expanse and TUMBLING” through your frontal lobe, the caliber’s weakness takes on a different meaning as far as “stopping” or “incapacitating” you “rapidly”.

            It’s like saying that someone flicking their fingers is such a weak force it probably wouldn’t even hurt if they walked up and did that to you. OK, now instead of them flicking you on the side of your arm, you drop you pants. Wow, I guess it’s not so innocuous after all.

      • Yes, the ME did mention the sequence of weapon use. If you recall, this is precisely what caused a problem with Detective Flores’ testimony because he testified that the gun was used FIRST and THEN the knife. He later rescinded that testimony based on good ol’ Doctor’s testimony and said there was a “misunderstanding between him and Dr. Horn.”

        • and then after listening to the integration with jodi in court under redirect he indicated that it was his info came from the story what jodi said, what a flip flopper

        • Yes I do remember that. I took it to mean she could have shot him last, not first. I see your point about driving that notion home though.

      • I’m not licensed in Arizona, so I’m not sure of their trial codes. I do know that Arizona is one of the few states that allows the jury to ask questions.

        In most other States, you can most definitely recall a witness.

        • David and others how do you think the defense will explain the gun being taken from the Grandparents and the fact it was made to look like a burglary with the door being damaged and drawers being left open? add in the fact the missing gun and the murder weapon are both 25 cal and her admission and the killing starts to look a little planned also- “I’m not the brightest person, but I don’t think I could stab him, I’d have to shoot him … The least I could do is make it as humane as possible,” Arias told a police detective in a July 15, 2008, taped interview that was played at her murder trial Wednesday. I find this statement very strange considering the way he was killed -One could argue the bullet came as a definite end to his suffering – also – she stated”I don’t think I’ve ever even fired a gun … water guns, but not a real gun,” Arias said when asked about the .25 caliber handgun used in Alexander’s slaying. this seems like an odd thing to not be sure about how many of you cant remember if you have ever fired a gun?

          to be clear Im not trying to imply she is guilty -I def do not have enough info be sure either way at this time- just looking at things from both sides – I hope we can get more insight into the way they communicated with each other in emails texts ect so far there seems to be a lot left to learn from what I can tell they both had honesty/trust issues. I am very curious to hear things from the defense’s perspective -given the evidence in my opinion there is a lot of odd circumstances (the gun, rental car, her statements ect) pointing to premeditation they will need to explain this – they also really need to show some proof of serious abuse or imminent threat to justify the way he died…if it was self defense

          • @J

            Again, this is ALL pure speculation. Neither of the murder weapons have been recovered. Therefore, the defense team need NOT explain why/how the gun was taken from the Yreka residence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, NOT the defense…Mr. Martinez as the prosecution MUST prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Jodi Arias premeditated the murder of Mr. Travis Alexander as are the stated charges of the case. All Mr. Martinez can do at this point is make inferences about the gun (and the knife) which is exactly what he doing. It is in the best interest of the defense to let Mr. Martinez make all the inferences he wants. All they need to do is cast a slight shadow of doubt on his inferences.

            Does the burglary and such look fishy?

            You bet it does! However, reasonable doubt STILL exists simply because Miss Arias has never confessed to stealing the weapon…she has only confessed thus far to have ‘killed’ Mr. Alexander.

          • Did you hear that it looked staged during testimony? Because I must have missed that when the officer testified. I just thought the prosecutor said it was staged.

          • @CJ

            They didn’t say it was ‘staged’ per se, though they are insinuating that it was ‘staged’ when he had the police officer admit that it was a very ‘odd burglary.’ They cannot outright say it was ‘staged’ simply because that is pure speculation.

            Well, they can say it, but most any defense attorney would object to a statement of such pure speculation.

      • I think they can call him back n I blv he said he wasn’t sure of the sequence, but he “thought” the stabbing came first. If they call him back n he changes his thoughts, saying now that gunshot came 1st, he will look like a lier too, or like his confused and I don’t think he’ll change his thoughts. I

        David, have you tried to contact the person selling the paintings? Maybe you can start in that direction.

      • Please let me know if I’m getting these facts correct and if my reasoning is correct, I know I’m using some speculation, not to mention non-trial media reports, but that’s all I have. I had understood that the bullet casing was found on top of a little pool of blood, indicating blood was already on the floor (presumably??) from the stabbings. Additionally, if he had been shot first, he would not have had all those defensive wounds on him which came from the knife/fight struggle, because the shot in the face would have ‘disarmed’ him too much.

        • that was my understanding as well – the M.E. could not say for sure which came first due to decomp. but the defense wounds and lack of bleeding in the brain suggest the bullet came after TA was deceased.

        • MickyD

          This site is a lot to read, BUT
          who cares if the shell casing was on top of the blood? Shell casings bounce incredibly easy on tile and concrete. You can barely bump them with your foot or shoe and they can end up far away. Not a good indicator of which came first, the stabbing or the gun.

          Also, it is a small caliber…just do a google search for how many people have survived gunshot woulds to the head.

          I know people on another major crime site have their panties all in a wad over the shell case being on top of the blood…but really it is not a good indication.

          • Thank you BeeCee, I didn’t think about the idea that the shot could have come first, then the stabbing, then the casing gets kicked and lands on the blood. Always nice to hear someone else’s perspective.

            I would like to know if there was blood spatter attributed to the gun shot, and what that tells us about where/when/what angle he was shot.

            Also, do you have an investment one way or another which came first? I’m finding in some people’s stories that if they are ones who believe it was self defense, they think it is better for their opinion if the shot came first. Otherwise, it looks like after she stabbed him, she did one final FU, and shot him in the face. And thus people who want her to be guilty of premeditation and malice, want to believe the shot came last as a big FU … and then they look for evidence to support their predisposition.

    • David, I agree with you as to the order (Bullet, Knife) but disagree with your non-premeditation opinion. Taking the gun over state lines is premeditation, using it first or last is a question of opportunity. If my intention is to go to your house and have a Bar-B-Que but I need to bring the steaks to eat first, but when I arrive we all eat the chicken first, then the steak, me premeditating eating the steak first was still there, only the opportunity wasn’t because the chicken, in this case, came first.

      • That’s ASSUMING she stole the gun in the first place.

        You are making an inference based on evidence and testimony when you say, “Taking the gun over state lines is premeditation…” An inference is not fact.

        Look, we all probably agree here that Miss Arias most likely took the damn .25 caliber gun from her Yreka residence, but I’m only playing the role of devil’s advocate.

        The fact of the matter is that there is still an ounce of doubt regarding whether or not she stole the gun.

          • CJ, i’m gonna take the prosecution side for this answer, so bear with me. The big problem most people on this board overlook is that in a valid self defense case, the person absolutely has to have exhausted all means of escape before assaulting the attacker. I know this sounds ridiculous, but that’s how it is. JA’s team has a gigantic problem because of the blood patterns and their showing the way the event went down; it’s kind of a three stage thing, although the stages may be in a different order. But by the blood and other evidence (the bloody palm print on the wall, etc) it’s clear this wasn’t over fast. Travis moved around; he was down the hall, in the bedroom, in the hall, back in the bathroom. He got clear back to the bathroom apparently, spurting blood violently from his slashed throat. Remember, at this point his head was almost removed. The point is, at what point was the “threat” neutralized to the point where JA could escape? The law says you can’t just stand and wail holy hell out of your attacker when you can simply escape. By doing so, the victim becomes the attacker and a vigilante. So, could she run when his back was punctured multiple times and his chest punched through at the heart from the front, or maybe after his throat was slashed (i’m guessing by the blood on the wall that he was on his knees early on, and escape would have been easy then for JA) or did she have to stab him in the back multiple times, then when he turns she gives it to him in the heart, but he moves out of the shower and into the hall where she slits his throat as he crawls on the floor (blood spatter low on walls, huge pool of blood on that spot) and then in desperation, as Travis has managed to get back to the bathroom and up on his feet at the mirrors (more blood spatter evidence given in trial) she manages to get him collapsed on the floor and puts the one 25 caliber round in the pistol (i’m betting she had just one round…one bullet to deliver) in his head. Turn that series of events into any order you like, but at some point much earlier on she could have simply dashed out of the house! She did not, apparently. She stayed and finished him off. That’s why, IMO, self defense is not going to fly for this jury.
            HOWEVER, I’m not on the jury, and they could see the whole thing differently.
            The trial delay after the prosecution rests is a huge GIFT to JA and her team. That kind of a time gap is how hung juries are created. That time lapse is a blow to the prosecution, IMO.

          • @ Paul: I think Arizona has their own version of Stand Your Ground…although it would have been enacted after her crime, so probably wouldn’t be applicable anyhow in the case at hand. But just saying..the duty to retreat gets fuzzy there now. As well, one could argue where Jodi was standing versus where Travis was standing. If he were blocking her sole route out at any given point in the struggle(s), for example. Let’s just say, hypothetically, Travis was positioned between her and the doorway/hallway out during the struggle that felled the fatal blow? The duty, if applicable back in 2008, would only have applied were she capable of actually retreating. At least thats how I see it? You?

          • Is it important to understand whether she stole the gun or not to dispute the theft charges? Or is someone suggesting that if she stole it, it was premeditation, and if ‘her grandma gave it to her’ it wasn’t?

    • David, thank you, thank you for posting that! My 1st post I made here was on trial day 4… For the exact reasons you just stated…. Addressing the gun being used 1st, going against the State’s claim of premeditation. If it was, in fact, premeditated she would’ve just shot him dead. I also pointed out that her defense team was not explaining this, and I said I had half a mind to email them… After hearing from you a criminal defense attorney, knowing you obviously know what your talking about, I’m wondering if maybe they should be emailed… They’re so close to the case, we’re objective observers… Essentially, we’re like the jurors, or as close as they could get, as far as what may be concerning them. Glad you posted, and look forward to what else you have to say.

  7. Do any of you find it odd that the roommates were prepped and ready to testify. Then yesterday, the jury starts asking questions about them and today the prosecution rested without calling the roommates?

    I find that suspicious because if they were cleared, why weren’t they called?

    • I agree CJ, I think it was very strange and interesting the state did NOT call the roommates. IMO, If I am a juror, I want to hear from them! Hopefully the defense will correct this failure.

  8. in referrence to a post above -from my understanding the bullet entered in the right eyebrow and rested in the left cheek passing through his brain – given the small caliber its not impossible to survive and move but unlikely he would have been able to give chase or fight the perp. plz correct me if I am inccorect. Also I think the defensive wounds also point to the knife being used first.

    • Not necessarily. A small caliber shot to the fore-head through to the sinus and jaw could incapacitate someone but I would argue some people could actually stay conscious through it and could therefore defend themselves to a point.

    • I’m with you on this. I think the stabbings were first. Again, I’m no lawyer, doctor, or ME.
      I too read that the bullet went through the brain.

      Maybe I’m wrong?

      • M, I still think that the stabbings came first too. The ME also said that the bullet wound did not cause hemorrhaging in Travis’s brain, indicating that he was dead when the gunshot was fired.

        My opinion is in line with yours on the premeditation/self defense issue too. It’s easier to explain a knife being in close proximity to the bathroom and in easy reach when the defense argues that Travis came after Jodi suddenly. Especially if the knife was there due to earlier sexual games. Going for the gun first would indicate to me that 1) She pulled the gun out while he was in the shower because she was planning to kill him and 2) the gun was not just being carried for protection while she was driving through the desert, otherwise she would have left it in her purse/car.

        I think her comment during the interrogation that she “would have killed Travis humanely” shows why she would have shot him after the knife attack. He might have been dead/near dead but could have been convulsing, making sudden movements, etc. Maybe she took the gun out at that point to end his suffering. Or maybe she was afraid that he would suddenly lunge for her again and wanted to make sure that he couldn’t.

        Interesting discussion all around!

  9. CJ….Good Question! Defense may call them still. Defense needs to do a lot! Many experts need to be questioned psych, room mates, people who know Jodi etc. but Jodi needs to take the stand.
    I know, I know but she needs to. Her life is on the line. I am Not impressed with Prosecution at all! I’ve seen more testimony in custody hearings than in this one. I’m serious!

  10. I’m not a hater, nor am I passing judgement until I hear all the evidence. I’m not religious either, mormonism is a cult I agree. But it’s very difficult to ignore the deception or the minutiae on the part of Ms. Arias. And at one point in the interview process, she did say she had no reason to hurt Mr. Alexander, She stated; “He was good to me, He never raped me”. Who is she protecting there, Travis? It doesn’t look so good when people make up stories, no matter who it is. The fact of the matter is only she knows what happened and the evidence is pretty compelling and sufficient. It’s like I tell any Theist who claims the miracles of jesus or any prophet, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. (Will you allow a difference of opinion here?)

    • I actually found it quite odd that unprovoked she stated, “He never raped me.”.
      Even if Travis never raped her, sounds to me like she was trying to convince someone else he wasn’t abusive in anyway, shape, or form – that person being herself.

      And that matter isn’t if she killed Travis or not. The matter is if she premeditated the killing or not.
      There is no doubt Jodi killed Travis (if we are going by her admission, I know some don’t think she did).

      I think during the interrogation, when she said that, she was still protecting her abuser, Travis.
      Albeit mentally, physically, or sexually – I think she still loved him and I think she still wanted to believe he was a good person. Hence why she continued the abusive relationship with him, she wanted to believe he was a good person because she loved him.

      Thoughts anyone?

      • While I don’t think the lying makes her look good, I wonder more about the lies. Was she establishing an alibi when she phoned him post death or was she out of it. When she wrote in her diary as if he was alive, where was her mind at? If she were covering her tracks, she would have done a better job IMO. Nothing about was methodical. It was sloppy. First of all, who would think they wouldnt be tracked when renting a car? Surely, if she premeditated this, she would know the fact that she rented a car would be found out.

        I think she was protecting herself and Travis. When they pulled out the pictures, she looked embarrassed to me. I believe she thought nobody would believe her so she lied.

        The gun – there was a rash of burglaries during that time. If I were a juror I would disregard that because they can’t prove for sure she took the gun. We know she used a .25 but we don’t know for sure where she got it.

        When the jury asked about any knives being taken – I don’t see how the cops can know for sure that it wasn’t his knife. Sure they may have not been knives missing in the kitchen, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have one elsewhere in the home.

        • CJ, I agree with you too that we don’t know why she lied or where her mind was at the time. She made another comment in her interview about how she “naively thought that she could pretend that it didn’t happen”. Sounds like a defense mechanism to me, similar to how Casey acted after Caylee’s death.

          I agree about the knife too. I have kitchen knives that aren’t part of a set, they were given to me individually by my mom who had an extra, one was my husband’s before we got married, etc. We don’t know that the knife wasn’t Travis’s or one of his roommates’.

          • Kira,

            I asked this last night but cant find the answer. Do you know if the cop that testified about the break in said it looked staged?

          • @ CJ to answer your question obout the grandparents house and the missing gun – I believe as David stated it was implied to be a staged burglary – I read that the door to the residence had been forcefully entered and drawers were left open and rumaged through in the residence. The investigator mentioned it was an “odd” crime scene due to the items that were taken as well as left behind- $30 in cash and small items including the 25 cal pistol were taken – but he noted other guns stored with the 25 cal – were not taken and other valuables including coins and Jodis laptop were left behind. ( I believe it was explained by Jodi the laptop was hidden in dirty clothes therefore it was not taken) I am going off memory so please anybody if I forgot something or got it wrong please set things strait.

        • We do not know if Ms Arias used a gun at all…. No one has said they found her prints on the gunshell case or on the bullet. The only prints they found of hers were the ones in blood on the wall. So far they have not come up with any weapon at all. All we know is that Detective Flores kept nattering at her until he got a confession. So she admitted to guilt by coersion.

          • Yes Debbie, what you said….she gave up and I think the invasions story was closer to the truth.

            It was not diabolical or methodical…or she would have asked for a lawyer right away.

            As an aside…gun shell casing DO bounce VERY easily on a hard surface. Anyone who has gone to a gun range can attest to that. Just because it was on top of blood doesn’t 100% mean if was after the stabbings/slashing.

            The prosecutor was total jacka$$ to ask if it was a magical case. What an idiot.

          • Wait a minute, can someone help me out with this. The prosecution is charging Jodi with shooting and stabbing. Her defense is that she attacked in self defense. Did she ever say, I attacked in self defense, but only with a knife …someone else must have shot him??? Help me please.

        • Well, we know one thing about the gun; she did not come to possess it by LEGAL MEANS. She broke the law. She didn’t have time to buy the pistol, go through the background check, the waiting period and then go pick it up. In California they generally tack on 10 more years for using a firearm in commission of a crime. Do they do that in AZ? Because it could mean a LOT IF she is found guilty of the lesser form of manslaughter, in which case the judge COULD (probably would not, given the facts) give her as little as five years, and she’s already done more than four, so she could walk out a free woman in a very short time, or possibly that day if this thing drags out.
          IF JA takes the stand, she is going to be asked about the gun she shot Travis with and where she got it. I mean, she can’t DENY she had a gun. She admitted she killed the guy. So where did she get it and where is it now? She is going to be DRILLED AND GRILLED on this if she takes the stand, and rightly so. It’s a huge point. But back to the gun use…could she get an additional ten for the use of the gun in AZ? Anybody?? (

          • Well Paul, Detective Flores told her in their first phone call that you don;t even need a permit to have a .25 caliber hand gun in arizona and that she should think of getting one if she is going to be driving long distances at night.

        • There are so many aspects of this case that I have questioned – and continue to question.
          I don’t know if we’ll ever know in what order that night played out, so all I can do is speculate.

          I’m glad we’re sharing wavelenghts, at least I don’t feel like I’m way off on my speculations!

          Thanks Kira.
          I’ve appriciated your comments and enjoy reading your ideas too.

    • @JC

      Yes, you’re right! The evidence is (as you put it) ‘pretty compelling and sufficient.’ But, this proves what??

      It proves that SHE did in fact kill him! Miss Arias has already confessed to killing him. So, proving she did it is really a moot point, right?

      At this point, the prosecution is trying to prove the charges that Mr. Alexander’s murder was premeditated by Miss Arias…this IS really the central focus of the entire trial.

      And that has been my point all along: sufficient doubt exists to completely disprove the premeditation charges since the ME has testified that Mr. Alexander was stabbed FIRST and then shot LATER. (Please see my post above.)

      • David,

        If the charges are murder 1 and or/ felony murder, can the jury convict on a lesser charge? Or does the state have to ask for that?

        • Depends on the statutes of the State. The jury may ONLY convict on the charges presented to them.

          Let’s say I’ve been charged with stealing, but it was later proven that I raped somebody in the process…unless I was initially indicted for said rape charges, I cannot be convicted of them in my stealing trial. The jury has to be aware of the charges from the start of the trial so they can convict accordingly.

          The State would have to motion for lesser charges if they were not already stated. I’m fairly certain though, that the State filed for manslaughter and second degree murder charges (as was already mentioned in a previous post.)

          Hope this helps!

      • So David,
        Should she take the stand, can she plead the fifth when asked about the gun and knife and wouldn’t that really hurt her case? Or can she even be asked about that? Do you think they should keep her off the stand even though the defense pundits on TV thinks she has to given the self defense plea?

        • @CJ

          Well, it really depends on a MYRIAD of circumstances. Based on what has been presented and what little I know AND IF I was the attorney defending her, I would suggest to her to take the stand ONLY IF I couldn’t get the premeditated charges dropped. At least then, she doesn’t have her life to lose by taking the stand, right?

          She is definitely going to be convicted of SOMETHING…that much, we know to be true!

          I would coach her on precisely what to say. Whether or not it’s an outright lie, she would have to tell the jury that she shot him FIRST and stabbed him to death LATER to at least corroborate with her claim of Self Defense. It is going to be extremely difficult for her to prove Self Defense if Mr. Alexander was stabbed first and shot later. No way, no how! The slash to the throat would have definitely killed him; the final shot to the head was just adding insult to injury! Then if the results of the cross examination were favorable, it would be very likely that the jury would convict her of a much lesser charge such as involuntary manslaughter (which I do not believe she has been indicted for involuntary manslaughter.) The fact is, she has already confessed to killing Mr. Alexander, but it will be solely up to the jury to decide if the killing was an accident or premeditated and to what degree and that is why I would suggest she take the stand AFTER removing the possibility of a premeditated murder conviction.

        • @CJ

          No, she cannot plead the fifth. But, she can lie! And we’ve already seen sufficient proof that the woman can sure lay out a whopper or two…or three!

          Why can’t she plead the fifth? Because as far as I know, she has NOT been indicted for theft. Pleading the fifth is only possible in the event you were to incriminate yourself on the charges filed against you.

          If the Mr. Martinez were to ask her, “Did you premeditate the murder of Mr. Travis Alexander?” This would set the grounds for her to plead the fifth because she has been indicted for murder charges.

          Does that make sense?

          • Yes. Now I understand. So, the prosecutor would ask about the gun. If this were your case, what would you coach her say? That the gun was already in the home? And was the victim’s?

      • @David, this all happened within a 2 minute time frame. If it wasn’t premeditated why then did she have a knife and gun readily available for combat? How could she have found Both in such a short time to defend herself?

        Someone also mentioned her dragging him. I see it being highly possible because he was naked, wet from water and covered in blood. The floor must have been slippery because of the blood and water. And it was on a tile floor so the dragging to me would seem like he would glide across the floor .

        • @Interesting

          You make a very valid point and those are great questions. I do believe that there are more questions than answers with regards to this trial. Regardless, it truly doesn’t matter if doubt exists for the stories/theories of the defense. What matters is if there be the existence any doubt for the prosecution.

          We can speculate from now until the End of Times ‘why she had a knife and gun readily available for combat’ and ‘how she could have found both in such a short time to defend herself.’ But again, the burden of proof is NOT with the defense, but rather the prosecution. Miss Arias needs ONLY to create sufficient doubt in the minds of twelve jurors that she did not murder Mr. Alexander in a premeditated fashion to at least avoid that particular charge.

          Like I said, she is going to be convicted with SOMETHING…manslaughter at the very least simply because she has already confessed to killing Mr. Alexander. Unlike the State of Florida, Arizona does not have a ‘Stand your ground’ law. So her claim of Self Defense does NOT preclude her from a conviction.

        • We don’t know that both the gun and the knife happened in a two-minute time frame. There’s one shot of Travis bleeding at 5:32 PM, but nothing indicating that it was just the knife, just the gun, or both at that point.

          • This is very true. I never really thought of it that way.

            I suppose if the gun was first, as some speculate, then the photos would prove they were both used in the 1:38 time frame. Since in the “dragging” photo there are pools of blood (first thought to be a foot) and lots of blood running down Travis’ neck.

            However, if the knife was first, you’ve brought up a good point. The photos don’t nessecarily prove there was a time frame for the weapon use.

            Interesting thought Kira.

          • When she told the second story, she said the gun jammed when the intruder used it. I suspect the gun did jam only it jammed with her using it.

            I know it’s only speculation, but I dont think she carried both into the home. I don’t think Travis kept an inventory of his knives in the home. I think she could have grabbed a knife during the fight. I know it sounds like a short time, but it would only take seconds, to run somewhere and grab a knife, especially if one were laying about post sex ( thought taken from previous discussion.)

  11. For all you guys that were curious before, I was able to discover that yes, there are lesser included charges for Jodi Arias (second degree and manslaughter).
    Anybody surprised that the state rested its case after just 9 days? I was pretty surprised at what they ended on. The prosecutor, Juan Martinez, was not very pleased with Leslie Udy’s testimony regarding Arias’ demeanor and personality. So, he showed Udy photos of a nude Arias posing in sexually explicit positions and asked her if she knew about that side of Arias. Udy replied, “No.”
    What did he prove? He proved that either 1.) apparently according to him you don’t know anyone unless you’ve slept with them or 2.) this woman never slept with Jodi Arias. WTH!! And then he asked her this: are you familiar with these pants and he showed her one of the crime scene photos and she said no. So, no she never saw Jodi Arias wearing the perpetrator’s pants and/or she doesn’t have a pair of pants like that. Proves what? I guess this was another attempt to show she didn’t “really know” Arias, uhmm…okay… So she hasn’t seen her wear every pair of pants she owns. Wow, I guess you don’t know someone unless you’ve seen them naked and all their pants. Come on! Reminds me of in the Casey Anthony trial when the prosecution witnesses all (except for George Anthony) said good things about Casey Anthony and destroyed the prosecution’s motive, their best comeback was at closing saying that “they don’t know what a good mother is”. Really? Way to insult their intelligence and all their mothers!
    Pretty lack luster ending if you ask me. I’m not commenting on the evidence in this trial, just saying that their presentation certainly wasn’t amazing.

    • What did he prove? He proved that either 1.) apparently according to him you don’t know anyone unless you’ve slept with them or 2.) this woman never slept with Jodi Arias. WTH!!

      LOL

      So true.

      And thanks for the info about the charges too!

      • He also proved his kind of sexist because what does that photo show anyhow? Her in pigtails. Is he suggesting that she is the ‘bad’ one when both participated?

    • Thanks for the info on the lesser charges; I was wondering about that!

      I definitely think that the prosecution went out with a whimper and I did not understand why Martinez would show Jodi’s friends those bedroom photos. He comes across as a sexist, petty bully.

    • Where exactly did you ‘discover’ there were lesser charges??

      Because contrary to your ‘discovery’, Miss Jodi Arias was indicted for premeditated murder in the first degree or the alternative murder in the first degree and burglary.

      Nonetheless, you make some valid points in your post

  12. I honestly believe she was imposed to seam like she did it. This could of been a threat on Travis by someone who did not approve of him. He worked for a law firm of some type and you know when you mess with people from prison or people from a organized crime you are bound to die if you cross the line. Maybe Jodie was a target and she may have been a pawn. They always menrion a MOB tyoe of execution right. They needed someone to take the fall. No gun No knife. She could of been there at the time and they could of warned her if she did not confess she would probably suffer the same way. People need to think outside the box sometimes. Why would there be blood in the car and not all over the house. Something doesn’t seam right to me. I hope she gets judged right and not wrong. Why would they also take pictures naked. Jodie looked uneasy in all of them no smile. All a question mark gesture on her face. Ther was more people in that house that day and made sure all the evidence pointed at Jodi. No Gun No knife but only pictures that. So that’s there smoking gun.

    • I do wonder why the police didn’t ask Jodi where she dumped the knife and gun. She confessed, so why wouldn’t they look for the weapons?

    • I agree with you. That is what I’m still sticking with. And the camera…. left behind WITH THE MEMORY STICK, by a photographer, in such a stupid place too. The lic plate, her not getting a lawyer until way ltr, her opening her big mouth (as to get caught), and on n on……. she was threatened to take the fault.

    • If I was going to trial, I’d sure want LC and Kira on my jury! I’d be WALKING!
      I’m sure you’re both nice people, but you have to understand there is ZERO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of anyone else being there for this event! NOTHING! Everything they have shown comes back to JA, and it should…she admitted she killed the guy…after she said she wasn’t there at all one day, then went with the two ninjas story, then went with her claim of self defense. There is no evidence to back any story but the one the prosecution is laying down. The defense is going to need to show something beyond an ever changing story. From my experience, JURIES DO NOT TAKE KINDLY TO THIS SERIAL LYING. They tend to disregard further claims of innocence from such lying testimony. Just know that. Every jury is different. I heard this is a very conservative looking bunch of jurors.

      • I am not convinced there is no evidence of anyone else being there.

        They had Jodi in their sites and did not even look for roommate prints…

        I don’t think the investigator covered all the bases.

        • not attacking just wondering where the statement they didnt check for roomate/other prints comes from? did law enforcment admitt to this on the stand? seems odd they wouldnt be looking for any and all prints during a murder investigation. Also I am assuming the roomates prints being found in the house would not be all that shocking unless they were bloody prints or obviously related to the killing.

          • I haven’t watched the whole thing yet so I cannot quote word for word. The jury asked questions and here is a link to some:

            http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-jurys-questions-suggest-doubt-investigation/story?id=18229073

            “Did Mr. Alexander have another boarder living in the house (and) were fingerprints of the boarder taken to see if they matched the scene?”

            I believe the “detective” said he didn’t remember or something along those lines.

          • The roommates made a statement on facebook about what went down that night. After the 911 call, they were questioned. They felt they may have been suspects at one point but they weren’t sure. After the questioning, they had to stay elsewhere for three months away from their things. They were whisked away by the bishop, who had found them places to stay for the duration of the home being a crime scene. Other than the questioning that night, they didnt mention any more investigating on part of LE.

          • First the jury asked if there was a boarder in the home (I assume they meant outside the roommates discussed). Flores responded “NO”. The next question didnt really make sense but Flores answered it anyway becs my take was he assumed that they meant the other roommates. “Were fingerprints taken of the boarder”? Flores responded YES, but he was obviously referring to the room-mates since there was NO boarder! . The room-mates fingerprints were taken. But as someone mentioned earlier, they WOULD be present in the house anyway. Now, whether they would be prevalent in Travis’ room is another story. But from my impression, the roommates were looked at and ruled out. I think if there was someone else present the odds of it being a roommate is pretty nil. Another person? possibly. But the roommates I do not buy.

        • Here’s my understanding.

          Jodi changed her story from not being there to being there with intruders, and finally, to a plea of self defense.

          The progression of admitting more and more ‘involvement’ (that she was there), and then finally that she did it in self defense, was, I think, motivated by the mounting evidence that proved she was there.

          I’m hearing a lot about how there’s no dna, there’s no palm print, there’s no proof. If that’s the case, I would think she would have stuck to her original story of “I wasn’t there.”

          So, I’m thinking that some of this crappy, made up, planted ‘evidence’ is actually quite the opposite, and is in fact, compelling, and not just some rogue and vengeful incompetent prosecutor and police trying to railroad someone.

          • I don’t think I have seen anyone on here say there is no DNA, no palm print no proof. And I must have missed it if someone said it was “planted”.

            What some of us are saying is that they didn’t look very hard for any other evidence especially given the example of the missed gun in the later rental car that the rental place found.

            The links i gave above are just a reminder that nothing is 100% accurate.

      • With all due respect, you don’t know me or LC and have no idea how we’d evaulate the evidence if we were on your jury. Just because we (and many others on this site) are asking questions and not immediately buying into HLN’s hype does not mean that we think Jodi will walk. I personally do not think she will, especially since second degree murder/manslaughter are on the table.

        If you read back through my posts, you’ll see that I’ve never suggested that Jodi didn’t do it. I am just wondering why the police did not ask her where she dumped the weapons. So the personal insults aren’t necessary, Paul.

        • Agree Kira. Obviously, something hinky was going on with the investigation unless we believe flores just made a mistake when testifying before the GJ and saying she shot first because the ME told him – then backtracking while in court. (not to mention, sitting in trial the entire time as witness which to me, is rotten too.)

          • And we all know she will be convicted of something… I just want it to be fair and proportional to what really happened that day. I think if the prosecutor had texts and emails showing travis as a kind hearted guy taken in by some abusive sociopath, well we would have seen them during his presentation.

      • Has anyone ever heard of people actually confessing to crimes and serving lifetime sentences they did not commit?? Some have also been executed and then found innocent after the execution.

        I was watching a documentary on this a few months ago and it’s sad.
        Herbert Murray, who was convicted of murder in 1979, said “When the judge asked me did I have anything to say, I couldn’t say, because tears were coming down and I couldn’t communicate. I couldn’t turn around and tell the family that they got the wrong man.” The judge said he believed the defense’s alibi witnesses; however, the judge was required by law to respect the jury’s decision. he served close to 20 years.

        Anyway, idk if this is the whole case with Jodi. I blv she was there n had something to do with it for sure. I’m just saying that it LOOKED like TO MEEEEEEEE, that there is someone else involved n she’s not saying.

        • Yes. I have read about coerced confessions even! TImes where people admit to something they haven’t done because of cop tactics, feeling powerless etc. I’ve also read of innocent people taking a plea because they figure they are toast anyway.

      • You are right. No evidence because they didn’t look for any. They didn’t test for other prints. They didn’t look anywhere else. So that would leave the evidence pointing just to jodi.

        • Right??? And that would explain why the camera was left behind (w/the memory card) in the machine, the stains in the car, the lic plate, her calling TA phone afterwards. Even that photo that everyone is so confused about with the right arm n foot. I think that was the other person (much stronger) then Jodi, holding TA up.

    • I agree with you that something is amiss. I don’t think the mob would stab a person though. They are cleaner when they put a hit on someone. The throat slice speaks to more ritualistic killing which brings back the theory that someone within that religion may have been involved. However, I think that is very unlikely. Google satanic cults and mormon religion and see why you find. There was a rash of that going on in the 90s. I dont know those groups are still infiltrating the church though.

      • I think these theories are reaching a bit as you said – I also tried googling satanic cults Christian religion and Catholic religion and the stories of infiltration to the church and theories are all very similar and widespread against them as well. Even alledging a satanic cults presence in the Vatican Pretty tough to make this theory carry any weight imo

        • Oh I know, just saying… A book was written called Hellminusone. The women exposed what was going on in the church and obtained written confessions from her parents about all the goings on. It was interesting.

          But in this case, this is a very far reaching theory.

  13. Sheesh!

    I’m so very glad that I do not practice law in Arizona! I looked up the State’s definition of ‘premeditation’ and under 13-1105 it says this:

    “Premeditation” means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection. Proof of actual reflection is not required, but an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.”

    That is just so incredibly vague! And WTF??? “Proof of actual reflection is not required”. REALLY??!! I mean…SERIOUSLY???!! Essentially, this ultimately relieves the State of the Burden of Proof regarding premeditated murder!

    Okay, so maybe the defense would most likely not get the charges dropped since Arizona’s definition is green bananas, but they can STILL at least cast a good bit of doubt if they argue Mr. Alexander was stabbed FIRST and shot LAST according to the MEs testimony. The State is trying to prove premeditation since the circumstantial evidence points to Miss Arias stealing the .25 caliber gun, HOWEVER the gun was NOT the first weapon used to murder Mr. Alexander according to the ME.

    • So that legal definition means that all a person has to do is think for a millisecond that they want to kill someone? That makes no sense to me.

  14. Oh, and don’t even get me started on that photo of Mr. Alexander lying on the bathroom floor! That photo does not prove that he is dead nor is he being ‘dragged’ all around. Take a closer look. His head is clearly lifted up from the tile floor.

    Look closer at his right arm. It too is lifted and crossed over the front of his body. It is quite possible he is being dragged by his left arm, but highly unlikely.

    And look at the amount of blood running down the right side of his face and neck. He clearly sustained an injury to his face or maybe the back of his head…

    • The court enhanced version shows it much better. The trails of blood are going down his right shoulder, indicating the wound is somewhere on his face OR possibly his neck, but his head and right arm would not be lifted up from the floor as shown in the photo if his throat were slashed at that point. Plus, there would be A LOT more blood.

      Just my humble observation…

      • Hi David,
        I am not from the States so I am not sure how the legal system works over there. However, do you think it would have been worth considering that Jodi’s defence use the defence of necessity? Would have this been a viable option?

        Thanks

        • Defense of necessity is not even an option in Miss Arias’ case. There is no way for her to reasonably justify that her killing of Mr. Alexander would have prevented a much greater harm. IF Mr. Alexander was on his way to slaughter a bunch of school children at a local school and Miss Arias had no other choice BUT to kill him to save the children then MAYBE defense of necessity would apply.

          Hope that explains it

          • But if she thought her life was in grave danger in that moment and he was going to kill her, wouldn’t it be a similar thing? She had to kill him to save herself?

            Yes it does though…the necessity defence is very confusing or is it just me? Oh and good job for giving everyone great information.

  15. If “new evidence” is being brought forth, and they’re having a hearing on it on 1/28 to determine it’s admissability, then it must be evidence FOR the Defense, since the Prosecution rested, correct?

    Any ideas on what this new evidence may be?

  16. Well, isn’t this very interesting?

    “This motion is based upon the grounds that the office has previously represented an individual in this case and further representation of Ms. Arias would run the serious risk of violating and/or disclosing confidential information obtained from our former client, may be directly adverse to the former client and may involve the use of information relating to the representation of the former client that would be to their disadvantage.”

    So THIS IS WHY Victoria Washington made a motion to withdraw as Miss Arias’ defense counsel??? This really begs the question…WHO IS this ‘individual previously represented in THIS case’ and ‘would be to their disadvantage’???

    Is it just me or is getting hot in here?!

    Holy green bananas donkey kong, What you got hidin’ in those barrels?

    And the plot thickens…

    • Originally Ms Washington was Ms Arias defense attorney and then Ms Arias decided she did not need an attorney and wished to defend herself. The judge allowed it but then Ms Arias tried to get some things introduced into evidence that were supposedly bogus. Ms Arias stated she was in over her head and asked for a defense attorney once again, at which time Ms Washington was reappointed as her defense attorney.

      • could someone plz expand on the above mentioned conflict of interest. also what is the bogus evidence that JA tried to provide? I must have missed this latest stuff

        • There is a motion on this page discussing letters she wanted to introduce proving travis abused her. The prosecutor believed she forged them. The state ruled the letters would be hearsay evidence. There is something in the motion about handwriting analysis though I don’t understand what it meant. Maybe you could try and decipher it?

    • So could that be another witness? I know this is pure speculation but when it says, “this case”. Perhaps the person she represented, had knowledge of what happened? Is that what the motion is really saying?

      • The motion is simply saying that Ms. Washington (or some public defender associated with the firm) represented somebody involved in this case. ‘This case’ being the murder of Mr. Travis Alexander. It could be anybody! Unfortunately, we don’t know who that ‘somebody’ is. For a moment, I thought maybe it was Mr. Alexander until I noticed the motion mentioned they were not aware of the conflict until December 15, 2011.

  17. Is it just me, or did the prosecution NOT prove MOTIVE? Or maybe I missed something, or maybe it’s because I’m Canadian, haha, but seriously, I was waiting for the State to “prove” that she was indeed a jealous psycho ex-girlfriend. I heard no proof of that whatsoever. I was shocked to say the least that the State rested. Albeit, happy they did.
    I also have another question that hopefully someone can answer about text messaging. How are text messages allowed to be used as evidence in a court of law. For instance, I could easily text anyone something randomly. I could text my ex right now and say “I’m sorry, I won’t do it again. Please don’t kill me”. How does anybody “really” know if I had just sent it to screw with him, maybe I was reciting a line in a movie, maybe I was drunk. In any case, I feel that text messages in a court case are also hearsay.
    I wish people will remember, that she DID NOT admit to this crime until her new lawyers were involved 2 YEARS LATER, and that the lawyers made her do this in an effort to make a “case”, in which they felt they could avoid the DP. I believe if she stuck to her home invasion story, she would have been acquitted. I’m not blaming them, but everybody seems to be stuck on the fact that she admitted doing it. I don’t believe this is the case.
    At the end of the day, her lawyers, the police and the prosecutors are indeed A LOT more guilty than she is, in every aspect of their lives/careers.
    Just my humble ‘ol Canadian opinion. 🙂

    • Nope, not just you!

      I personally think the home invasion story was closer to the truth by the way she was shaking and crying compared to the first story.

      Her defense team makes me very mad. I feel they are doing a horrendous job.

      I feel the Mesa detective is a perve who did not do his job properly by not looking at everyone.

      • I’m not happy with the defense either. But, I think the rules of engagement ( LOL) are different in AZ and they have been prevented from entering certain things into evidence.

    • Yeppers DD, I was shocked too when they rested… I’ve been so far behind you guys, watching the trial late at night, so I’ve missed out on some great conversation! I will be caught up and ready to go on the 29th so I can follow along with you all… I have a million things to say, but here’s just a few… I know motive (or in this case, lack thereof) doesn’t technically have to be proven, and the defense holds no burden of proof, however, most jurors need it, expect it, and without those elements satisfied the jury could convict. From my point of view, if I were a juror, I would have a tough time swallowing the self defense claim if he was shot first. I just don’t find it the slightest bit plausible that she would’ve had both a gun and a knife immediately accessible. When considering the circumstances and the evidence at the crime scene, it just doesn’t make sense. This was a sudden attack. The knife, yes…it’s been said they had used one earlier. Regardless, a knife in the bathroom, within reach, is much easier for me to believe than a gun… In my interpretation of the crime scene, blood patterns and spatter, the path Travis took from the shower to the sink and down the hall appears to be consistent with knife wounds, rather than a gun shot wound. For me, it has to be one or the other in the initial attack, up until she was able to grab the second weapon. So, I think when Jodi had the opportunity (imo, when Travis was at the sink) she darted into the bedroom to grab the gun, and while doing this Travis came down the hall, there was another struggle there (evidence shows slit his throat), and then she grabbed the gun. She dragged him back, he perhaps had some reflex movement, and she shot him. She said she was freaked out of her mind and she was probably quite jumpy. Anyway, for me, the knife has to come first. At least the way I interpret the evidence.

      • I agree starsky. There was quite a bit of conversation regarding this.
        It has been explained to me why some think Jodi’s defense should argue that the gun came first, but just my personal opinion (my opinion is by no means professional).
        I would believe, if I were a juror, that it were self defense more so if the knife was used first for the same reasons you are stating.

        • I almost agree. LOL Had his throat not been slit, I would agree. But with that wound, and the chest wound, I see why shooting first, then stabbing would be better in terms of self defense.

      • This is going on the theory that Jodi brought the gun with her… as someone has already suggested, she probably “borrowed” the gun before (without permission) to use as protection on her road trip. She probably didn’t put it back before it was discovered to be missing; hence, the theft report. At that point, she couldn’t cop to having the gun. I suspect she most likely did not know the gun was pretty useless in regards to protection.

        Most women who carry a gun carry it in their purse. That being said, if the gun was in her purse and the purse was in the bathroom, she would then have close access when he first came after her. We do not know if she had taken a shower or was planning on taking a shower, which would account for her purse in the bathroom.

        Since the gunshot did not completely disable him but probably further pissed him off, she had to go for the knife they had used for their earlier activities. This would also account for the amount of blood everywhere… just my rambling thoughts!

  18. I have good close freinds and family and don’t know or give a damn about there sexual practices. Sexual activity that my freinds have is private and It is not what I look for in a freindship. this baby Huey looking pervert detective Flores character and mannerism of interrogation/sexual deviant mannerism should be cross examined by the defense. mr Napoleon prosecuter attitude is turning out to be the defenses best ticket. I am beginning to want to see him in the chair with his little man temper tantrums.

  19. David –

    I may be the first person in the history of the world to say this, but it’s nice to have a lawyer here! 😉

    I really appreciate all your comments, though I’m not sure I entirely agree with you about the sequence of events. The ME testified that the gunshot would have, at the very least, incapacitated TA instantly. Had the gunshot come first, I can’t imagine how the defense could claim that the rest of the attack was in self-defense. However, I have no problem believing that TA, probably pumped full of adrenaline, could have remained mobile for at least a short time, and at least appeared to JA to have been a continued threat.

    I found in interesting that she said, during the interrogation, that if she had killed him, she would have made it as humane as possible. I think that fits with what we have seen of her character, and goes a long way towards explaining the gunshot. Let’s say that TA was still alive, maybe even conscious, after she stabbed him. Knowing he was dying, and being freaked out, she decided to humanely “end his suffering” by cutting his throat. And not being in the most rational state of mind, she then went to get the gun and shot him, just to be sure.

    Now that I type that out, though, I can see why that theory would go back to throwing self-defense into question. One of the many reasons this case is so intriguing….

    • I greatly appreciate your feedback.

      Truly, the only reason I would contend that the bullet to the face came before the knife is to
      1) logically account for the expert testimony of body dragging and the ‘intense’ struggle in the hallway
      And
      2) uphold Miss Arias’ claim of self defense-it simply is not conceivable if Mr. Alexander had his throat slashed BEFORE acquiring a bullet to his brow.
      3) to logically explain Miss Arias’ excessive use of force; seriously, why continue inflicting fatal wounds on somebody who is clearly deceased if the alleged intent was simply to kill him??

      • I read it somewhere that his throat was not slit “from ear to ear” but a slash of one side. I think that defense will say the knife was brought to the bedroom by Alexander for the kinky sex (tied up ..) because the defense implied that the fiber on the slipper was not from the fringed pillow. If Jodi brought both a gun and a knife, it is not good for non premeditation. If I speculate pro Jodi, she got the gun from the car after the darkness (much later), still in the bloody clothes (“Kool Aide” on the car seat front and back), and she thought about killing herself. I can imagine that she probably went through all kind of emotions after this toxic relationship ended up with one dead. She could not do it, instead, at moment of hate again, she shot him.

        • I heard that he was almost decapitated. But I don’t know where I heard that. I have not heard the ME’s entire testimony. Was he almost decapitated or was he just slashed on one side as you say here?

  20. I hate this Prosecutor he is such a bully. I hope Jodi’s defense really comes out hitting hard on the 29th. But, I just want to say something all Prosecutors are not bad. We need both. We need Prosecutors to get justice for that girl in Stubenville those asswipe football players raped or the Sandusky victims. That girl could be your sister or daughter or even Casey. When I saw those pictures of that girl it hurt me. We need Defense Lawyers to fight for people so they don’t go to jail for crimes they didn’t commit like Casey or Jodi.

  21. David,
    In your post where you explain self defense from the POV of the prosecutor makes sense. So could they argue that this was imperfect self defense such as in the Mendenez case? Could a person have reason to defend themselves and do so, but in the heat of the moment overkill happens? I could see that happening actually. Jodi starts to defend herself, a the fight ensues, and rage sets in? Could the jury see both?

    • Great add to the discussion CJ!

      Unfortunately, I do not believe so because I’m fairly certain Arizona does not recognize this common law doctrine of imperfect self defense. However, that does not mean Judge Stephen’s instructions to the jury will preclude it either. It has been recognized in but a few States.

      Hope that answers your question!

  22. “Well Paul, Detective Flores told her in their first phone call that you don;t even need a permit to have a .25 caliber hand gun in arizona and that she should think of getting one if she is going to be driving long distances at night.”

    WHATT??? I really need to watch everything this weekend.

    So the detective called her and talked about a .25 BEFORE the ME had the results??? Was the ME THAT fast? You can’t tell by the shell casing necessarily what the caliber is THAT fast.

    • BeeCee actually it is quite easy to tell the caliber of the casing both from the size of the casing … but more so by the fact they stamp the caliber on the bottom of the casing to avoid mix ups as putting the wrong caliber bullet into a gun could be devastating.

    • Yes BeeCee they had found the casing and he was fishing for answers at that point. Detective Flores had already been told by several of TA’s friends that they thought JA did it. They all told him that she had slashed his tires the year before. He had told them that but as far as has been shown so far, police were never called. It will be interesting when Lisa Andrews takes the stand because he was at her home when his tires were slashed.

    • If that is true, then we need to look at a certain detective as a potential suspect! He is smarmy and would probably love to pin this “crime” on innocent Jodi.

  23. Gotta mention that I have attended a few days of this trial myself (three or four to be exact) and also have to say that I am far from overwhelmed by the evidence/case presented by the prosecution here. It seems like a weak case at best. Detective Flores in my mind did indeed provide false testimony at other trials (which I thought Kirk Nurmi did a nice job of pointing out) and then you have he and the medical examiner who can’t seem to agree on one specific story, especially in regards to whether the knife or the gun have been used. Plus they never even recovered a weapon to begin with. I know, Jodi Arias first denied killing Travis Alexander at first before claiming self defense which doesn’t make her look great, but guess what? The detectives, medical examiner and the prosecutor don’t look too great either. I mean, what was up with Juan Martinez intentionally dropping that camera on Monday afternoon? What the hell kind of prosecutor does that?

    Gotta say that I like Jodi’s defense counsel in Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott. For court appointed attorneys, I think they’re doing a pretty solid job so far in poking holes into the case against their client. So much so that I agree with Nurmi; I certainly wouldn’t convict Miss Arias of capital murder based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor. I hope that charge against her gets tossed out. I’m not saying she’s guilty of absolutely nothing, but unless something drastically changes, I can’t see why this went as far as Jodi even being charged with capital murder much less seeing her on trial for it.

    • I wanted to mention that me (David) and this poster (also named David) are not the same person, unfortunately, we have the same name.

      • How do we know which David is which? 🙂 🙂 🙂

        Is David , the attorney, also the David poster who actually attended the trial a few days?

  24. Hey Everybody, Just found this site. I am a big opponent of the Death Penalty so that is why I am hoping the girl doesn’t get convicted on First Degree. I have not completely made up my mind -as to what -if anything- she should be held accountable for though. So far, things look really bad for her. To me, the whole ‘self-defense’ idea…saying Travis blew up because she dropped the camera? And yet she “trashed” the dude’s BMW and “he took it really well”…I don’t know…Whats gonna make the jury believe that this is not just another lie??

    No matter what .. the Death Penalty is a hideous, archaeic remedy that should be banned.

    I am very interested in talking about this case. David, I have to say, while I also appreciate your insight, I am not so sold on your reasons that they cannot prove premeditation just because she didn’t shoot first. ..For the same reason someone else said above… using the picnic, steak, chicken analogy. Did you ever reach out to her attorneys?

    • Actually, I did. Highly unlikely I will get a response though simply because they are focused on this trial. And rightly so…

      Anyway, as I’ve already said, as a criminal defense attorney, I need not prove anything, I only need to establish reasonable doubt in the minds of 12 jurors. Have you ANY doubt that Miss Arias’ alleged INTENTIONS were to kill Mr. Alexander based solely on what you heard from the prosecution thus far??

      We already know she killed him, she admitted it! but was it her INTENTION? That is the whole point and central theme of the charges and this trial.

      • Hi David.

        Absolutely I Actually have MORE than just “some” doubt… quite a bit in fact… I am starting to think this was more of a crime of passion. But I have a vested interest in the outcome..I want to see her NOT get the Death Penalty – I don’t know where the majority of the jurors stand on the DP. But the crime of passion theory is ONLY because I have not heard from the defense yet. I want to see some evidence of a history of clear physical abuse in order for me to feel confident that these jurors can vote to acquit. In my mind it cannot be just emotional. Making her feel bad because he wanted sex but did not want a public relationship with her. Is this cruel? Absolutely. But Men and women everyday “use” people for sex. Very few people will see that as worthy of being killed. Not to mention the shock factor associated with these injuries…This is not in anyway to underscore what mental cruelty can do to a person but …the injuries to Travis in my mind will REQUIRE evidence of physically hurting her. Perhaps her attorneys have evidence of Travis’ treatment of women via another relationship? That would help. Do you know, if her attorneys had gone that route (crime of passion), whether the DP could have been removed because It also obviously eliminates the whole premeditation argument??

        • I can reassure you that the men and women of that jury are ‘open’ to the death penalty (Mr. Martinez would have grilled them individually during the selection process.) If anybody came out and said, “I’m against the death penalty.” Or “I’m not for the death penalty.” They would have promptly been dismissed from the jury box. Now, if any of them didn’t admit to being against the death penalty when in fact they are (believe me, this happens more often then one would think) then that only helps the accused avoid getting the death penalty. I’m not sure if Arizona is like most States in which the jury recommends the sentence to the judge or if the judge decides on their own.

          Yes, the death penalty would effectively be removed as punishment if the jury were to decide it was a crime of passion/act of self defense.

          Death penalty most always applies to cases involving premeditation, intention, and/or calculation.

          • “since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ring v. Arizona, a recommendation of the trial jury is required to impose a sentence of death.”

            Found it!

          • Why would a potential juror not disclose his true beliefs on the DP during voir dire? The only reason I can think of is that they must not know how they truly felt in the first place. Do researchers study jurors and juries? It sounds interesting if they do.

          • @CJ
            Not exactly sure why people do it, though they are the minority. Maybe they want to be involved in a great big case, maybe like you said…they really don’t know where they stand, maybe they have nothing better to do and so the intense drama of a murder trial morbidly excites them…who knows…

  25. People keep saying it was overkill. I don’t care about the overkill if Travis was hitting on Jodi he deserved exactly what he got. Men who beat women are the lowest of the low. I despise men who hit women. If my father beat my mother or someone beat my sister or daughter. My parents taught me you don’t hit girls. There is just no excuse for hitting a woman. So, Travis deserved exactly what Jodi gave him. If it were up to me I’d let her go right now. She wouldn’t even be in jail or be on trial.

    • Neither is calling a woman a whore, slut, bitch, and telling them they are skinny, ugly, fat, will amount to nothing, a loser, and all those other words and the countless mindgames ppl play. ( It’s not right for women say cruel things either.) Travis (IM0) was more emotionally abusive than physically, just because of the distance between them. People talk about having “national conversations”. This case should cause that to happen about the effects of emotional abuse IMHO.

      • CJ, Has there been evidence presented so far (that maybe I missed) that proves Travis was emotionally abusive? I am talking ASIDE from what Jodi claims. After all, the jurors could easily think she has every reason to lie more just to save her life. My point again…we need evidence. Has there been any?

        • There has not been any evidence of either that she was a stalker OR that she was emotionally/otherwise abused,

          The only comment I have seen that “I” would take as emotional abuse was the one where he told her he was just a dildo with a heartbeat…without context, TO ME that could be that he was guilting her into coming to see him. I don’t think they even showed the rest of the conversation.

        • The evidence I heard was when Detective Flores testified about talked about emails between Travis and Jodi where he perceived that Travis was being mean to Jodi by what he had read. Then on cross, Martinez became angry at Flores for saying that but the statement itself was strong. Flores also testified that Travis called Jodi a whore, and a three-holed wonder in the emails. Then Martinez on cross, yelled and asked WHAT caused Travis to say that, Flores said something about Jodi that didn’t leave enough of an impression on me to remember.

          The defense talked about a phone-call Jodi recorded where Travis liked 12 year old orgasms and wanted to tie Jodi to a tree. Other than that, I hope we see more. ( I think based on the stuff I know that the jurors dont, he was an abusive, pious, temperamental jerk,

          • I will have to hunt that part down.

            So they didn’t actually SHOW the emails to the jury? If I were on the jury I would want to see it myself and not take the detective’s word on his impression. Cause right now Flores’ recall ability is not great, lol! Afterall, he misunderstood the ME! LOL

          • BeeCee,

            They did have the email on the projection screen because I saw him do that. But I don’t know whether the jury will be given their own copies to read over during deliberations. Good question ha.

          • @CJ
            The jury is given ALL admissible exhibits of the trial for jury deliberation…the email will definitely be in that big thick packet of exhibits 😉

            LOL, off the record, but that is probably one reason why Mr. Martinez doesn’t want all those text messages to be admissible! Seriously, imagine if you were prosecuting a case of this magnitude, would you want to burden the jury with the duty of reviewing some 15,000 text messages?

            The more you overwhelm a jury with ‘evidence’, the more likely they will begin to second guess some of it and subsequently their verdict.

    • But Jon, we NEED evidence to support that he was actually “hitting on Jodi”. So far, unfortunately, we only have Jodi’s word on this. Her “word” has been seriously tested thus far in trial. We can only hope the mysterious texts and emails (which BTW the defense DOES have now) will fill in some of the holes in this story.

      • I agree after thinking on this a bit. We do need more in terms of abuse. The expert will be great unless the defense stops now – and doesn’t offer anything in terms of tangible evidence such as the emails/texts and other evidence then they will have failed to prove much more than travis wrote one mean email and weird sex call.

        Looking at this objectively, the defense needs to really bring it, with regard to the abuse during their case presentation.

  26. hi i just found this webpage and have been reading all of your statements….

    Obviously its just my opinions and observation throughout this whole trial but i agree with Jon, maybe Travis was hurting her and she had to grab the knife to defend herself, or get the gun if that happened first…..

    I was thinking maybe he demanded her to stick around as his sex object and she didn’t want to any longer since he was gonna see other girls, something its been made known she didn’t like very much….(she didnt look very happy on some of those photos while Travis did!!)….and thats what the struggle was over?

    • This is pure speculation but I think Travis could have been very angry that she was going to see one of his friends. If he was the one to suggest that Ryan date her, it could have been one of those good old tests people like that give. The way he objectified women in his blog, and through his words, i find it unlikely that he was cool with her going to see his friend. I think they were fighting over that, him leaving and all the other crap going on in their relationship. I do think he became angry over the camera dropping. Why? Because people like that are easily angered. I don’t think the pictures were purposeful and were taken during the fight – the camera being part of the fight. I’m open though to other theories:-)

  27. agree Ben…all of the “facts” are not out yet…too many assumptions at this point…on Travis’s MySpace profile under who he would be interested in…he states anyone but WHORES yet there he is with Jody who I believe he told his friends was a whore?..he also states he’s interested in Women..Money & Power and considers himself a “stormin Mormon”…it doesn’t make sense to me that he seems to be contradicting his words with his actions? ..something just does not add up..maybe “Ryan” was with her during the killing or someone else who had an interest in her?…things are NOT always as they appear…we may never know the “truth” but should also not “rush to judgement”.

    • Yikes Jill. “anyone but whores” suggest to me he had issues with women. His blog talks about nobody being more cruel with words than his own mother. Can’t deny there could be a connection to his attitude toward women when he described how treated by his mother. I’m NOT saying all people abused by the opposite sex parent end up hating the opposite sex. I think he may have had the madonna/whore complex.

    • Oh wow, I’ve never heard about the “anyone but whores” comment until now.

      Yes, Travis definitely had a Madonna/whore view of women, based on his blogs. There were women who were good enough to marry and women who were only good enough to screw.

  28. Aside from what I mentioned above re: Jodi’s statements that the camera dropping triggered Travis to attack her …versus her statement as to his reaction when she ‘trashed his BMW…he took it really well” and the contradictions that this could imply to a jury…Here are some of my other concerns re: her self defense, and her attorneys strategies. How could she explain that she used a “reasonable and proportionate degree of violence in response to the abuse”? David, mustn’t she show in her defense that there was “actual abuse”? A history of it? So far, I have not seen any evidence that this is true. But I know her lawyers have not ..as yet …had their turn.

    • I’ve pondered the BMW thing…I wonder if saying he took it really well meant that it was a surprise he took it well? Also, she was still paying him, so he made her keep paying for it, it wasn’t like he was going to be out money for the BMW.

      • Yeah but, BeeCee, most people would blow up (abusive or not) if they found out someone “trashed” their car and would be expected to get upset…so I can see a jury hearing her saying “he took it really well” only goes to show or back-up a “gentle nature” on the part of Travis .

        So we only have her word that he blew up about the camera, when it seems to go against his nature..?

        To me they (jury) may very well see it as just another lie and that is a big concern unless her defense can show a verified history of abuse. I hope they can. Its gotta be somewhere if its there.

        • Well, someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought she had already “bought” the car from him and it was being towed back to CA with her and it was in gear and got torn up. In which case if he was no longer invested in it then he might not care as much…. There was also mention of an insurance company. I will go back and verify so I know if I am remembering incorrectly or not.

          In my experience, someone who cares about money would not blow up about something that was covered by insurance or was going to be paid for by someone else. If he purchased an expensive camera and it was broken, he might not have much time before his cancun trip to get another one, and Jodi wouldn’t have time to pay him back for it so he would have to buy another one very quickly.

          but eh, what do I know? Nothing really. LOL

          • Can you explain what happened with the car? I missed that all together.

            IF she purchased it from him and he signed title to her, it would be covered under her insurance. Yes? Just asking because when I buy a car from someone, I’m covered for about a week under my the policy of my other car. Same when buying a new car too.

          • CJ, I can’t find anything in the trial testimony about the car…so I could consider the whole car issue to be hearsay at this point. Unless I can find something otherwise

            I read somewhere that he told his friends he traded it in on the prius, but Jodi had checks made out to him for payment for some reason.

    • Maybe the beating over the BMW was milder than she expected. He may have saved up all of that unspent rage and released it after she was clumsy with the camera.

        • No, I just know what I see and read and have experienced in my own past history. I just have strong opinions and not secret facts. I do believe lovely Jodi is innocent.

  29. As we all know, so much of the decision will depend on the jury’s disposition. Potential jury instruction:

    “The circumstances under which Jodi Arias acted must have been such as to produce in the mind of a reasonable prudent person, similarly situated, the reasonable belief that Travis Alexander was then about to kill her or do her serious bodily harm. In addition, Jodi Arias must have actually believed that she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force must be used to repel it.”

    As we know, Jodi very well couldve been protecting Travis’ reputation when she always talked about him as a great person. But w/ a self-defense claim, won’t she HAVE to prove a history of real abuse? Considering the jury will have been exposed to all of her lies …she is going to need real evidence of abuse…

    • I agree Daniel. There does need to be some type of evidence other than what we have heard so far which is why I hope the defense is allowed to bring in the texts. I read a court doc that said it will be decided during trial and it will depend on what each text/message/email said. ( If I understood that correctly)

    • I sure would want proof at this point if i were on the jury, but only because of all her lies. I still don’t feel there is enough to give her the death penalty, but I think maybe she should stay in jail if she can’t provide abuse evidence…although like I said before the whole “dildo with a heartbeat” to me could be a form of manipulation to get her to come see him. CONTEXT is VERY important.

      • Yeah, but again making an obnoxious comment like (Dildo with a heartbeat) does not translate into –by itself anyway- minus evidence of physical abuse-‘manipulation’ worthy of killing him over. No matter how abusive he was emotionally. But this is why I am thinking now crime of passion..I just think the self defense thing is going to be very very very hard to prove for Jodi. And if it was a crime of passion, that removes the premeditation and Death Penalty.

        • Oh, I don’t think ANYTHING is worth premeditated killing of someone. i I can see how a crime of passion would happen though and she snapped…I think in Jodi’s case the death penalty should never have been the focus. i think the detective overestimated his evidence and the prosecutor thought he had more to go on.

  30. I was very interested in this comment I heard Travis made about ‘not being interested in whores’ on his myspace page. I thought this would be proof of a misogenistic attitude and.. tied in with evidence of physical abuse, could help the defense paint a different picture than the one the state painted. However, looking at it on his myspace page, it sounds to me like he may have just been referencing ‘internet trolls’. There are pornographic sites that attempt to make contact with young men online via their myspace pages in an effort to get them to purchase porn services. Considering he makes the statement ‘especially those whores with webcams’ (or something to that affect) I believe he was just referencing online trolls, not making a statement toward any particular women he may have known or an attitude he has about women in general. At least that’s the way I believe it would likely be interpreted by the jury if the defense attempts to use that at trial and the state does cross on that language…..

    • Except, a LOT of people communicate by webcam these days, not just internet porn (which I would bet he had a ton of way before he met Jodi…but I digress) so he could have been talking about someone he actually knew.

  31. I thought I’d share a thought I just had. At various times on this blog, people have discussed their abuses and how they relate to this case because of that. Interestingly, much of the focus is directed at Travis and his behavior. Now one would argue that I/we are biased, and perhaps, there is a little truth to that. Nevertheless, I submit that we see in Travis what we saw in the people we interacted with. It’s like we can SEE it almost subconsciously. Thoughts?

    • CJ, I think you are right and that is dangerous imo if the goal is to save Ms Arias from the DP. (Again maybe that’s just my goal…or ‘hope’ I should say). Victims of abuse often assume that anyone who claims they were abused were. I think intellectually we all know that simply is not the case. People lie. Especially when they feel their back is up against the wall. There are a lot of comments on here by people automatically assuming that what Jodi and her attorneys have said about Travis is fact. Its not. And the jury knows she has every reason to say her life was in danger and that was why she had to kill him. The problem is not only in the savage-ness of the crime, but Ms. Arias can hardly be considered a perfect witness of someone else’s character at this point. From what I have seen SO FAR, I have not seen any evidence that proves Travis was abusive physically. Testimony SO FAR has only shown him to be a gentle fun loving person. I do not believe the attempts by the defense to portray him otherwise have been successful. And I include Ms Arias’ comments about him in that too, she had more than numerous opportunities to at least tell some of her story. Is it true that she may have been protecting him or that he could have been a monster? Of course. But until its shown through evidence that he was in fact this dangerous person that she needed to defend herself from, it is only her words. She will need a lot more than that to save her. Let us hope the defense has it.

    • “Nevertheless, I submit that we see in Travis what we saw in the people we interacted with. It’s like we can SEE it almost subconsciously. Thoughts?”

      CJ–Yes, I do have thoughts! Ready?

      I’ve been in two relationships with emotionally abusive men, and I do see it in the way that you mean. No matter what he said or did (and whether there’s evidence for that) the situation, per se, was emotionally abusive and dangerous for both Travis and Jodi.

      Here you have a man who wants a certain type of woman to marry (a “Madonna,” a virgin, a potential mother, someone acceptable to the Mormon community), all the while desiring and enjoying a casual relationship with a woman who shares his sexual enthusiasm (the “whore”). It’s an artificial duality, of course, because no woman is either/or. A woman, like a man, is a complex person. Being reduced to a stereotype in this way–it didn’t even have to be verbalized, though it probably was–would create anguish and confusion for Jodi, followed by a slow-building, helpless rage. Throw in some kind of unhealthy personality, a lack of inner-resources or emotional strength, and you have a very volatile situation.

      And it would be volatile for Travis as well. Because he created a situation for himself in which he was living with impossible standards/principles, feeling the allure of BOTH an upstanding, righteous social position AND the allure of an erotic relationship with Jodi. This would be the soil for guilt and self-hatred to grow and flourish. Emotional abuse is often a defense mechanism. An emotional abuser will turn his self-hatred onto the object he views as responsible for his dilemma. Jodi likely wouldn’t be able to know this consciously (or tell anyone what was happening) but she would feel its impact. She would feel it the same way she would feel a slap or a punch. But, I’d bet that physical abuse probably wasn’t part of the situation.

      In fact, in situations like this, physical abuse can be a big game-changer. Physical abuse “unmasks” the emotional abuse, brings it to the conscious surface, and (strangely enough) offers the victim of abuse and chance to really SEE what’s going on, and take steps to change his/her situation.

      There’s an excellent book on this subject, though, sadly, it’s out of print. It’s called Stalking the Soul. This book explains very well why emotional abuse is much more difficult to escape when physical abuse isn’t also involved. It also explains why victims can’t/won’t reach out for help: outsiders generally don’t believe them! Emotional abuse, by its very nature, makes victims self-doubting, self-blaming, confused and terribly inarticulate. Victims of emotional abuse make terrible witnesses of their very own experiences!

      • But If you are correct Pique, that this was Jodi’s experience with Travis, and from the way you have articulated very well could have been, and there was no physical abuse, then I fear the verdict for Jodi. At least due to the way her attorneys are defending her. I don’t think self defense would fly in this situation. Again, look at the injuries. I completely see how this was dangerous for BOTH of them.

        This leads me to think temporary insanity. Many of us have been in mentally abusive relationships. But most of us are able to get ourselves OUT of the situation way before the potential for violence can occur or mental instability causes us to snap.

        • Yes, exactly, Daniel Tremont. It won’t fly.

          Let’s say we know he abused her emotionally. Still, no matter the pain and confusion and rage this would’ve caused her, no one would believe she was fighting for her life. Not her physical life, anyway.

          They are going to have to argue physical abuse, even if they really do mean emotional abuse. I know it’s just a hunch, but I really doubt that he was hitting her. Unless, of course, the situation escalated, right there in that bathroom. He could’ve finally “unmasked” himself–showed his hatred in a concrete way. One thing for sure: if she (that is, any woman in that kind of relationship) wanted to “trigger” him, it would be very easy. She may have forced his hand–if you get me?

          I do think this was probably a crime of passion. Temporary insanity (or, even, permanent). People can and do put up a physical fight in defense of their psyches, not just their bodies. But I think that we, as a society, are not quite ready to see this explanation as a legitimate defense. Maybe we shouldn’t? I’m just not sure.

      • I love your comment especially where you point out how it could become volatile for Travis as well. Do you think emotional abuse will be enough for a jury? I’m not to confident about that unless the DV expert does an excellent job explaining the affects of emotional abuse.

        I love your insight by the way:-)

        • Thanks, CJ. You, too.

          I’m not confident that, even with a DV expert, it would be enough for a jury in any murder trial. What do you think? Do you think that the effects of emotional abuse are extremely difficult to show and explain–let alone to use as a defense strategy?

          Seems to me that people are ready to draw the hard line only at physical abuse. It’s so obvious: there are often marks and bruises and the visible fear of the victim. Not that they are separate: physical violence always includes emotional violence. But, emotional violence may not include physical violence. It’s tricky, too, because we all use emotional abuse at least some of the time in our relationships. We mess up, fling insults, say and do hurtful things when we are feeling hurt or angry ourselves. It’s hard to show that an everyday thing like this–we can all be meanies–can be taken to another, persistent level where the victim’s identity begins to disintegrate. But, boy, when it happens to YOU, you never forget it!

          That being said, most victims do eventually get away. Most victims do not physically retaliate. Certain ingredients are a part of this “recipe.” With someone like Jodi, it could’ve been … you know where I’m going with this … a certain condition of the mind. A “no way out” situation, at least from her point-of-view. Thoughts?

          • I think you are right and that it will be hard to convict on emotional abuse alone. If I gauge a juror’s reaction by the comments I see on the web, the jury will want to see that she filed a police report even! I’m honestly astonished by the comments I see because I thought these issues were addressed in the 80s and that people understood that emotional abuse is just as detrimental as physical. Women most often don’t go to the police for fear of retaliation with physical abuse so asking for a police report as proof seems silly to me.

            In Jodi’s case, I think there needs to be a friend, that the jury find credible who could attest to Jodi being physically abused or at-least threatened physically along with the emotional abuse. Or an ex who can testify jodi was never obsessive or stalkerish or emotionally off.

            “We mess up, fling insults, say and do hurtful things when we are feeling hurt or angry ourselves. It’s hard to show that an everyday thing like this–we can all be meanies–can be taken to another, persistent level where the victim’s identity begins to disintegrate. But, boy, when it happens to YOU, you never forget it!”

            That is such a true statement!

            Now with Jodi, I hear the defense also asserting sexual abuse? Did you catch that? I guess they may be referring to the dom/sub relationship. Remember how the defense attorney said, travis “ALLOWED” Jodi to get up and use the bathroom? She will have to deliver on that for sure if she’s asserting sexual abuse because BDSM is a lifestyle choice and that can be easily argued with expert testimony too. I took her comment to mean either he was forcing her to do things, OR, they were role playing. Either way, she will have to prove that and I don’t think pictures of pigtails are going to do that. In fact, a jury could find that a weak argument given many people consent to what the media terms as deviant sexual behavior.

            So to answer your question fully, I think if this is all they have, it will be hard to convict on emotional abuse alone because of societal perceptions about physical being worse. If she asserts sexual abuse that may be viewed differently by the jury if it’s proven.

    • CJ wrote: “I’m honestly astonished by the comments I see because I thought these issues were addressed in the 80s and that people understood that emotional abuse is just as detrimental as physical.”

      I’m also astonished by this, but only because the consciousness-raising about verbal/mental/emotional abuse has been going on for so, so long. Otherwise, it doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve noticed that the first thing most people still think of when they hear “abuse” is physical violence. It’s as though domestic violence = hitting.

      Hitting, of course, is a very serious matter. Smart emotional abusers KNOW this, and keep their hands clean, so their partners cannot make “legitimate” complaints and the abuser can protect his own reputation and/or self-concept (until they move on to the next step, which can take months–even years. Emotional violence is sublimated physical violence, so the latter, given time, will eventually show up if the victim does not leave).

      This web page is a very good read, and the comments section is harrowing. It also offers a possible model for Jodi’s state of mind: the smiling as if nothing is wrong, the denial, the turning off of the mind, and, finally, the potential explosion into violence: “you could respond to future abuses inaccurately – the abuse may not be as severe or potentially damaging as you perceive it to be.”

      http://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/verbalabuseinrelationships/2011/03/battered-woman-syndrome/

      Yes, CJ, I do remember the defense, in her opening statements, saying that Travis “allowed” her to use the bathroom. We’re going to hear a lot more on this when the trial resumes. You wrote:
      “I took her comment to mean either he was forcing her to do things, OR, they were role playing. Either way, she will have to prove that and I don’t think pictures of pigtails are going to do that. In fact, a jury could find that a weak argument given many people consent to what the media terms as deviant sexual behavior.”

      Yeah, the media, and their throwing around the term “deviant.” I have to say, it’s a little bit funny. Almost the way being gay was considered deviant not so long ago. If both Jodi and Travis consented to role playing or acting out dominance and submission, it would be irrelevant (though it certainly has prurient entertainment value). But, if this role playing was a mirror of the actual conditions of their relationship–i.e., NOT really role playing–then it does become something perverse. Sexually abusive. But, like you said, how can either emotional or sexual abuse be proven? As far as we know, Jodi is the only witness. Perhaps a mental health expert might testify to her symptoms being consistent with a survivor’s? PTSD, dissociation, etc.

      Besides how all this may or may not be proven, is it your feeling that, whatever the case, the sex was a major factor in the murder? Perhaps it’s obvious to say, but there must be a direct connection. Unhealthy people and sex games are not a good mix.

      • Just want to add something: in my posts I’ve used “she” for victim and “he” for abuser. That’s because of the context and what I know of the statistics.

        Naturally, these pronouns can easily be reversed. Women can and do emotionally abuse their male (or female) partners. More rarely, women also physically abuse their partners. Beyond the domestic realm, emotional abuse is anywhere and everywhere–in hospitals, schools, workplaces. Anyone who’s had a job knows that men and women are equal-opportunity on either side of the abuse equation!

      • Yes it is my perception that sex will be a focus of this case. I say that because she accused him through the media, of being a child predator and referenced the letters that were ruled as hearsay.

        Your comment is so eloquent and I will read the comments to the link you provided. Funny, I think I provided that link but failed to read the comments.

        I can’t imagine the defense will assert domestic violence without adding more testimony. I do know they are bringing a psychologist who specializes in DV. I also know the state will bring in an expert to refute the claims so it will become a battle of the experts LOL. I know the prosecution wanted the notes made by the psychologist who interviewed Jodi and the defense opposed this. I don’t know what the state’s ruling on that would be. As a layperson, I think the request of the notes is unfair and could lead to much ambiguity, unless the expert can explain her notes. All shrinks use their own method of note-taking; its their own shorthand so to speak. In the Casey Anthony case, two shrinks for the state, ended up being a witnesses for the defense and during depositions, both had reviewed the notes of one another. There was an independent shrink who also was ready to testify but seemed overeager to support Casey so Baez didn’t put him on saying that juries don’t trust over eager witnesses. Interesting ha.

        So we shall see what goes on with the experts. I think this will happen during mitigation but I’m not sure about that.

  32. A few things. If the sequence of events is proven to be a gunshot first – doesnt that go back to supporting the premeditation assertion made by the prosecution? or are you saying that if you get reasonable doubt about the hand gun being stolen that it negates the premeditation assertion AND gets the case dismissed on prejudice? (sorry wasn’t sure if I followed correctly)

    Secondly, is the gun robbery the only premeditating factor? Could any of the following events show premeditation or are these non relevant to “planning” (ie: that they can be explained and cause reasonable doubt as well)

    a. Telling the rental car company that she plans a local trip
    b. Dying her hair from blonde to brown
    c. Turning off her cell phone while in Arizona so that it doesn’t ping on local towers
    d. Having a Preplanned Utah visit as an alibi

    Say she did in fact commit this act as an act of self defense:

    Could the defense assert that the apparent “overkill” – the throat slashing if it came last or the gun shot whichever was considered particularly heinous, was her attempt to “cover up” the fact that she had been the one to kill him in self defense? Does the act of “hiding the fact that you killed someone in self defense” preclude it from being self defense?

    Being afraid of not being believed by police, certainly can cause someone to not want to go and seek help from police, instead, the worry could cause a person to try to “make it appear” as if someone else killed him – even though it was self defense. All of the after the killing cover up attempts could stem from this fear.

    • Curious to know: IMO, the “covering her tracks after the fact” does NOT automatically mean “self defense” is no longer true. It just complicates the issue as I believe some will think would a person truly fearful for her life in the moment with Travis feel the NEED to cover her tracks? If they had just been in a life and death struggle, unfortunately I think some on the jury will think they would immediately run for help because in their hearts they KNEW the truth of the matter. That Travis had tried to kill her and all she did was protect herself. The fact she did not and there is circumstantial evidence to imply she was methodically covering her tracks, calling him that night pretending that everything was OK and that she hadn’t even seen him, does not bode well for her. But again, doesn’t mean her defense wont explain it. But will the jury believe it?

      • In a dom/sub relationship, isn’t it feasible hat the sub would think people would not believe her. After all travis told his friend Jodie was a stalker and they believed him and told the police. Then we find out he invited her. 82000 emails and messages were the most damning to his projection of his relationship with Jodi. She was possibly aware of what travis said about her to his friends. She had accepted to be his hidden girlfriend.

        • This is probably beside the point, but I got the sense that Jodi was truly bewildered when she heard that Travis’ friends were suspicious of her (think Det Flores telling her this info, about them telling Flores to “look into Jodi Arias”). Like she had no idea they thought negative of her. I got the sense Jodi had no idea that his friends considered her a “stalker”.

          • I was involved with someone who was emotionally abusive. My friends didn’t like him. It was only when we broke up that people told me what they thought.
            He would say I was too sensitive when I would get upset over things he said or did. He would always come crawling back to make up. We had one meeting in a public place over coffee. I was fed up with him. I felt like throwing the hot coffee in his face. Even after that time we dated.
            We married. It lasted 9 days. We were staying at his parents home. We had argued the night before. In the morning without discussion I decided to pack my bags and go. He complained about the noise I was making packing my bags. An argument broke out. His mother came into the room yelling. I smacked her across the face. His father came into the room and said he was going to get a machette and cut me up. Other family members came to calm the scene.
            It took a few years to get over that relationship. In a way I can get the Jodi Travis story. It takes one person who feels entitled and yet wondering if they are punching above their weight. They will denigrate the other person to make themselves feel 100% superior. The other person has to be a little docile. Jodi put up with Travis treatment of her. The emails prove that he did ask her to come back. He manipulated her image to his friends just as he also manipulated his own image.
            I don’t think as has been stated on other boards that she killed him out of jealousy over Marie because he had dated Lisa for the last few months.

          • Thank you, Susan, for sharing your story. All emotional abusers use the “you’re too sensitive” tactic. They choose sensitive partners, say and do hurtful things to feel powerful, and then blame their partners for being hurt, calling it a personality defect–being “too” sensitive. So the partner tries harder to toughen-up and to deny her (or his) hurt feelings. Then the frequency and intensity of the abuse escalates, with all kinds of nice behaviour inbetween. I swear, they’ve all attended the same school!

            Anyway … You mentioned feeling violent, yourself. This is important. Emotional battery is dangerous. All that repressed shame, all those times the victim failed to defend herself–all that can suddenly surface. If jodi and Travis’ relationship was like this, all that might be required is a particular trigger. For both of them, maybe. And after an afternoon of the kind of sex that stirs up all kinds of emotions, including aggression … I’d bet that the “reason” was a pretty small one, at least on the surface. The true reasons would’ve been buried under a heap of shame, humiliation and confusion. Perhaps even a perverted idea of love.

  33. Gunshot last is supported by lack of hemmorhaging in the brain.

    Im not sure I understand the confusion with which weapon came first.

    If gun came first, that proves premeditation?

    If Stabbing came first it proves self defense?

    • Curious: I know David will disagree with me, but I agree with your thinking on this above. I personally do not see the fact that the knife was used first, to the jury, as being proof that this was not premeditation. The jury may see it as simply a matter of opportunity like you explained above. Like I said before, to prove self defense her attorneys are going to HAVE to show evidence that Travis was or had the tendency and inclination to be physically abusive. This is critical imo.

      I am also concerned -because I have not watched every single minute of the trial yet- if the jury was privy to the fact that Ms. Arias attempted to get letters in to the trial, she purported as being written by Travis in which he claims to be a pedophile. While I know that the letters were found to have been forged, IF the jury knew Ms. Arias tried to get these letters in…this could really be bad for her. They would think- she lied again in an effort to defend herself …and many many people have zero patience for anyone that tries to blame the victim especially with lies about the victim… Was the jury at all privy to this information?

      • Sorry, it may have been “Pique” who talked about “opportunity” issues as it related to gun/knife and the sequence and its importance or in their/my opinion lack of importance. But just my opinion. BUT If David is correct and I am just completely wrong, I hope her attorneys get the message somehow.

        • Daniel,

          Did you read the motions about the letters? And if so, did you see that it was proven that she forged the letters? I did see a handwriting expert comparing diary entries but I didn’t understand her conclusions.

          The media is saying she forged them. Can you tell by those motion if that is true?

          • CJ, I did not read the documents about the forged letters or supposed forged letters. All I have heard (cant remember where) is that they were in fact forged …but I would like to investigate that for myself. Do you know what the motion was called or what doc name is so I can find them and if SJ has posted them are they to the right of the page running down?

    • It proves neither. As a criminal defense attorney, I seek to prove nothing, but only generate a sense of doubt for the accused.

      The absolute BEST defense right now for Miss Arias is ‘reasonable doubt’.

  34. Paul,

    Thanks for explaining what you meant about her leaving in your post above. I see your point. Do you think she started to defend herself, but became overcome with rage? For example, when my boys (ages under 10) fight, one will hit the other for pushing. This usually comes after horseplay when they are having fun. The one who hits, well onetime, he lost his temper and hit four more times!!!! (Thats why I dont allow horseplay). I know that’s a different sort of example but couln’t the same emotional reaction occur in anyone? They could begin a fight when with a defense but then become enraged and lose control. Do you see what I’m saying? I kind of think this happened with Jodi – a deep rage came out because of how she had been treated. I need to here the defense side to make up my mind but that;s kind where Im at.

    • that is a good example. My kids fight all the time. One does something, The other has to retaliate, the first one does it again because of just being hit.

  35. On another matter, anyone know what this thing is all about in which (after state rested) the state wanted to have the opportunity to depose or interview a defense witness but Nurmi did not want the state to have access to the witness??? Something about ex parte communication???

  36. What do you guys make of the comment: “I’m not the brightest person, but I don’t think I could stab him, I’d have to shoot him … The least I could do is make it as humane as possible,” Arias told a police detective in a July 15, 2008, taped interview that was played at her murder trial Wednesday.

    this comment really jumps out at me as odd

    do you think the jury could take this as her even addmitting this killing wasn’t a “humane” killing – if there is such a thing -and use it against her defense claim since she later confessed to being the one responsible for his injuries?

    her interrogation comments/actions are def. very strange at times

    • Yeah, what WAS that “I’m not the brightest …” comment all about? It could be taken as: “Who? Little, feeble me?”

      And, then, followed by “as humane as possible.” They don’t fit in the same sentence! Being bright has to do with something like not leaving too much evidence behind. Remember, she also said (during her interrogation) that, if she did it, she would’ve used gloves. But, the babbling about a “humane” killing is different; it says: I couldn’t do something as repulsive as stick a knife in someone–shooting is more hands-off and less painful. Again, they don’t fit together in the same sentence.

      Well, we know now that she was lying, and probably in a panic, so it seems as though her deflections were coming to mind all at once and getting jumbled up. Strange, yes, because her rehearsed lines didn’t come out as planned.

      I’m glad you brought this up, J, because there were other things about the interrogation that struck me as very strange.

      Did you notice that she kept speaking about Travis in the present tense? She would say “Travis is the kind of person …” not “Travis was the kind of person.” She even said–I’m pretty sure, though I’d have to read the transcript– about the famous photo of his face/shoulders taken in the shower: “Isn’t it a nice photo of him? But Travis doesn’t like it.” (does anyone know where to find that transcript?)

      I wonder if the defense is going to use this very strange verbal behaviour of hers, behaviour that goes beyond denying the crime, as evidence. Her use of the present tense for a dead man; her “if I did it” and “it would be more humane” comments, along with her idea the she and Travis discussed the merits of that last photo of him unharmed … this could show that she had a psychological break with reality . Me, I think her way of talking is psychotic. Psychosis is one of the symptoms of PTSD.

      During her interrogation the following day, things got even stranger, because the lie about intruders was so naive and fanciful. Did you notice how her defense, Nurmi, handled this part of the interrogation tape with Flores? Her kept asking Flores, again and again, if a suspect’s lies are often mixed with truths. Flores said, yes. Again, I think this could show a break with reality–as if she projected herself onto these imaginary intruders. Intruders who argued about what to do, with the female being the more aggressive and decisive of the two. A mix of lie and truth?

      Perhaps this is getting too literary …

      • Thank you Pique and Daniel -very good insight into the different possibilites…..this is a very interesting case. I am anxious to see where things go from here now that its the defense turn.

      • Psychology would say her referring to Travis in the present tense means she hasn’t accept that he was dead. ( My background is in psychology.) Grief isn’t logical and to say because she murdered him, that she didn’t grieve, would be an oversimplification baring she doesn’t have a cluster B personality disorder. ( One of the state’s expert’s resume has to do with working with people who do have personality disorders, by the way.)

        I interpret some of those comments as her subconscious talking which is why they don’t make sense to us. No she doesn’t view her actions as humane. She believes it was inhumane and NOT what her “self” would do. “I am not the brightest “- she doesn’t think she is bring regardless of the circumstances. There are other behaviors that support the theory that she had little self worth too.

        Her statements about him being nice and and that they were mutually using one another were deliberate. Either she was covering for him or she was trying to not draw attention to that the relationship was tumultuous because she knew that would give the police a motive. She is hard to read on that one.

        The statement, however, bad it sounds to us, that “no jury will convict me” imo had a hint of anger in the tone. Did you hear that? I think others construed that as arrogance but I see her feeling angry with Travis and felt indignant that what happened that day was NOT her fault. It doesn’t matter why she is lying about when she said that. She was mad at the situation.

        This is just my opinion based on some things I understand about how our minds work…

        • The present tense–OK, that could be explained as a stage of grief, rather than as a serious break with reality, a sort of PTSD symptom.

          But would a Cluster B diagnosis be surprising? No, not anti-social. But one of the more vulnerable personality disorders that include a shaky self-concept, low self-worth, and impulsivity (her joining the Mormon church only, what–10 or 20 minutes?– after meeting Travis comes to mind. I’m exaggerating to make a point).

          But, yes, she’s definitely avoiding identifying with the “self” who did this. And, it’s extreme, strange. That’s why I’m suggesting a break from reality–either a pre-existing personality disorder, or fall-out from the abuse and its violent ending, or both. The way she talks during the interrogation could make perfect sense in this light. Or, they could just be called lies–lying without conscience. I doubt it, though. She seems to be wrestling with herself, and going nowhere with it (in the tapes).

          I agree that she would hide the tumultuous nature of their relationship because it would scream “motive.” And that she would be angry about having to hide it–angry at Travis and at everyone who thinks she did it in cold blood. Wanting to say “I have a reason!” but thinking (not inaccurately) that no one would believe her.

          But, she does hint at this tumultuous nature the interrogation. She says that when she and Travis were unable to upload photos, it becomes very frustrating for them both “for some reason.” According to opening statements, this is where the assault against Jodi actually began: in the study, while uploading photos, not in the bedroom or bathroom. So, while hiding the abuse, she also hinted at it around the time of her arrest.

          As usual, a lot of speculation!

          • Some of what we are discussing is speculation with real psychology mixed in.

            About her having a cluster B disorder, the pundits have speculated borderline. So far, I haven’t seen enough of her to even armchair call whether she has one or not. Nevertheless, it’s reasonable to assume that she may have been a bit depressed and or/anxious at the time this all happened.

            During the 911 call, one of Travis’ friends said that Travis was depressed over a break-up with a girlfriend and I see no reason for the girl to lie about that. I wonder what girl? Jodi, probably. Another girl, possibly.

            Oh I do think she presents as traumatized by what happened. She was torn up during the interrogation and visibly upset when seeing pictures during the trial. But was she traumatized by Travis, will probably be answered by the defense next week. ( Hopefully)

      • did they really have a conversation about that photo? That Travis didn’t like it? What was the time stamp?
        Flores report says that the shower photos were posed. That one was perhaps not. That image is in sharp contrast to the many photos of Travis where he is serious and masterly and always posed. One of his my space pictures he said “I think I look presidential in this photo”.
        I wonder if the fight was really about that image. That it showed a side he didn’t want people to see.
        We know things changed very quickly.

    • J, I think the jury could very well look at that as Jodi ‘testing out’ what her eventual story might be and seeing what type of reaction the detective would give her. Which was not a very smart idea. At that point she was consistently hearing him- tell her- he did not believe her. She was being faced with all kinds of evidence that they knew she had been there. I think at that point she was just scared beyond belief that she was actually going to have to face the consequences of what happened, she had her back up against the wall and almost seemed to be talking out loud like she was going through her creative thinking process out loud and was in a trance.

      • Wow Pique, you explained this MUCH MUCH better… it is what I was trying to say but didn’t have the right words. The defense REALLY needs to read YOUR posts.

        • Daniel, J, and whoever else is interested … this part of the interrogation is especially strange, between 15:00 – 20:00:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoUB2UzWjtI

          She discusses Travis in the present tense more than once; for instance, “Travis … he shaves the old-fashioned way.” At around 17:00, she begins to talk about snapping the shower photos:

          She says she got the idea for the pictures from a Calvin Klein ad. Travis didn’t like the idea, she said, but he went along with it.

          She said she deleted some of photos as she was taking them. Then, at around 18:30, she says that some the shower pictures were “really good,” including the one Flores had shown her the day before–“the one where he’s looking right at you.” She says: “I think it’s a GREAT picture, but he hates it … I don’t know what he hates about it … I think it’s a very good picture.” All in the present tense, and all the while smiling and almost laughing, as though with fondness for the memory. She and Travis talked about this photo, apparently, and about 1 minute later he was bleeding profusely? Was this simply a lie–to show that all was well between them–or a delusion? It just all comes out of her mouth like a sincere and pleasant recollection.

          Then all of these pleasant memories end abruptly at around 19:00, as detective Flores tries to steer her back to telling what happened after that last shower photo. Here, she clams up, and becomes inarticulate with her I-don’t-knows and I’m-not-sures and sort-ofs–all those verbal tics that we recognize as signs of lying. But, if she was also lying about the shower photo-shoot, it has a very different, day-dreamy quality to it: creative, casual, fun, perhaps the way things ought to have been. Like it’s a self-soothing revision of history.

          • I think she was telling her perceptions of the events actually. That part was true. She talks in the present tense because she hadn’t accepted that he was dead.

            ( The photos of him in the shower with the water dripping looked artistic to me and another commenter too. Did any of see that in those photos? I could see how Jodi liked them, but Travis didn’t. In his photos, he is always posing. These were candids and could have made him feel strange.

            So I think Jodi was telling the truth during that part and was in denial and grieving when she said that hence the present tense. Talking in the present tense is common for people who have lost someone.

          • My impression was that it was delusional and very sad. That’s why I keep going back to Temporary insanity/Crime of Passion which would omit the premeditation charge. I also read somewhere that someone thought based on the time stamps that one pic of Travis with him looking directly into the camera while in the shower with a “concerned” (?) look on his face , could have been because he saw then, at that moment, the knife..I don’t know. Just very sad. For everyone involved.

          • “I also read somewhere that someone thought based on the time stamps that one pic of Travis with him looking directly into the camera while in the shower with a “concerned” (?) look on his face , could have been because he saw then, at that moment, the knife..I don’t know.”

            I don’t know, either. People seem to see different facial expressions: concern, surprise, sadness or anger. You could even see, in his face, a sexy kind of mood–if you wanted to see that, and given the context of a Calvin Klein-type of posing. One thing for sure: his eyebrows are pulled down tight over his eyes and his mouth is firmly closed. Any experts on reading faces around here?

            About this particular photo, though, and the way she talks about it during interrogation … maybe it’s just me. But I’m having trouble imagining that they discussed this 17:30 photo (she liked it; he didn’t, blah blah) and that she would remember this all so clearly, and so fondly, when, less than a minute later, she apparently dropped the camera and then something terrible happened. That’s why I also say “delusional.”

          • Pique, I’m glad you posted about how Jodi spoke of Travis in the present tense. I thought she showed classic symptoms of denial. I felt like the interview methods used by Detective Flores were ridiculously bad and pushed her further into denial.

            I noticed a point where she seemed to come out of denial for a period, lay her head down and sob. It was heart wrenching. But then she slipped right back into denial.

          • Sam,

            Just curious as to what you thought about Detective Flores’ interviewing style of Jodi that was ridiculously bad? I think the jury could very well see him as a very straight shooter. I personally didn’t see anything that I could call malicious interviewing or badgering. He seemed to be very calm in his whole approach and never threatened her at least from my perspective. His style seemed pretty matter of fact.

            I have a lot of concern over the defense trying to make Detective Flores a bad guy. (The prosecutor…another story, his style, well self explanatory.) I think this could really backfire because imo he does not come across as your typical beligerant cop pressuring someone into a false confession. Everything was recorded so we observed his style. He was very soft spoken. I didn’t see him do anything considered inappropriate or wrong. I also don’t believe he was lying about the sequence of injuries. i think it really was a matter of him mis-interpreting what the ME was saying. And he stated the real point behind the conversation he had with Kevin Horn had to do with the amount of suffering. Not the sequence.

            The danger imo is the jury believing in this situation in particular, that trying to fault the detective whose job it was to investigate a murder is a desperate measure on the part of the defense. But what was your opinion that made his interviewing style so ridiculous?

  37. Hello, SJ. Thanks for setting this up. I have a lot of questions. I see some of the posts being answered by CJ, is that the same as SJ? CJ seems like an informed person/moderator … Anyhow, here’s my question, regardless of innocence or guilt, I would like to hear your belief about where the gun/knife were while they were in the bedroom making love, where the gun/knife were when they were taking pictures in the bedroom, where the gun/knife were when she was taking pictures of him in the shower? I’m not asking if you KNOW where they were, I’m just wondering what your belief is about where they were during each of those events. Thanks.

    • I think the knife was definitely in the bedroom. I think they were playing dominant submissive games that afternoon. H had duct tape around his bicep and if you look at the shower pictures you can see the red mark from where it had been removed. There is also an image not yet presented of a piece of duct tape that was found on the bathroom floor. Evidence #40

    • Hi Micky. SJ is pretty private so I doubt your question get answered. I’ve been a follower of SJ’s blogs for a number of years now. CJ and SJ are two very different people. They don’t even live in the same country. I agree that CJ is well informed, but CJ is not a moderator or anything of the sort. Just a participant, like me.

      Do you have an opinion as to the knife/gun? I can only speculate and I’m anxious to have the defense explain where they came from. I think if the ME is correct (and I have suspicions he’s not), the gun could have been anywhere considering the running around that went on after Travis was stabbed. The knife could easily have been close by and used to cut off the duct tape or ties that were used.

      • Speaking of being in different countries, I notice that the time of my postings are off by x amount of hours, wondering if that means the server, and thus SJ are in Europe or something like that.

        Anyhow, I do have an opinion on the gun/knife, but I’ve been trying not to be a knuckle-dragger. Like most uninformed, un-researched opinions, I’m basing my belief on very very little, but nonetheless, it feels strong and right to me.

        That said, here’s how I think it went down (an no i’m not a body language expert, i’m not a psychologist, i haven’t studied behavior, i don’t know and have never met jodi, i haven’t heard more than 5 minutes of the actual trial, blah blah blah, i’m just stating an uninformed opinion. And given my experiences in life–valid and applicable or not–this is what i think.

        However, i’m certainly open to hearing other evidence and facts: for example, just the other day, I had formed an incorrect opinion by virtue of not even knowing he had roommates let alone that they were in the house during the ensuing days, so i stood corrected on a simple statement by someone informing me of my ignorance.)

        Wow, that was a big disclaimer.

        I believe she went there ready and armed to kill him. But that she was going to give him one final chance to change his course, and agree to be in the type of relationship she wanted. And when he didn’t do that–if I can’t have you no one can–she killed him.

        Without knowing the facts, if he had suddenly lunged at her, there would be no time to get a gun and knife. Not to mention the number of wounds and types of wounds. What type of defensive maneuver is slitting a throat? I can see stabbing, slashing, etc. But fighting for your life in a frantic screaming defense–cutting someone’s throat from ear to ear … that doesn’t make any sense to me.

        If I had NEVER seen her behavior in interviews (please reread my disclaimer above), I would be less inclined to believe this train of thought. But her behavior in those interviews spoke of such guilt to me, I’m having trouble turning that opinion around. I’m not even talking about the changing stories and lies. It’s what she said and how she said it. Innocent people don’t say certain things or act certain ways.

        Again, yes I’ve had gut feelings before and been wrong. Yes, I know you’re glad I’m not on a jury. And yes people hope I have people on the jury like me when I’m convicted of something, blah blah.

        I’m not really speaking about YOU when I say “you” … you actually seem very level headed and curious to know, and are open to discussion.

  38. Unless the profile on myspace is fake, I viewed TA’s. And if he truly wrote that “about me” description, I would say he is quite capable of being very emotionally abusive. He has one of those “bull$hit” profiles on myspace. I know exactly what type of person he is just from reading that. He loves to have power, in other words, he wants to be in control, he calls the shots and loves the all the attention he can get from the women. One is really not enough for him, whether in a relationship or just a women’s “attention”. I bet he was really big on flirting. If that was truly his profile on myspace (had pics of him), then this is just a little bit of what I gathered about what type of person he is. And oh, yeah, he loved to brag. I know this won’t help Jodi’s case but it really gives me a good understanding of why she didn’t just stop all forms of communication including sex. He is one of those guys that could sell ice to an Eskimo. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

      • My girlfriend agrees with you Elizabeth, that Travis’ myspace page, does tell a story about the type of guy he was…but in her opinion he just sounds like a typical macho kind of guy that exists on every block in the good old US of A. The only difference though is she said, that alone, would make her completely uninterested in his “type”. That is…Unless its a fake Myspace page ..like you said.

        • Daniel–I agree with your opinion on Detective Flores. From the recording, it seems he did a good job. He matched her soft-spokenness by being soft-spoken with her. There were times, I thought, when he was almost seductive with her. But, this is not a criticism, just an acknowledgement that, to get the truth (he KNEW she did it) he had to keep her feeling as safe as possible.

          Elizabeth–yeah! That type of guy (there are so many) would be a turn-off to a wiser, more experienced, perhaps more cynical, woman. But, a more vulnerable, naive woman–with some quasi-spiritual hankerings of her own–might find him harder to resist. Slowly add in some subtle emotional abuse, a dash of exciting sex, and stir.

          • Pique, yes, seductive is a good word to use. I would agree there was definitely a seductive component to his approach and I don’t think that’s a crime. He had a job to do and let’s be honest it could have been far worse. But certainly Jodi was also using that approach. That and she clearly thought that if she kept talking and talking and bringing up things that were wholly irrelevant to the case she may confuse him and get him distracted and on to thinking in other directions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Latest from Latest News

Go to Top