AUDIO REPLAY — “Jodi Arias v Government: who is winning?”

in Latest News by


Good Morning Munchkins :mrgreen:

If you missed Vladimir Gagic’s online radio program yesterday, featuring a live discussion of Jodi’s trial and his recent post — “Why the Felony Murder Allegation against Jodi Arias is Nonsense” — click the play button below to listen to it. It’s well worth it as usual.

To listen to the audio in a new page, click here.

Leave your comments below, and have a great weekend!

Team Jodi


    • I’m concerned, Candie! If testimony is given that makes the members of the jury think Jodi lied on the stand, I’m afraid she will lose anyone who was apt to believe her version of events. The questions from the jury already make me a little uncomfortable.
      I did think Dr. Samuels was excellent, though!

        • OMG There is a site called Yelp, somebody decided to attack my family doctor a couple years ago, just like this, I kept writing good reviews. He was one of the best doctors I ever had. This makes me ill, these people don’t care, they are paranoid parasites, not meaning to demean parasites, they think they can ruin his reputation, and yes, they can.

          • Some nut did the same thing to the husband of one of my friends. It was a nightmare getting it all removed: And he was working for free! Fortunately for Dr. Samuels, hew does not see patients so he likely does not care.

          • Wow these people are ruthless. They will stop at nothing. I can’t believe they are stooping to this new type of low. I pray for Dr. Samuels safety because they will stop at nothing it seems. This site should only be reserved for people that he actually treated. The things they are leaving are just disgraceful and classless. I am a Christian and during this entire trial I have been shocked at a lot of their statements and behavior. I am not a Morman but I am sure they read the same Bible I do and this is no way to Glorify God. Chrisitanity talks about forgiveness and turning the other cheek. I understand why people who are related to TA or people that actually knew him would be upset and angry about his death but I am sure these people leaving these statements never knew him or Jodi for that matter. Dr Samuels has amazing experience and a excellent education and that is all that should be evaluated in this case. Not the hatred that is being spewed. Please do not get me wrong I am not saying that all the people who are Mormons in this world are saying such harsh things and way out of line. I am only saying it is a select few that might need to go back and check what the Bible tells us of the treatment of others. Jodi had admitted to his killing but that does not mean she is a cold blooded killer. Would they have been happier if Jodi had died that day instead of defending herself. I do not know why I am shocked by this because this is their same song and dance.

        • Since Dr. Samuels doesn’t treat patients anymore, I highly doubt he cares what these people have to spew. We shouldn’t either. It is pretty funny, though.

          • I hear what you are saying, but I hate when people try to ruin someone’s reputation, because they are bored and have nothing to do, but spew crap.

        • On the positive side, his background speaks for itself as do his contributions to the field. Rantings from a handful of deranged anonymous nobody’s isn’t going to have any bearing on anything. He’s a seasoned professional, he knows what comes with the territory when you testify on behalf of a defendant in a case such as this one, he knows it causes every little cockroach living under the kitchen fridge to scurry out for the attack, if he was at all worried about it he wouldn’t be doing it.

          • isnt this considered witness tampering and intimidation? just because they hide under the name anonymous, they are still attempting to make this person not finish his testimony.

            damn, this jury needs to be sequestered.

          • I agree Neo. Even though it is WRONG n its so fucked up!!! But I sure dr Samuel KNEW some of this could’ve happened. He looked beyond that and still testified for jodi. His a good dr.

            • I thought that Kurt filed that motion? Regardless who it was if they don’t have it on tape it’s nothing. Besides the fact that from that far back….they do not keep tape…they record over them. They CAN bring in anyone they want from Walmart, their emp. do not always follow the RETURN POL.

                • Yes, and they have to make sure there are no spiced and diced records…I would want documentation that the charges were from the same time of day…if all the witnesses can do is show it was the same day, then that doesn’t mean shit.

                  Also, they need to make sure what someone pointed out that it was a kerosene can, NOT a gas can. If the dummies (no offense to anyone who works there) at walmart only look for a GAS CAN return, then their testimony will be flawed.

        • I posted a breakdown of the gas purchase at Tesoro a week or so ago.
          Even if the third receipt was for gas, it was still enough to fit in two cans and a full tank. Taking the three receipts and adding them all together and dividing by gallon price, it was close to 25 gallons which is about what would fit in the 2 cans plus tank. 3-5 gallon cans and a tank would be closer to 30 gallons. Where are my damn notes…

          $97.81 total gas purchase at Tesoro

          $97.81 divided by 3.85 = 25.4 gallons of gas

          • and that’s IF the third purchase, for which there is no receipt, was for gas.
            If it wasnt for gas then the 3 can theory is truly shot to hell.

          • Trixels,

            This is not so clear. The Ford Focus has a 13.5 gallon tank. so look at you math above:

            $36.98 is 9.58 gallons (first 2 tanks)
            $41.18 is 10.67 gallons (Car)
            $19.65 is 5.09 gallons (JM’s infamous 3rd gas can)

            So if the receipts are all for gas, JM’s theory could hold.

            • I talked to my husband, who is a mechanic and he said he would be easy to over the gas tank by a half a gallon, he also said a lot of the 5 gallons cans can hold 6 gallons because gas expands in the heat so cans are made to account for expansion. So in theory with the tank and 2 cans the capacity could be 26 gallons.

              • Correction, he checked our cans and they can hold 5.5 gallons, so adding up the receipts, it is possible what she bought could be put into the gas tank and 2 cans. It would be full, but still possible.

          • How much gas was already in the car’s tank before she finished filled up the tank…it would not have been on empty?

    • Let’s all not work ourselves into a lather. If the most productive thing these “winners” can find to do is run down Dr. Samuels, and in the process demonstrate their true Dogpatch residency, I’d say that the Defense has this well in hand.

        • And the gas cans mean absolutely NOTHING.

          They’re not proof of ANYTHING. Jodi could have bought 100 of them, and it wouldn’t prove she premeditated the murder.

          • Can the defense find some people to use as witnesses that have said that they have traveled that same road and always put gas cans with gas, water, and food in their car before they traveled that same road…

            • I’ve travelled that road a dozen or so times and have never brought gas cans, or water jugs. This isn’t the Wild West people.. There are gas stations and pull offs when needed. I’ve been all over the southwest in a car and have never ran out of gas when traveling on a marked, state road.

              • Oh yea? My dad has a gas tank on the back of his truck because he’s an outdoorsman and doesn’t want to run out of gas.

  1. After a sleepless night I am of the mind that those who scream the loudest are the ones who have the most to hide…

    So I say: Friends of Travis’s what are you hiding?

      • They…(family and friends) haven’t commited me yet….I was awake most of the night just going over all of this.

        I am seriously concered about the hate that is going on. I did alot of praying for the truth to come out. We really can not do anything about HLN. They have already done the harm and will just go on to the NEXT big trial. They will pay their dues someday.

        As I stated yesterday to Bella I can not believe in my heart of hearts that this is what Travis would want. If the so called friends were really friends they would know this. I also wonder if PPL really wants all this negativeness with their name in it.

        There is so much missing here…….

        • I agree Cindy I pray everyday that the truth comes out. I feel there is so much going on here that we do not know about. There have been so many odd things that do not add up. His roommates still bother me. How in the world do you stay in a house that many days and not notice the smell?
          Why did he have a key to his bedroom. I just thought that was really odd. I am not saying he did anything I just think there is more to his story.

          • Zach had a key to Travis’ bedroom…Detective asked Zach is he had access to Travis’ bedroom or bathroom. “Zach said he has been in there, but only if he needed to get something. Travis would allow him to get medications and stuff like that from his medicine cabinet.” Flores report page 8 in paragraph 6…

            NOTE: When detective asked Zach about Travis’ bedroom specifically his bedding. Zach said that Travis has a brown comforter and light color sheets. He has about four to five pillows with brown pillowcases. Zach said that he has been in Travis’ bedroom before so the detective asked him if he noticed anything different or unusual about Travis’ bedroom. Zach said the only thing that he noticed was the bed looked like it had been “tossed.”

            NOTE: I found that odd that Zach noticed all those details about the color of bedding the number of pillows and the color of pillowcases for someone to say he only goes into Travis’ room if he needs to get something…I THINK HE LIES…

            REMEMBER: ” Zachary went downstairs and came back up with a set of keys and began attempting to unlock the bedroom door, Zachary managed to get the door unlocked and he went in” found on Flores report page 6 in the first paragraph…

  2. Anyone know if Matt is going to testify?
    The crazy FB page says he’s on the list and Beth Karas said an ex will be called to the stand

    Any ideas?

    Are there any copies of the “letters” on the internet?

    • Wow. He could corroborate the physical abuse. That would be enormous. If he could withstand the cross, I would give my eye teeth for that!

            • yeah,cindy i was like Does he even have a point?Is he going somewhere with that?Because he kept mentioning Matt’s name,implying stuff and then dropping it,It appeared as if he had nothing but was just trying to raise doubts on the jury’s minds.

              • Maria
                this whole time ive been nervous wondering if there was going to be some big AHA moment from Martinez but so far its been a giant fizzle. Like a dud firecracker that never blows up.
                It really shows he doesnt have very much to work with, and that his case is falling apart.

            • All that was, was the little man implying that he knew something about Matt that the jury didn’t know yet (and they may or may not find out), but all it was is because when Matt was interviewed at some point, he told the State that he was very close to Jody and that he was capable of lying for her. [something to that effect]. The little man has very little. If Matt does get called, he will take some heat by JM for saying that he would lie for Jodi, but I have a feeling that statement was made as a hypothetical, as in “I care about her so much, I would do anything for her”….type thing.So you might see JM say, “didn’t you tell so and so that you WOULD LIE for Jodi, isn’t that not true, right? wrong? isn’t it?” Or something similarly dense, to which Matt would reply (I hope), “Yes I was asked about how loyal we are as friends, and if I would protect her, and I said hypothetically, that I would lie for her”. I guess if you weight the pros and cons of his testimony, you’ve got a witness to her being abused vs. he might lie for her. It’s either going to end up neutral, or it could have an great impact on the defense if he comes off as credible. At the very worst, his statement coming back to bite him would just simply make his testimony of her abuse null and void. So, I don’t think there is anything to worry about there. When you see JM break out in a big song and dance like that, think “little”……the guy has nothing.

        • The state case is closed. They can only call witnesses for rebuttal now. Matt would only “turn state’s evidence” if he were accused of some crime. I haven’t heard anything that remotely suggests that.

          • You are right unless it has to do with the crap in the mag. that Jodi sent out of jail. All of you are smarter then I am……who knows anymore what is true and what isn’t…..

            • I don’t understand how Matt would know about the magazines since he never recieved them. I think JM has discredit him so much before he got a chance to testify about anything. Does anyone have a list of rebuttal witnesses?

          • According to Shanna Hogan, when Matt testified in the pedo letters hearing JM threatened him and said if he testified he would have him charged with perjury before his feet hit the floor. I’ve haven’t heard anything else about this and considering the source of this statement, IDK.

          • Perfect! There you are Joujoubaby! Can JM call Jodi up for exam on rebuttal?
            If not, then how in the heck would he be able to impeach her about a stupid gas can?
            I personally think the gas can issue is redundant. She could get up on the stand tomorrow and say “Gee, I think you’re right, I DID keep the 3rd gas can, in fact I filled it too and 5 more of them along the way”, and the jury would not care one way or the other, IMO But, since people are STILL waiting for this gas can to explode on the defense, I would like to know HOW, if Jodi is now off the stand, he could possibly impeach her. Can JM call her back up on his rebuttal?

  3. Here is the new motion filed by Nurmi. He wants receipts and also is pissed that JM added Walmart and Tesoro employees to witness list. My gripe is, lets say Nurmi gets the court to not allow these sudden witnesses, well the Jury will wonder why not. Because if we know about this, they know about it sequester! I so wish we could find someone to say, “Juror 7 was online and was watching HLN, stc.” Sequestering the jury should have been done in this high profile of a case. I want to find a witness to prove the Jury has been tainted!!!
    here is the link

    Peace my friends. Justice

      • Can Nurmi bring some Walmart employee from another store that can testify that they can and do give back cash receipts if it is a small amount and you have charged it…and you always get the cash back on cash receipts…and according to the copy of her Walmart receipt it was a cash sale…

        Even if they can’t find in the computer that she returned that item…it would not be the first time that has happened…Can’t they bring in other Walmart people to testify that it is “POSSIBLE” that could happen…

        So what is the big problem?

    • I just hope they are all taking the duty seriously and not looking at the media. Although I can see the temptation considering Kermit doesn’t really allow people to testify.

      I can’t say what I would do in that situation, I’m honestly not sure…my ethics would state that I do not look at media, but my desire for actual truth considering they are asking for death might overpower that one.

      • There are jurors that are going to have the same field of vision we have. Remember they’re not allowed to question the prosecutor for clarification of his answers, so then they are questioning Jodi there’s a good chance its because they picked up on Martinezezez underhanded tactics of rewording and twisting her responses, so they’re just looking for clarification. If we’ve all managed to catch his BS there are probably some jurors that have as well. Just as we’ve seen him go off on a tangent and then drop it like a hot potato without providing any closure, so have the jurors seen this. Many of the questions they have probably stem from Martinez leaving them in the clouds with no clarification of what his point was.

        • I totally agree, Neo. I also think that the jury’s not being sequestered is a mixed bag. Nobody agrees more that the media are out of control, particularly HLN. On the other hand, this trial has been LONG. Jodi was on the stand for a LONG time, and allowing that without really ticking the jury off, is to the benefit of the Defense, in my opinion.

            • This isn’t even a nutshell version. If I could turn a phrase like Krystal, you could insert funny metaphor about nuts and eggs and shells here, but practicing law has ruined my mind, and law school my sense of humor, so there you go.
              Anywho, the state has the burden of proof. They have to to go first. They must put on a case that, all the evidence that they present, if construed in a light most favorable to them, at least makes a basic case for the charges they allege. Then they rest. The defense can assert that they did not do that. That is called a motion for a directed verdict. The Defense filed one of these. It was denied. Whether the judge was correct in denying that motion will likely be taken up on appeal if Jodi is convicted of Murder 1.
              The Defense goes next. They do not have to put on a case at all. They are not required to prove anything (unless they are alleging what is called an affirmative defense. In this case, the defense is asserting that the killing happened in self defense, which is an affirmative defense…long story. Onward…). Should they opt to put on a case, or are required to by the assertion of an affirmative defense, they then take their turn, and put on their case in chief.
              Should the defense put on a “case in chief,” the Prosecution becomes entitled to rebut the witnesses and evidence brought up in the Defense’s case. In the rebuttal, they are only allowed to address testimony and evidence specifically brought up by the defense.
              Too broad? Too vague? Too early!

              • JouJou…..Thank you so much.Iknew part of this but not all. So I wonder if you were in law……So you are saying not to beat my younger son up for taking a break from school….pre-law. lol

                • No longer- regaining my wits! Stepped off of the Type A crazy train. And yes, I advocate anyone else’s choice to do the same thing.

              • I think you explained that very well. The question I have since the defense brought up self defense, does the state have to prove that it couldn’t be in self defense? It seems like JM is just trying to impeach small tidbits of her testimony, like the gas cans, and then say you don’t have to believe anything, but is this really disproving self defense?

                • Usually (and lawyers hate generalizations, so this is a real gift to you from me!), and I think that this is the case in AZ for self defense, the Defense bears the burden of proving aspects of their affirmative defense. For instance, it is my understanding that she must prove that she was indeed in fear for her life at the time she acted….and possibly that all of her acts were in response to her perceived threat, but that has such state-to-state variation that I cannot say with any degree of certainty. I again need Krystal’s help to make a joke about how this opinion is void where prohibited by law. May cause side effects such as coughing, wheezing, ulcers, and unpaid student loans.

                • TB and joujoubaby,

                  I am not a lawyer (actually an engineer) but the law is a hobby of mine. It’s probably the only other vocation other than the sciences that allows for an orderly exercise of logic, albeit this time to man made rules. So it is fascinating to a scientist.

                  Anyway, Arizona’s self defense laws, encoded in ARS 13-404 and it’s justifiable use of force with reference to justifiable use of force in ARS 13-411 are in fact some of the most liberal in the country.

                  13-404. Justification; self-defense

                  A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

                  B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

                  1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

                  2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

                  3. If the person provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

                  (a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

                  (b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

                  13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

                  A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

                  B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

                  C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

                  D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person’s home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

                  There is no need to flee, no restriction on bodily injury or death and no limit to the amount of force that is applied in response.

                  Furthermore in 2009 Arizona passed a bill retroactively returning Arizona to the status quo of 1997 wherein self defense is not an affirmative defense. This is currently codified in ARS 13-205

                  A.R.S 13-205 Affirmative defenses; justification; burden of proof
                  A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence. Justification defenses under chapter 4 of this title are not affirmative defenses. Justification defenses describe conduct that, if not justified, would constitute an offense but, if justified, does not constitute criminal or wrongful conduct. If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.

                  The last paragraph essentially places the burden of proof on the State (see State v. King, No. CR-09-0333-PR.)

                • Yes, in AZ, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was NOT self defense, which Jodi has testified (i.e., given evidence) that it was, and she had presented a very good case for self defense. To cite the verbiage from the appellate opinion I mention below: “[T]he legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-205(A) to require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant claiming self-defense did not act with justification.”

                  If the jury believes any part of Jodi’s testimony is true in that regard (self defense), then the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act with justification.

                  Kermit is attempting to impeach her testimony on little points (gas cans) that really aren’t relevant to self defense (or to his theory of premeditation) so he can cast doubt on all of her testimony. That’s basically a sneaky dirty little method of disproving her self defense theory.

                  Of interest to those who like the law here is the State of Az v. Fish case and the appellate court opinion:


                  Paragraphs 55-68 discuss specific juror instructions which should be given to explain the laws on self defense to the jurors.

                  Also of interest in that opinion (should any evidence of Travis’s prior acts showing aggression/violence be brought to light) is footnote 11:

                  “The State’s arguments to the jury about Defendant’s credibility on how the Victim acted prior to his being shot also opened the door to introduction of prior act evidence to show Victim’s state of mind and the exact alleged threat Defendant may have been facing.  State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 276, 921 P.2d 655, 679 (1996) (specific prior act evidence admissible to rebut defendant’s claim of lack of motive);  Connor, 215 Ariz. at 563, ¶ 35, 161 P.3d at 606 (defense counsel’s own questioning of witness opened door to permit State to expound on prior bad acts).”

                  There is also discussion in that case of lesser charges which I think bears relevance here, and may help in understanding what could or could not happen.

              • Well, the defense HAS put on a case. They’ve had witnesses testify. Therefore, as I understand the rules of evidence, Kermit will have an opportunity at rebuttal.

        • I agree Neo. I suspect a lot of the jury questions are related to kermitizing… I know I would have to ask a lot of questions if I were on that jury.

          • Good point BeeCee. I think that if the jury bought the prosecution’s case hook line & sinker, they’d have no need for clarification.

              • If I was one of those jurors…I would be asking the same questions…and I believe in Jodi…there are all kinds of reasons for them to be asking those questions again and again…

      • Not only that but this trial is everywhere. I keep thinking how I would avoid it. I guess I could not even turn on my pc or watch TV. This trial is so high profile and all over the news I still do not understand why they were not sequesterd. I think that was a huge mistake.

    • Hey Patty, I know everyone is very concerned about media influence on this case, but the truth is, even if they had caught a piece of Nancy Grace or the like, their minds wouldn’t automatically be made up. Were ours? 🙂 That said, I truly believe the jury take their duties seriously and would NOT risk bungling the trial over watching something as sensationalistic as HLN. I have faith!

  4. I have a question about the possibility of a Walmart employee testifying. Someone stated without a video they have nothing. Since the state is saying she DIDN’T return the gas can are we going to be forced to watch a god knows how long video of the customer service area of Walmart for that particular day to NOT see her returning a gas can? I’m confused!! 🙂

      • I have returned something I just bought, right back to the check out cashier. Really I bought something, when I looked at the receipt, I saw it was way more money than I thought, i turned around. I went to my cashier and said, this is too much. She took my item and rescanned it and gave me back cash. At the register. So all the customer service footage forever wouldnt show me there.

  5. Well that is just stupid. Juries are always instructed they can discount none, some, or all of ANY witnesses testimony. They really don’t need little piddly things like this shoved down their throats IMO.

    • I think there are other witnesses to TA’s and JA ‘s relationship, but are too scared to come forward. I think Chris Hughes is a scary person. If you look at the day he testified, he is very very angry. Why? Could be TA was the goose that laid the golden egg for CH and JA took that all away?

        • I’m trying to remember the exact day, it wasn’t in front of the jury, somewhere around the time Gus did and right before Sky if I remember correctly.

      • I have always thought the same thing about witnesses being too scared to testify about the abuse. Plus the general public would rip them to shreds just like they do with anyone that does not agree with them. Also, I was abused and there was very little proof out there. As a batterer and abused wife of a “respectable” Christian leader in my church I hid it all the time. Not only did I fear for him doing more harm to me I was afraid he would go after my family. I took me a long to get away from him out of the fear he would hunt me down. I never told anyone nor did I file any police reports. My mom and Dad only saw some of it. My therapist knew about it but they would probably just say I made that up too. I was lucky enough to get away from him but sometimes it not that easy to get away from an angry man 3 times your weight. It is common for abused woman to cover it up and sometimes there is little proof. That does not mean that it did not happen.

      • I have a very uneducated question. Can someone come forward and give testimony without the whole world knowing? I know that it would have to be in front of the jury???????

        • That’s actually a good question, Cindy. Under common law dating back centuries, a defendant has the right to know the identity of a witness who might incriminate them. But to answer briefly, yes, it is possible to use “anonymous witnesses”. There was actually a pretty interesting case in 2012, US v. Ramon-Cruz, where witnesses were allowed to use pseudonyms (and testify “anonymously”) and it was found on appeal that it did not violate the defense’s right to cross-examine. Here’s a blog about it:

          But, as you can see from that blog, these are some very rare circumstances, and in order to do this, there must be a real threat to the witnesses, not one of conjecture. That’s considered a special measure of “last practicable resort”. In other words, if there’s anything else that can be done, it shouldn’t be done.

          To expand on that a little further though, it would be possible for court to rule that the defendant should know the identity of the witness, and the jury should know the identity of the witness, but for that information to be held confidential from the general public. That would require sealing records, and that’s a whole nother ball game with today’s information hungry media, most especially in a high profile case like this one.

          But let’s assume that happened. There’s always the possibility of the media fighting (with high powered well-paid attorneys) to unseal those records (even perhaps later on) based on the state’s records laws. So there’s a possibility that somewhere down the line, that witness’s identity would become public knowledge. There’s also the possibility — even though it’s not supposed to happen — that someone could “leak” that information. The media would pay dearly for it, and well, let’s face it, people need money. A journalist who paid an informant for the information would NOT be required to reveal his/her source.

          That’s a long answer to a short question, I realize. But it’s a lot more complicated than it seems. It’s really a good question though.

      • I have really admired him for such a long time. I am so disappointed in him for “selling out” on this case. He was the last real journalist on TV. And now, that’s gone.

        • I agree he was the last person I was still watching. I am so disappointed in him too because I always thought he tried to keep things balanced. I guess there are no news channels I can watch in anymore

    • LMAO fruit fly 🙂

      Yes, I was absolutely livid that he decided to stoop to the level of HLN. Come on, Anderson, show some fucking class. Don’t go shitting on Jodi because your boyfriend cheated on you (true story, just google it). I thought you were better than this!

    • It’s extremely doubtful the murder happened in 62 seconds. I don’t know why the defense hasn’t brought up the obvious, that the last photograph’s quality is so poor, we don’t know WHAT it depicts. We don’t know Travis was even dead in that photo.

      • Remember the old film cameras that sometimes you would have pics that were double exposed? Can digital cameras do that? I got some film developed once that had my kid jumping on the trampoline above a camp fire! LOL

      • I totally agree, I don’t think TA was dead in that photo. But its good to see that if the prosecution wants to push this 62 second timeline, someone has now shown it could be done.

      • a lot of people here have raised the same question:how can Travis be dead in that last photo(with Jodi’s foot)when he can be seen holding his right hand a bit upwards?his entire posture seems like someone trying to get up,so the throat wound is probably not even there at that point otherwise he wouldnt be able to keep his head half up.The prosecution has tried to prove the killing is over at that last photo but I personally doubt it.Just because this is the last one does this necessarily mean that the ”action” was over?Why?Just because our voyeuristic instincts need to be satisfied?

  6. Does anyone know if Dave Hall still work for PPL or what ever the name change is? I find it really hard to beleive that any company would want all this negitiveness assoiated with their company.

    • I would have to say ‘yes’ according to recent postings on his Facebook

      “Credit monitoring and fraud alerts wont help you when you become a victim! For the most complete protection and restoration there’s only 1 company, LegalShield!!!”

      Yes folks, please consider LegalShield to protect your identity. We all saw how great it worked to help Travis Alexander when his brother Dennis stole his identity and fraudulently used his name to cover for crimes he’d committed. What a f*cking chump this a**hole is.

      • YUCK…Could have gone all weekend with out that…So another words Dave sits around and lets all of the other people make the $$$$ YA I wonder how much his income went down after TA DIED….

    • Seriously? Come on! Money can NOT buy the kind of publicity this company has gotten as a result of this trial. I bet they’ve had thousands, if not millions, of sign ons.

      There IS no such thing as BAD publicity. Publicity is publicity. PPL/Legal Shield has become a household name now. I’d never even heard of the company before this, and I thought I’d done really extensive searches for any kind of legal help I could get with my own case.

      • i looked into ppl years ago. seemed like a good idea, and is, IF they really did what u’d think. too many things were not inc. ir extra, etc. i remember thinking ‘what’s the point’? i didnt buy.

      • People who are wise to pyramid schemes won’t fall for it. That’s all Legal Shield is – a scam to get your money.

  7. Just got back from taking my son to a Boy Scout meeting. While chatting with some other parents I overheard a couple of boys talking about their ‘girlfriends’. The boys were a few years older than my son, maybe 11 or 12 years old. I smiled to myself as they discussed their relationship issues. When out of the blue one scout said to the other….”Be careful if you break up with her, she might Jodi Arias your ass!’.

    I was shocked!!! Are there parents out there that are allowing their children in the room while watching HLN?? Are they discussing this case with their sons and daughters?? Or has this case received so much attention in mainstream culture that it has trickled down into our grade schools?

    I do not watch any part of this trial with my children and was really surprised to hear two young (and very nice) boys make reference to it. Anyone here know of other kids having knowledge of the trial?? Has it really penetrated little minds?? I get a sick feeling about what information/misinformation has been passed along to them.

    • I’m possibly older than a lot of you here. After the Lorena Bobbitt case, “bobbitt” became an “everyday” expression. It was a media joke for a long time. And it became part of the vernacular. “If you treat her badly, if you cheat on her, she might just “bobb-it”” (as in, she might just cut off your penis, dude).

      I haven’t watched the nightly talk shows. Are they making fun of Jodi? I bet there are jokes galore about this on blogs, popular shows. So, I’m not surprised that “Jodi Arias-ing” is entering into the vernacular at all.

    • My 17 year old daughter and 14 year old son have always been welcome to watch trials with me, but I use it as a teaching tool, and point out how things are not always what they seem. They watched the Casey Anthony trial with me, and were equally disgusted with the media because they have been taught to watch and listen with a critical eye. They are both around when Jodi’s trial is on, and every so often my daughter will pop her head around the corner and ask me if she’s winning yet. I don’t think it’s a problem to have children watch something…’s a problem when children watch something without any guidance, or without being armed with factual information first. Sounds like the kids you heard talking were likely over hearing their own parents, or the garbage HLN channel that their parents were listening to. Too bad…….a young brain gets twisted and ruined everyday.

  8. Can someone explain the significance of returning a gas can to me? I understand what the State is doing with regard to her purchasing gas cans and filling them with gas. They’re trying to say she didn’t want to have to purchase gas in Mesa. But I don’t understand the significance of returning a gas can. Please help me understand.

    • There is none. There is also no significance regarding the gas cans anyway. Juan Martinez is grasping at straws by trying to say Jodi Arias was trying to be sneaky with the gas cans so she couldn’t be traced in Mesa, even though Jodi could have been seen my Travis’s roommates when she was there in his house.

      It so STUPID as to defy belief. I REALLY hope the jurors use some common sense. After all, Jodi didn’t know in advance she could be seen by others at his house. There is no nefarious reason she had the gas cans.

      • I agree with you. I am just trying to understand from the perspective of the State what the significance is with regard to *returning* a gas can.

        • I can only see that they are trying to catch her in a “lie” to try and negate everything she said.

          It’s all smoke and mirrors.

          It doesn’t prove premeditation.

          • da figures if she lies under oath jurors can’t believe anything she says, thus listen to me, Mr. Lil Marti. i’m telling u the truth. that she planned all this.
            IF she planned it would h still b thinking about gas cans? idk…

            • It has nothing to do with premeditation. This is basically uhmmmmm a “legal trick”. Well, I don’t know if “trick” is the right word. Strategy? Sorry, I’m scrambling to describe it here.

              It has relevance to Jodi’s credibility as a witness. Jodi claims self defense (which is justifiable homicide — she was in fear for her own life, therefore, she killed him to prevent him from killing her). No one else was present. There was no video of what happened. No one but Jodi can proffer evidence that she killed him in self defense. Therefore, her credibility is of the utmost importance. If she testifies this happened (which she did), it is up to the jury to determine whether or not she is telling the truth. If the jury does not find her credible, then, her testimony can be disregarded by them. However, if they have ANY reasonable doubt that what she is saying may be true, they are required by the laws of AZ (and most other states), as part of their civic duty, to believe that she acted in self defense.

              The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that she did not act in self defense. They really can’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Their ME has testified as to the brutality of the attacks. He testified that Travis suffered. But that still doesn’t prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jodi didn’t commit all those acts in fear for her life, and because she believed that if she had not done so, she would have died at his hands, herself (whether or not his acts in killing her were far less “brutal” or “cruel” — i.e., he might have choked her to death — he had committed this act upon her before, but let her live, barely.)

              But, since we don’t have a video; we don’t have a witness who observed the acts — we only have Jodi’s testimony of what occurred. The prosecution’s “strong point” is that Jodi has not always been honest about what occurred that night. In fact, Jodi has told two completely different stories about the events of that night. Jodi has not denied that she previously told different stories. In fact, she has admitted it.

              She was not under oath before. That’s actually quite important. While in the general public, I’m expected to be honest at all times, we all know that there are times we are not 100% honest.

              (I know this seems trivial, but your best friend/girlfriend/wife arrives in a dress that does not “hide” the problem areas they have. That woman is delighted with the dress. She asks “Do I look fat in this dress?” What do you answer? Obviously, you will hurt her feelings if you say “That doesn’t bring out your finer points, and in fact, accentuates your tummy which is not as flat as it could be.” In addition, she’s already at the event she planned to wear the dress for. She would have to go home and change. It’s not worth destroying her self esteem. So, you say “You look great.” And if you can’t relate to that one, think about this. It’s Christmas and you have bought the gift your friend/lover wanted with all his/her heart. He/she asks you “Did Santa bring me X for Christmas?” Do you answer honestly and say “Yes, I did.” That would spoil the surprise entirely. So, you are dishonest to some degree and say “You’ll have to wait and see.” None of us are 100% honest all the time.)

              But then, there comes the moment under sworn oath, where we are expected to give 100% honest testimony, to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is an extremely solemn oath, a responsibility. In fact, it’s not only an oath. Giving false statements to a court of law, lying under oath, is actually a crime: perjury. It can result in usurping the power of the courts, and miscarriage of justice. It can result in imprisonment. While perjury prosecutions are rare, in some states, like CA (where Jodi is from), the penal code even allows for punishment by capital offense if it results in wrongful execution. In other states, it can be punishable by as much as 5 years of incarceration. It’s a very very very serious offense to lie, while under oath.

              I’m drawing these example to show why Jodi lying to the media was one thing. She wasn’t under oath. It meant nothing legally (other than it provided JM with a reason to attack her credibility under prior inconsistent statements — which was allowed in this case — and that, in and of itself, is questionable.) But lying under oath is a different ball game. That’s a crime.

              So, if Kermit can prove that Jodi lied under oath, or at least create reasonable doubt in the minds of the witnesses that she did so, the jury can be instructed to disregard ALL her testimony. Effective impeachment could result in the jury discrediting ALL of her testimony. And if ALL of her testimony is discredited, then, her self defense claims are ALSO discredited.

              So this silly little gas can thing, which seems so trivial in the grand scheme of things, is actually HUGE. If he can prove that she lied under oath in regards to that, then, the jury may believe she lied about everything else.

              Sorry for the long explanation, but I hope it makes sense. Again, it’s very much legal-eze, I guess.

              • Also Abused;
                Jodi’s credibility aside, don’t you think that the jury will link that chaotic and nonsensical killing scene as one that does not indicate premeditation? I don’t know, I have a feeling they will pick up on just as much as we do here, once they get into that deliberation room and start going over the evidence. I also believe her journals will be overwhelmingly enlightening to the jury in her favor, if they go back with them to the jury room. But there are a lot of puzzle pieces going back with them, that should come together, such as;

                -Wounds to the back indicate that Jodi was hitting him (not stabbing) with the knife from her left hand across his right upper back (i.e., seems like he was on top of her at some point)

                -defensive wounds on TA’s left hand……what was his right hand doing? Was it around her throat? Why is a right handed person only showing defense wounds on the left hand? If you’re fighting for your life against a knife wielding, crazed person, you’re going to use two hands to fight them off.

                -Gun shot wound lines up with his lunging position as she described

                -Camera has unintentional shots on it that indicate it was in fact dropped

                I am sure there is much more, but my head is pounding tonight.

                -And though they may find themselves able to toss out her entire testimony if she is impeached, I don’t believe that they will want to.

                There is so much that supports her story. I have a lot of hope that this jury will see exactly what we have seen.

    • Just impeachment of her testimony. If the state can prove she never returned the can as she testified, they can point to her lying under oath.

        • I just hope the jury simply disregards this crap by JM to try and say she is lying about everything.

          It’s a pathetic attempt by the prosecution who overcharged on the case.

          • That makes sense. I can’t find a reason in my mind why she would feel the need to lie about something so innocuous as that. I think the State really is grasping at straws. I wonder how far back Walmart keeps such records as that? What if she paid with cash and received a cash refund? How could Walmart keep track of that? Regardless, I think it’s inconsequential, but that’s only my opinion. The opinion of the jurors is really what’s important at this juncture.

            • They would NOT keep record of that. They would NOT have video that far back. Only a witness perhaps will come in and explain their policy, IMO Now if she used credit card, that is held for 7 years.

              • their policy…lol anyone who has ever worked retail knows that if your paying someone what they pay their people the return policy means nothing. Sorry….that is why I keep saying they need a video…

            • I really don’t see why she would purposely lie about returning it. she already had two gas cans, what difference would one more make?

              Also, if pros is saying that she had the gas cans to hide her tracks in Az, then why did she fill them up again in Utah? She didn’t have anything to hide there. She was going home….so that proves to me (not that I need to be proven, I already believe her) that the purpose of the gas cans was simply for emergency on a long drive.

          • See my explanation above, tonysam. If she lies about one thing under oath, and the state proves that, the jury may discredit ALL her testimony (effective impeachment).

            • You are right also abused. I hope the defense can cross examine these employees effectively about inventory matching the returns and room for error. I know large companies track this information due to theft.

      • Why in the hell would she “lie” about something so trivial? That wouldn’t even qualify as perjury, especially if she was RETURNING a gas can.

        One can simply misremember something, but that doesn’ t make it a “lie.”

      • Let us assume, for arguments sake that everything Jodi said on the stand was a lie. What the jury does then is completely disregard her testimony. OK lets do that. Assume Jodi never took the stand.

        What in the prosecutions case proves that this is M1?

        • Wow, that’s a deep question, Al, and a good one. I’m not a practicing attorney, as I’ve stated many times (in case someone attacks me on this), but I’ve received some training to “think” like a lawyer.

          So, let’s assume Kermit effectively impeaches Jodi regarding the gas cans. And let’s assume that the jury (all of them, unanimously) finds that to be material to all of Jodi’s testimony — in other words, it casts doubt upon self defense. Where are we at then?

          (Sidenote: I think the above scenario is HIGHLY improbable. In all likelihood, there will be a tonysam (sorry to use you as an example, but you’re a good one) on the jury, who will think the whole gas can thing is superficial, trivial, nonsense, or some such thing, and actually become a little angry that the prosecution doubts their intelligence to such a degree that they would discredit all the testimony of a woman in trauma (whether she caused her own trauma or not) that she would remember the minutia of a gas can purchase/return so precisely after going through such an event. But I will play along for the moment, and assume that someone like tonysam (or so many others here) is not on the jury. Therefore, the entire jury, unanimously, because of the impeachment based on gas can purchase/return, discredits ALL of Jodi’s testimony. So, I will assume, for the sake of argument, that’s where we’re at when the jury begins to deliberate.)

          At this point (in this hypothetical discussion), the jury has determined that Jodi’s testimony is discredited. They still can’t completely throw out self defense, though. Why? She wasn’t the ONLY witness who testified that Travis was not all that he claimed to be (there were others). Even more importantly, his own words on text messages and his voice have not been discredited (in other words, no one has disputed that he sent those messages or participated in that phone conversation — no one has said “that’s not him, it’s a forgery.” So Travis, himself, is still credible.) If Travis himself is still credible (in other words, there’s no doubt that was him on the tape, or him that sent the text messages), and some of his words to Jodi appear to be abusive (to the jury), then, isn’t it possible that Jodi still did act in self defense? Yes, it is. And if one juror believes so, this jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict.

          So, has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Jodi’s actions were NOT in self defense? No, the prosecution really has not done so. But how will the jury consider it? That’s a tough one. It all depends on the jurors.

          Relating this to my personal experience with my ex-husband, if I had killed him that fateful night when he tried to kill me (and I thought about it), I do not think a jury would have believed me. He was a much loved member of our society. I was a woman who rarely left the house, and only in his company. He helped everyone and anyone. I seemed weird to others. He had told people I was either (a) mentally ill or (b) dying of some disease, usually cancer, and that’s why I never left the house. Travis told people that Jodi was stalking him. (Evidence confutes that. He was pursuing her at least as much as she was pursuing him.) He was an elder and a motivational speaker, and inspiration to others. Jodi was someone who others were intimidated by (what’s he doing with HER?) and who seemed “quiet and odd” or even “sleepy” around his peers.

          But the jury doesn’t have testimony regarding all of the above. They do have some, though. And they have a little bit of testimony about Travis’s anger towards Jodi by witnesses who observed it.

          So all in all, self defense is not, and can not be completely thrown out. Unless the jury decides to disregard that, I think it’s still in.

          Okay, so let’s assume they throw out self defense for a moment. Let’s just go there. Now, they have to decide amongst themselves whether Jodi premeditated this crime or just acted “in passion”. A beautiful woman takes a long trip though the desert. Did she steal her grandparents’ gun or not? Does it matter? Did she intend to kill Travis with that gun? Did she not know a thing about guns? (Admittedly, I don’t. But I have a very dear friend in NM who does. I asked her. She laughed at a .25 caliber gun. So I have to assume people who live in that area known what she knows.) So, I’m on the jury. And I decide Jodi stole the gun. Well, maybe she wanted it for self defense. Or, I’m on the jury, and I decide it’s reasonable that Travis had such a gun. She cleaned his house. So, she could have known about it. She was his most intimate partner for a long time. Reasonable doubt. At the end of this deliberation, the gun is not relevant.

          So, what’s left? Stabbing, slashing throat. Jodi doesn’t remember any of that, but I’ve already found her to be discredited (well, I haven’t, but according to the above, if I’m a juror, I have).

          So, me the juror, well, I have a palm print on the wall to assume she did it. That’s really all I have. So, I’m a juror, and I can put a woman to death based on that, or I can decide not to. I can’t assimilate premeditation based on the fact that they had sex and enjoyed each other’s company for HOURS. If she wanted to kill him, why didn’t she do it after sex or while he was asleep. Everyone knows a man is slightly more vulnerable after orgasm. Mata Hari, the famous spy, perfected a career based on that.

          Travis has more than one orgasm that day. Sorry to be vulgar, but he had a more than slight erection in one of the photos. Having listened to him on the tape, he was one of those guys who would have wanted to achieve fulfillment. He sounded like a guy who would say “Oh but if I get an erection, it HURTS if I don’t orgasm. It’s agony otherwise. I have to. You have to help me.” Ladies, ever had one of those guys who says they CAN’T stop, even if it hurts? Some guys even know about those kind of guys. They tell girls “I’ve heard about them.” So, you only need one guy or girl on the jury who knows about this crap and is willing to admit it. ONE! One juror who dated or whose wife/girlfriend dated a Travis-type … just ONE.

          The state has not proven premeditation beyond any reasonable degree of certainty. The state has not proven that self-defense was not the justification of the acts, even if they impeach Jodi effectively. There is still sooooo much reasonable doubt.

          Has the state proven that this wasn’t manslaughter? That, I don’t think. If they (or the defense) include lesser charges, I think the jury will be inclined to convict on them. A young man is dead. The jury wants to blame someone. If they have no lesser-included charges, I still think they’re going to have to acquit. But they’re not stupid. They know about OJ and Casey. They would rather use a lesser charge.

          • Also Abused,

            I think my point is even more basic than what you are saying. So let’s assume that at the beginning of deliberation the Jury assumes that every thing Jodi said was a lie. Hence there is no valid claim for self defense, there is no valid claim that TA was abusive and we will also give them as fact the presence of 3 gas cans.

            So now the only question about M1 is whether or not the DA has proven (to a degree beyond a reasonable doubt) that there was premeditation.

            So now I go through my usual arguments:

            1. The DA claims that the 25 ACP stolen from the grandparents was the one used at TAs. Where is the proof for this? No ballistics match, no similarity within ammunition types as far as I can tell, no weapon, but an acknowledgement from police that there was a rash of burglaries in and around Yreka when this happened. Plus at least a possibility that Jodi was camping when the event occurred. So the gun could have been the one stolen by Jodi, but it could just as well have been stolen by someone else. And the two events are far enough removed in time and space that there is no automatic connection or correlation between the two.

            2. She rented a car 100 miles away from home. Well there is just one, rather expensive car rental place in Yreka and the closest place to rent a car is either Medford, OR to the north or Redding, CA to the south. The south makes sense also since she had a place to leave her own car, since she has a sibling there.

            3. She dyed her hair — well there is evidence that she did this a while before the acts.

            4. She filled the infamous gas cans. Well, I gather that is pretty common in that area, but more importantly why did she fill them again in SLC on her way home. That isn’t evidence provided by her, that’s JM’s claim.

            5. She turned off her phone.

            6. She took her tags off to avoid detection.

            That is pretty much it. Counter to this are the following:

            1. Why did she not shoot him for over 11 hours after getting there?
            2. Why did she use credit cards marking her way down south, when she could have used cash and claim she went to SLC through northern Nevada, the same route she took home.
            3. Why did she meet up with all these people on her way down south and generally leave a trail of where she was headed.
            4. And then the manner of the killing itself. That is not a coldly calculated killing.
            5. TA’s attitude towards Jodi and his character is clearly indicated not by her words but by his own words and things like the fact that he was carrying on with her while he was trying to get to Mimi Hall, etc.

            So even if you leave Jodi’s testimony out there is no way Jennifer and Kirk can let the Jury go to deliberation without raising substantial issues issues that must point to reasoable doubt for M1.

            • So right Al. Hopefully the defense team will be using the folks on this site as their test jury. I’m still amazed at the knowledge that people have here.

            • Yep, Al, you got it. Reasonable doubt ALL over the place. There isn’t just one thing; there are many. Honestly, the state’s best move is to include lesser charges if they want this jury to convict Jodi of anything.

              I didn’t follow Casey Anthony at all. Were there lesser charges included for the jury in that case?

          • Absolutly correct Also. I still say the defense has to hammer on TA’s own voice and his own incrimination of himself via the phone calls and texts! Hopefully, expert witnesses will also hit this home with the jury.

    • I’ve been wondering why they only have court four days there. Is that normal for them or just specific to this trial?

      • They need a day at the spa so they can look good on T.V.during the trail and all the other bulls@#t shows they have on HLN.On a different subject,my girlfriend has be a medical coder for 20 years now,and this G.W.A. is not new to the medical field. She had to laugh at N.G. yesterday when she heard her talking about it.Get some schooling N.G.

      • Don’t know about AZ, but here in CA the courts and some other offices started closing on Friday to save money by doing employee furlough days on those days. Our county did a lot of furlough days, which cut employee compensation considerably. Not only does it save the state and counties in payroll, it also lowers the employees earnings which count towards retirement compensation. That’s probably more answer than you needed, but it’s all tied to budget cuts….at least in CA that is the case.

  9. I love how the site that shall remain nameless has a pic up of Travis’ brother “Dennis” (Greg) with a black eye and busted up face (mugshot) next to a pic of Travis.
    Above it says nice try Arias supporters.

    I find it HYSTERICAL that they think they are somehow supporting Travis with that photo of his drugged out brother on their site.

  10. Hey, just a thought, didn’t JA say the gas cans were left at her grandmother’s? Why wouldn’t anyone go to the grandmother’s and get the gas cans to be sure exactly how much gas would fit in the cans?

    • Justifiable homicide is not a crime. Hence there can’t be a conviction. That’s a walk clear, Hallelujah type decision.

      • Well it’s always been my opinion that that’s what we have here. Does anybody think this verdict is a possibility?
        Also, if they decide on a lesser charge, say manslaughter, what would that entail?

        • Manslaughter is a real possibility.

          This is what Arizona law defines as manslaughter (I’ve just clipped to the relevant one)

          1. Recklessly causing the death of another person; or

          2. Committing second degree murder as defined in section 13-1104, subsection A upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim; or

          Arizona classifies as a Class 2 felony, but within that there are two categories (dangerous and non-dangerous). A Dangerous Offense is an offense involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury on another person. So I guess that would be where this would fall.

          The range of penalties for class 2 felonies is 3 -10 for non-dangeorus and 7-21 yrs for dangerous. The normal range is about 12.5 yrs

          In Arizona one is allowed one day of good behavior for every two days served and I think they’re eligible for parole after 50 or 60% of their earned credit time. So let’s say she got the minimum 7 year for dangerous. She’d basically walk, without parole because of time already spent. If she got the maximum (21 yrs). Earned credit would allow for release in about 14 years. Parole would be possible somewhere between 7-8 years. So she would have to spend another 2-3 years in jail.

          2nd degree murder also allows for 10-25 years but now earned credit is 1 day for very 3. So in the maximum case she would need to wait about 18 years for release or about 11 years for parole, meaning she’d get another 5-6 years in jail.

          Hope that helps

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Latest News

Go to Top