Juan Martinez blows it – Testimony in the Jodi Arias Trial disproves premeditation

Check out this interesting post, and leave your comments below…
SJ

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

A new year and it begins with a murder trial! On June 4, 2008, Travis Alexander was found dead in his Mesa, Arizona home and the State alleges that Jodi Ann Arias was the killer. The trial has indeed captivated the public with the elements of an Oscar-nominated blockbuster film-love, lies, and murder. And like most publicized murder trials, the alleged killer has already been handed a guilty verdict from the public opinion of her peers. But, unlike most publicized murder trials, the killer has already admitted culpability for the crime. Thus, the killing of Travis Alexander is not about proving who did it, but rather proving whether or not Jodi Ann Arias deserves the death penalty as her punishment.

As a public defender and contrary to popular belief, I believe that the testimony of the Medical Examiner spared Miss Arias from the death penalty and may have even set the stage for the premeditation murder charges to be dismissed. Fortunately for Miss Arias, she was not indicted for lesser charges by the State’s prosecution such as involuntary manslaughter or assault with a deadly weapon.

Also, I find it perplexing that the State went so far as to indict her for burglary. I failed to see how the prosecution’s testimony proves burglary. Showing nude photos of Miss Arias lying naked in the victim’s bed is not exactly how I would define the statute of burglary. If that is the standards of an Arizona burglary then chain me to the wall! And please do not even think for one second that the burglary charges are for supposedly stealing the .25 caliber gun from her grandparent’s home in Yreka! The State of Arizona would not charge her for a crime which was committed in California; Yreka is well outside the jurisdiction of Arizona. But alas, I’ve digressed here.

Last week, we heard the testimony from the County’s Medical Examiner, Doctor Kevin Horn who believes Travis Alexander was stabbed to death first and then shot with a .25 caliber gun. Generally speaking, it seems that the consensus among the public is that the sequence of weapon use is irrelevant. Oh, but I beg to differ! It is very much relevant to the case, especially now that Doctor Horn’s testimony contradicts the charges of murder with premeditation. I find it rather appalling that Miss Arias’ defense team has not been quick to capitalize on this seemingly minor quandary.

Let me explain…

Since Doctor Kevin Horn has testified that Travis Alexander was stabbed first and shot later then his expert testimony alone is sufficient to disprove the premeditation charges!

See testimony excerpt below on sequencing:

Why?

Because the prosecution has argued that Miss Arias stole a .25 caliber gun from her grandparent’s residence in Yreka then drove 15-whatever hours to Travis Alexander’s residence with said gun and the whole while she is supposedly ‘premeditating’ the murder. (Oh, and let us not forget that somewhere in the middle of all this, there were the naughty photos taken in the bedroom and clear implications of sex between Miss Arias and Travis Alexander; hardly implying she was ‘premeditating’ her intent of murdering him!)

But, there is one other minor problem here…

Why did she then stab Travis Alexander first (according to Doctor Horn’s testimony) instead of using the .25 caliber gun she allegedly stole solely for the intention of murdering Travis Alexander???

Thus, in this particular case, for the ‘premeditation’ component of the murder to truly exist, Miss Arias would have had to use the .25 caliber gun first to kill Travis Alexander which would have then demonstrated the possibility of ‘premeditation.’  Miss Arias’ defense team should have been on top of this and motioned the court for a dismissal with prejudice since the prosecution failed to deliver strong enough evidence to support the charges of a premeditated murder.

Under A.R.S. section 13-1105(A)(1), the State of Arizona defines ‘premeditation’ as:

“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. 

The prosecution has rested the premeditation aspect of the charges purely on circumstantial evidence.  But, the question still remains:  Did Miss Arias steal the .25 caliber gun from her grandparent’s residence with the intention of using it to kill Travis Alexander?  Juan Martinez has only implied, but not proven she did in fact steal the handgun.  Therefore, we have the existence of reasonable doubt.  If Miss Arias’ intentions were to kill Travis Alexander then she would have acted upon her intentions by first using the .25 caliber gun she allegedly stole.

If I were her attorney, I would recall Dr. Horn to the stand and then drive this point home to the jury by using the doctor’s own testimony against the prosecution’s case of premeditated murder.   Then I would recall the police officer who responded to the robbery of the Yreka residence and have him testify that no knives were reported stolen.  That is if I couldn’t get the entire case dismissed with prejudice beforehand.

If the court denies the motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice then it leaves the defense team no other choice but to disprove the Medical Examiner’s theory regarding the sequence of weapon use. Let me articulate. For Self Defense to reasonably occur (as the defense is asserting) then it’s absolutely imperative that the gun was discharged first. Then it will be much easier for the defense team to assert Miss Arias’ claim of self-defense.

It is now conceivable that Travis Alexander remained a threat to her even after being shot in the face with a very weak caliber handgun.  On the other hand, I would have a very difficult time believing he was still at large after Miss Arias supposedly slashed his throat.  Shooting him in the face after slashing his throat was really just adding insult to injury… no other way of putting it.  It would be in the best interest of the defense to subpoena an expert gunsmith to the witness stand so the jury can actually hear from said expert the minimal effects caused by a .25 caliber handgun; it has the power equivalent to a Super Soaker squirt gun.

Juan Martinez blew it big time when it was revealed through the testimony of one of his expert witnesses that Travis Alexander was stabbed to death first and then shot with a .25 caliber gun.  I just hope that her defense team seizes the opportunity.  They could really turn the tides of her trial and quite possibly receive a much more favorable verdict from the jury, such as an acquittal.

-Eric Falk, JD

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

Comments

  1. Jon says:

    Very good evaluation of the case. I hope you’re right. Jodi’s life depends on it.

    • Traci says:

      I am slightly behind but, following the trial on this site and Nancy Grace. TRYING to catch up. Just finished watching Nancy Grace and heard the prosecution’s theory on how it happened, which was a HUGE question of mine. I could not imagine how she could overpower him if she slashed his throat and shot him last.

      OK, so they say she had him get into a sitting position for the last photo and then, put camera down (accidentally still taking photo’s) she started to stab him, he stumbled over to sink and down the hallway while she continued to stab him (wouldn’t adrenalin kick in? even as he got up, was he so weak to not hurt her in defense of his life?) and eventually he fell at the end of hallway, into bedroom, then slashed his throat, drug him back to shower and then fatal shot in the head” Is there evidence of foot prints? There would absolutely be foot prints on the blood! How could you avoid it, if he bled from the shower to bedroom and back and you followed him, stabbing him and then drug him back? Has this come out??? Is there footprints? AND 2 min or less? she started stabbing him, he stumbled down the hallway…etc. and within 2 min. back in the shower! REALLY He was 200 pds. HAD TO TAKE MORE THAN 30 SEC.-1 MIN. TO DRAG HIM BACK AND PLACE HIM NEATLY IN THE SHOWER…..Maybe 5-10 MINUTES. It had to be very bloody, slippery, on his body and the floor and rugs. Have I missed too much of trial to ask this? Has it all been answered?

      • bill says:

        whilst he was cut I don’t think he was dead yet. I think she was helping him to the bathroom to clean the wounds and maybe dress them…except they were fatal.
        This is how she was able to supposedly drag him because she wasn’t a dead weight.

        • Edgar Longenecker says:

          Dead weight, live weight… no difference; his head was still on so you can’t deduct that, hundred pounds; not nice, but, given his canonization, and, his wings, could have made him lighter… but, not, with his swelled head…… And, there’s the Taylor Searle, necessary, convincing, that sliced his own tires, twice, and, the convincing rotten email to Jodi, also, to convince Taylor Searle, what, that, Travis and, Searle, had, a thing going on, too /? Is nothing about those people, sacred… ??? And, where was he, but, knowing that Jodi was there,;peeking in the window; about to have a hissy fit…??? It’s obvious that Jodi, was having no trouble controlling the guru; just let him get, what, sex with boys ang girls, is about; what’s the difference, when, boys in boys underwear, is emulated, flipside, or, sunnyside up; perverts don’t know the difference… huh, Taylor……..???… Maybe, Taylor, and, “Frisky Sex,” Martinez, got it going on, by now……Let’s not leave any stoners unturned; whatwith, Travis’s “Oral and anal sex, is less of a sin than vaginal sex,” motif; leaving me to wonder, if, the poor dog, was spared……… Edgrrr…

      • MickyD says:

        Traci,

        Maybe this will help in creating a sequence scenario. According to this police report, for starters, the gun shot was not fatal … page 13

        http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/floresinvestigationreport.pdf

        • Edgar Longenecker says:

          Kira and, MickyD… I too, got the icky feeling about the guy, struggling to conceal, a not too healthy, lust for Travis; who “knew,” this guy was another axe murderer to deal with. /I guess I’d better slash my tires, twice, to not be stalked by Searle, or to pretend to be afraid of Jodi, while jumping her bones whenever Searle wasn’t looking… This is the vibe, I got; groupies, get gotten by whatever is programming… hypnosis, is not gender or, ” it,” specific… Why did Travis show him the snide message to Jodi, and, make such scurrilous comments, as if, Searle was another “lover,” who needed convincing, that, Travis, was not, cheating, on him… What, a can of worms; degeneracy, everywhere… maybe it’s in the chem trails… or, preeruption, ground, wiggling… Edgar… And, MickyD… The sequence doesn’t matter, because she never fired a gun, to, begin with… See forensics’ report, just as soon as you locals, force the court jester, to confess, that , he’s been concealing it, or, and, so has forensics… And, for my money, so has the socalled, defenses, ‘ client, they’re supposed to be defending, while the proof of innocence has been shutting down one blogsite, after another, by the tireless minority, , of one; that’d be I, and, those with common sense; very few and, far, between…who,also smell, lizards at law, who ain’t buying the prosecutors’ spastic shucking and, jiving as he pirouettes, around the courtroom dizzying their eyes into comatose manchurianics… to, brainwash, and, “prove,” all the negatives…. I would imagine that his act is wearing out, the patience of real people, and, there must be one of twelve, he can’t rock with his lullabies… It’s up to you who are there to expose concealment, of….. NO GUNPOWDER PARTICULATES, IN THE COMBINED BLOOD HANDPRINT, PROVES, JODI,NEVER FIRED A GUN… NON CASE, CLOSED… THE STATE IS CONCEALING THEIR OWN EVIDENCE… SHE COULDN’T HAVE OVERPOWERED TRAVIS, WITHOUT SHOOTING HIM FIRST, AND FORENSICS PROVES THE GUNSHOT CAME LAST, NOT FIRST… WHAT PART OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DON’T YOU SHEEPLE, UNDERSTAND…??? Print this and, post it in front of the court house, to smoke out, this travesty; free Jodi, and, lock up these lizards at law… Edgrrr…

          • Ginger Crosbie says:

            Edgar, your comments are disturbing, at best.

            • Edgar Longenecker says:

              Disturbing, at best; best at disturbing; what’s your point ??? Kidnapping, and, holding for two million dollars ransom, under color of, law, is, not disturbing, to you… ??? Good, then, that, my words, disturb, you; glad to hear it. Do you have, a point to make, beyond, that, you should not, be, disturbed ? Is, your coma, really, that, necessary…??? Edgrrr…

    • Traci says:

      Are there footprints? either shoes or feet prints anywhere in sight? all that blood, there has to be. Did I not get to that yet?

      • bill says:

        also there was a lot of water used to wash the carpet and perhaps hide the footprints.
        but I seem to remember one foot print. did they match that to jodi or travis?

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        A small, footprint, claimed to be, Jodis, while, another person, took a picture, showing her foot, allegedly, also, proving that she couldn’t have been taking the picture, and, getting pictured, proving, anotherr, person, with the camera. Then, there’s the much larger, bootprint, proving a third person, was present, verifying, Jodis’ “story,” of, two, intruders… Then, there’s, Jodis’ statement, “I had no part, in it…” Does this, suggest, .anything more or less, than, that there, were, several people, involved…??? Why, then, all, the suicides, in this, soap opera…??? Edgrrr…..

    • tallicherie says:

      I believe she should walk also Travis was a bully and a sexual deviant he knew something was wrong with our girl Jody and he took advantage of her converter to Mormonism to use her sexually and not even a good place actually that was very nasty

  2. Bob says:

    most states have broadened the charge of burglary to be added to any crime charged offense in a private residence as an uninvited guest of the residence not specific to that purpose. The state doesn’t have to establish intent to add that charge or prove something was taken, you should know that.

    • Bob says:

      Burglary (also called breaking … defined as trespassing with intent to … of a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony.) anyway she has more to worry about than that

    • David says:

      The point of the article is the prosecution failed to prove INTENT.

      If you’re curious as to the statute in reference…

      13-1507. Burglary in the second degree; classification

      A. A person commits burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the INTENT to commit any theft or any felony therein.

      I’m very well aware of what I’m talking about. ;)

      • bill says:

        so if she had taken the memory card then she could be charged with burglary

      • MickyD says:

        David,

        Does this address the burglary charge?

        http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012013/m5600778.pdf

        Burglary may occur when a person remains unlawfully with the intent to commit a felony, as the State alleges here. See A.R.S. § 13-1507(A).

        In March 2010, the State provided notice that the underlying felonies supporting the predicate felony of burglary in the second degree of the felony murder charge are first degree murder (or any lesser included offense of first degree murder) and/or aggravated assault.

        Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the felony murder charge, arguing that the charge was insufficient as a matter of law. That motion was denied by the court following oral argument on June 18, 2010. In its ruling on that issue, the court cited to State v. Moore, 222 Ariz. 1, 14, ¶ 61, 213 P.3d 150, 163 (2009). In that opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument that felony murder cannot be predicated on a burglary based on the defendant’s intent to murder. It did so, in part, based on State v. Miniefield, 110 Ariz. 599, 601, 522 P.2d 25, 27 (1974), in which the Court noted that the felony murder statute “does not draw a distinction between one who intends to kill another by fire and one who only intends to burn down a dwelling house and accidentally kills one of the occupants.” Id. See also State v. Kuhs, 223 Ariz. 376, 224 P.3d 192, 198, ¶ 23, n.4 (2010) (noting that it rejected the defendant’s argument in Moore that “one cannot commit felony murder when one committed burglary in order to commit murder”).

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        Intent is irrelevant… she never fired a gun… she never, overpowered, Travis… therefore, she never , stabbed him, cut him, or, burned his house down… or, shot him…. got it ??? Edgrrr…

        • DickyM says:

          Can I assume you want to revise this statement “Jodi Arias never fired the gun” now that she’s admitted to doing so on the stand? Albeit, accidentally.

          • Edgar Longenecker says:

            Dicky M… With pleasure… No gunpowder, particulates, were found, in the combined blood handprint, on the wall, … and, it, would only be abuse of a body; if, she did, since, I have proven that the gunshot, was, in the second crime, scammed, to, set, Jodi, up for, the precision kill, by the simplemindedness, of, the haphazard, stabfest, also, after the fact, as, proven by, “wounds,” that, didn’t bleed; proving that, the gunshot, was post mortem. Why, has everything, these, lieyers, have, duped, Jodi, into, saying, been deemed, to be, a, lie, until, she now, has been programmed, to, say, what, you. want to, hear; and, that’s, believable…??? Forensics, finally, has recanted, the lie, for which, these, criminals at law, scammed extradition, that, the gunshot, was first, so, Jodi could get an advantage, by, a 130 pound girl, whipping, a 200 plus, pound, martial arts, kickboxer…fighting, for, his life… now, disproven; yet, no one bothered, to, rescind, the extradition, even, proven, fraudulent, by the prostitutor, doing his, about face 180 degree, shift, in lies, without, missing a beat; as if, who cares, what the evidence says; she’s going to be proven guilty, whatwith, an already, stacked deck, jury… substituting, a, hypnonauseating, carnival spastic, strobe show, for, evidence… Being blackmailed, into, words, induced, by “Your,” lieyer, can, hardly, be called, an admission… The, only thing, she is guilty of, is, sticking, to the delusion, that, the truth, will set her, free. I guess she never thought a two million dollar, bribe, to the socalled, defense, would make them, sell her out; imagine, that, a, crooked, lieyer; who, knew…??? Edgrrr…

  3. Paul says:

    I’m guessing she had only one round of ammunition for the pistol. Didn’t they find some NINE MILLIMETER ammunition in her car? IF they did, that would mean to ME that she had the wrong ammo. Or didn’t they find 9mm ammo in her car?
    I still think the order of things means little in the big picture. The big problem for JA is the brutality of the scene and the fact that it doesn’t support self defense. It IMO supports the fact that she assaulted this guy long after he was neutralized. She could have left. Instead she stuck around to slash his throat and more. Even Arizona doesn’t like vigilantes.

    • CJ says:

      Why didn’t she use the whole round instead of shooting once? I’ve never read about ammo seized in her car either.

      I think the order matters as does the state of AZ obviously. How do you know she could have left? If she shot him first, they could have struggled prior to the other fatal wounds.

      • bill says:

        I think she was planning to escape before arrest. Perhaps suicide planned but not so her family would find the body.

      • joyce says:

        A box of .25 caliber bullets was found in her parents’ house. Maybe she got her gun from her parents long before the “staged” burglary.

    • joyce says:

      I believe that Jodi did it for self defense. The state version made no sense, including time wise.

      Look at the last picture; he looked red-faced and mighty mad. Jodi probably joked with him about gay when he had his back photographed. Jodi dropped the camera because she was startled by his quick temper, he went nuts and chased her down to the bedroom. He was probably screaming bitch (“Cal. bitch in the interview) and threatening a knife to her a** and all the way. Jodi was terrified and she picked up the knife (used early in bondage sex). In the relationship, Jodi was submissive and he was dominant. Small Jodi with a knife in hand might have enraged him. She swung the knife frantically when he charged and inflicted those two fatal wounds when they facing each other. In the chaos, she did not realize that he was no threat anymore and continued to stab him. She was scared when he fell and washed to see the damage. But there was no saving of him with the neck wound even she called 911. The shower looked tilted, and if stabbing started in the shower, the blood spatter still should be checked even after washing. Did state ever check that to supporter its version? It seemed that most blood was at the entrance of bedroom and hallway.

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        Hardly, that a neck stab, explains, an ear to ear throat slice, deep enough to nearly decapitate, unless one is using a shovel; and, a knife sweep, to do an ear to ear, throst slice, would require a lot more horsepower, than Olive Oyl, could drum up, to wipe out, Bluto…to, be so deep… A fighter, like Travis, could have easily, blocked, such a sweeping gouge… Edgar…

      • Ginger Crosbie says:

        I am so happy you are not on the jury. You and Edgar should get together.

    • patty says:

      I agree. i think he, TA is a PIG and possible pedo. I believe he treated her so badly and was mentally and physically abusive. She may have had the gun for self protection as she grew fearfull of him.. Perhaps she found out more disturbing things about what her was doing “pedo” too or was going to do and that enraged her more but the overkill. How will they explain that away?? I hope she is found innocent. I am sick of women being little more than 3 hole wonders for pigs like this.

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        Paul didn’t say that since forensics proves she didn’t fire a gun, all else is baloney… in time the dog prosecutor will return to his vomit… may the sonofabitch, enjoy the regurgitation… You think he doesn’t know that the forensics team found no gunpowder particulates in the combined blood handprint, and that his perjuries duped two governors into signing an interstate warrant, kidnapping, and, holding Jodi, for two million dollars, ransom, knowing that forensics, disproved his perjuries, and the court jester, had no case; beaten, just like Travis, by believing his own hype; guruing, himself… The vomit returns to its’ own dog…. ??? Edgrrr…

      • Kathleen says:

        I agree, why didn’t any of Travis’ friends tell him to leave Jodi alone, they’re all big on saying how horrible Jodi was. In fact, Travis was a big bully, why didn’t HE just leave Jodi alone. He had another girlfriend. Travis USED Jodi for his sick sex, he didn’t love her, but she DID TRULY LOVE
        Travis. Travis isn’t as innocent as portrayed, if he was a MORMON, why, in the first place, was he having sex with all these women. Jodi was abused as a child, therefore, she was desperately seeking love and along came Travis, leading her on, using her for sex. Jodi, on the other hand, loving Travis so deeply was willing to do ANYTHING to make him love her. Every time Travis used her for his sick sex, she was convinced that he still loved her. THEN, he tells her he’s taking someone else to Cancun, while still leading her on, when his own sick demented mind wanting more sex from her, he would call her and her being so desperate for him to love her would respond. She did’t write this in her journal because she was embarrassed!!!!! She was abused by Travis, mentally and sexually!!!!!!!!!

    • DickyM says:

      Yeah, I heard there was some 9mm found in the car that she was getting ready to drive away in to “get out of town” when the police arrested her.

      Years ago, Jodi originally reported that two intruders killed TA. And that when one of the intruders tried to fire at her the gun jammed and that’s how she survived and was able to escape.

      Often, people include partial truths into their web of lies … it makes the story easier to tell and more believable… … maybe it was the gun Jodi was using on Travis that jammed.

      All I know is that it was smart to get rid of that weapon “in the desert” as she says.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      That’s a reach, isn’t; it… speculation, based upon a foregone, conclusion, based upon, Arias Bias, to, begin with…??? If, she had nine mmm, ammo, and, a .25 caliber, gun, how, did she fire it…??? And, since she has been locked up, there have been a dozen, home invasion shootings, in, Mesa, that, she, couldn’t have been guilty, of, either. How many were, gunshots to the head, and, how many, were, gunshots, by a shell ejecting, .25 caliber, automatic, pistol… and, how many ejected brass, shells, ballistically, matched, the shell, found at the Alexander, sacred, eternal soul saving, blood atonement, suicide; ascension, to his, own planet, and, all those, virgin angels…??? And, why is the Bishop, hiding behind, religious, privilege,as to, who, ratted, Travis, out, to, the Bishop; whatwith, all of, Travis’s one way, redeemable, sins… 15 million LSDers believe, in the doctrine, and, some have taken the blood oath, so, what’sv not, to, believe…??? Edgrrr…

  4. Daniel Tremont says:

    I agree Bob. I am not an attorney, but I also knew that burglary did not need to be proven. Entering with Intent to commit a felony was the point of the charge…. And I agree, an attorney should be aware of that.

    I also agree with you Paul, that the order of things means very little except that the jury may see the stabbing first, shooting later as “cruel”. I think for people to focus on this as a defense is to see Jodi Arias convicted. And the Death Penalty would be criminal imo. But this is a very, very, difficult case for the defense.

    • David says:

      Please see my reply to Bob’s post above

    • Paul says:

      Daniel T: Everybody has to remember SHE ALREADY CONFESSED TO KILLING ALEXANDER. There is NO DOUBT on this. She admitted it. The fact that she told three different stories and more before admitting to killing him is problematic, and the crime scene with the 1. multiple stabbing 2. throat slashing so severe it nearly removed TA’s head and 3. shooting him once in the head with a 25 caliber pea shooter. ( I say pea shooter because IF I knew I was going to be executed point blank, I sure wouldn’t want it to be with a 25…more likely to maim on one shot) .
      I still maintain she had only one round for the pistol. Otherwise she would have given him the whole clip. It just doesn’t make sense to shoot him once and then have him wandering around (I don’t mean that to be funny, but it’s clear he moved around when badly injured). That’s why she shot him ONCE ONLY.

      • joyce says:

        Of course I have no idea how the defense will present Jodi’s version. In my opinion, If they want to take murder I off, they have to convince the jurors that Jodi did not bring a knife and a gun to the bedroom and ready to kill. The knife was Mr. Alexander’s for the kinky sex with Jodi being tied up and he cutting off the bondage later or whatever. The defense implied that the fiber on the flip-flop was not from the fringed pillow. When the fight started, the gun was not even in the house or she would have shot him with the whole clip if she went there to kill him, instead of atacking a man of 190 pounds with a knife. From the questions of the jury, some of them were not convinced that a woman of Jodi’s size could kill a man alone with a knife in about 1.5 minutes. Then she was in shock and she hid in the closet for a long time (some transferred blood in the closet). Then she was consumed by guilt and she thought about killing herself with the gun next to Alexander in the moment of despair. That was why she retrieved the gun from her car, still in the bloody clothes, no premeditated murderer would leave victim’s blood in a rental car. Her emotions swing among sadness, anger, despair and so on after this toxic relation ended up with Alexander dead. Maybe the instinct of self preserving made her made her angry about the situation again, she shot his body in that moment (while I do not understand why she shot his dead body). She finally decided to remove herself from the scene.

        She is not facing the death penalty because of her lies, I do not understand her, maybe get a psychiatrist to explain it. I would like to hear the guy she dated for 4 years to describe how Jodi was like and maybe someone can provide some information that she had a gun long before the burglar in her grandparents’ house. I do not think that the burglar should not have been let in because there was no attempt to collect any fingerprint.

    • David says:

      Difficult, yes! Thankfully, the prosecution is left with the burden of proof. Defendant only needs to cast enough doubt in the minds of 12 jurors to get a favorable verdict. It’s all about how the defense team is able to spin it, minimizes certain aspects of the crime, and mitigates the damage(s) thereof.

      Doubt already exists as to whether or not Miss Arias stole the .25 caliber gun from her grandparent’s residence in Yreka. And this is the basis of the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence regarding Miss Arias’ INTENT to kill Mr. Alexander.

      But, we shall soon see just how much doubt exists in the minds of the jurors.

      Very good discussion so far!

    • CJ says:

      On this whole burglary issue: this could mean that AZ, if someone enters a home, spends a week there, steals a wallet with enough money to constitute a felony, that they burgled the place? Or am I seeing this in black and white.

      • CJ says:

        Or beat someone up a week later constituting a felony?

      • David says:

        You’re seeing it correctly. However, like Bob mentioned in a previous post, the burglary charges were added because Miss Arias entered the home with the alleged INTENT of committing a felony. Like Bob eluded, burglary includes ‘the intent to commit a felony, whether its murder, assault, grand theft, etc.

        Hope that makes sense

        • CJ says:

          Got it. So in this case, it’s about proving her intention to go in and kill Travis. So far, that hasn’t been completely proven to me.

          What does imperfect self defense mean in your industry? is it when someone’s self defense isn’t proportional to the threat?

          If this fight started off as Jodi defending herself, but the anger/passion and adrenaline (bad combo) took over hence all the injuries and “overkill” as the masses say, is that an imperfect self defense?.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      A confession; pandering to her seemingly, lost cause; because, all the reasonable doubts, have been concealed from the process ??? Think so ? Then the bishop, Travis, pled no contest to, can explain who, ratted, Travis, out to the bishop, and, began Travis’s ascent to planet playboy and all those virgin angels. Read “The God Makers,” for, all you are missing, and, try to leave foregone lynch mobstering at the door. The person who ratted Travis out to the bishop, had serious issues with Travis’s ho hum, cavalier attitude, about whose woman he could, violate, and, get away with it. Ratting him out to the bishop, was likely, a big yawn, inciting him to do the deed… Jodi, had, Travis, well under control, and, had no need to be jealous; he’d get horny again, soon. Edgar…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      ” Shooting someone is cruel,” if done, as a mercy killing, to put an obvious goner out of his misery…??? Not so, just to argue, any, left field, camel noses, in the tent…And, an eternal soul saving, blood oath atonement, heart plunge, ear to ear, throat slice, quasireligious, ritual, is not, cruel… Let’s hear from the bishop that, Travis, got ratted out, to… So, even if, forensics had not proved that no gunpowder particulates, in the combined blood, alleged analysis, it, means that, Jodi, never fired a gun, before or even, after, the high priest blood atonement, soul saving ritual… Edgar… What kind of piousity, justifies a bishop, leaving a girl, struggling for her life, while he sits on Travis’s confession, no doubt, regarding, being trapped by his own perversions ? What are these LSD / LDS men; men, or mice… squeek up… Let’s hear, who, out of desperation, he, or, she, was, who ratted Travis, out to the bishop,to do, a last ditch effort, to get this, freak, settled down, or, disposed of; leaving a bishop, and, a petitioner, to the church, material witnesses; probably, exempt from, interrogation…??? Edgar…

    • DickyM says:

      Daniel,

      Although you couldn’t know this at the time of your post, the order NOW means very much … because Jodi has just testified that she shot him first with Travis’ gun, from Travis’ closet.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      And, since, Jodi, has some delusions that justice has a place in an unAmerican courtroom, it’s irrelevant, if, she tells you, she’s, the Easter Bunny… Five years of peanut butter, and, green balogna, sandwiches, will make anybody, wiggy… We have evidence as the criteria, for, justice; not, whatever, words, this spastic, hypnonauseator, can, wring, out, of, a girl; with, his spastic, carnival act… So, what if, she refuses to testify, in the penalty phase…??? She gonna be held in contempt of court…??? And, how will the penguin in a tutu, do his carnival act; by, blowing smoke, and, badgering, himself…??? The fifth Amendment, was created, precisely, for this kind of, systemic criminality; to, induce the innocent into a pissing contest, with, a skunk… Hopefully, Jodi, will, get this opinion; of, the right, not, to, incriminate herself… We shall see… Reasonable doubt, gallops, yet, not, one, reached, the jury… Why’s that…??? Edgrrr…

  5. Bob says:

    Intent, absent of tangible hard evidence,(i.e.- monetary gain such as life insurance,murder fro hire, conspiracy) can be very subjective. It can be interpreted or rationized differently by each individual. You’re an attorney so your familiar with- res ipsa loquitur (Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”). Wouldn’t that be true in this case, and switches the state’s burden of proving premeditation more over to the defense?

    • Bob says:

      Another way to put it, the defense burden to prove its not is greater the the the states that it is.

      • Daniel Tremont says:

        Bob, that’s exactly what I thought. The thing speaks for itself. I read somewhere a defense attorney said that with a claim of self defense the burden switches to the defense to prove self defense. Maybe in Arizona? I have also read that the abuse must have been “long standing” and must be able to be proven by the defense that it had been going on a long time. The Battered Women Syndrome as defined by medical professionals familiar with it…I thought requires a certain period of time in order to be considered legitimate. This worries me too because they were not together long and it was not like they lived together. She had the opportunity to get away from his mind control. Thoughts anyone?

        I agree David, great discussion so far, and really appreciate your input as an attorney. I am just thinking along the lines of the jury. IMO, I don’t see ‘reasonable’ doubt that she stole the 25 caliber and staged its theft. I see the “possibility of doubt”. To me it’s not reasonable then that she simply stole it in order to have protection on her travels. Why not simply plead her case to her grandparents telling them she needed it. No. I think there is no “reasonable doubt” here unfortunately at least after the jury has heard the pathway of her stories and attempts to cover her tracks. I don’t think a reasonable person could see her calling Travis at 11:48pm on the eve she killed him and pretending everything was ok and inviting him somewhere could have been anything else than an attempt to cover her tracks. And would a jury believe that a person who had just been involved in a life and death struggle for their survival, would be in a mind-set to call Travis, knowing he was dead …in order to cover her tracks? Again, this is where I worry that a reasonable person could see pre-meditation.

        • CJ says:

          I disagree about the length of time… Okay battering albeit emotional or physical does involve systematic abuse over time. But they were “together” for more than five months whether or not she was living there. In my former life, before I received help, I didn’t live with one of the abusers but out of the two, I would consider him ( the one I didnt live with) to be the one who most traumatized me. And, he didn’t hit me – it was the things he said and did that traumatized me. (That was in highschool and college and he still bothers me 20 years later from another state via email.) The second one was physically abusive and I lived with him for a year but was with him for four. If I HAD to choose, I would pick physical abuse any day of the week over emotional. Why did I stay? Because every-time they apologized, with flowers etc. I believed them. These people don’t just apologize, they cry, they beg, they sound sincere.

          I don’t with what happened to me on anyone and I had to spend a great deal of time in therapy to learn why i was attracting people like that. Now, I wouldn’t consider allowing anyone to call me a name, tell me I’m nothing etc.

          If Jodi is anything like I was, she believed Travis too. There is a reason we haven’t seen the hundreds of emails yet. There is a reason the defense is fighting via motions to get that stuff in.

          • David says:

            Very good insight you offer us here CJ from the perspective of one who suffered mental abuse. Thank you for sharing this

          • BeeCee says:

            I agree with everything you said CJ about the emotional/mental abuse and about the lack of email and text message evidence provided.

            (again, they should have the tech by now to access at least some of the texts from his phone, and at the least the cell company should have text logs if not the messages themselves)

          • MH says:

            C.J.
            I have to agree mental abuse is the absolute worst as I have experienced myself. It’s very hard to overcome. Thank you for sharing

        • bill says:

          I think she couldn’t plead to have the gun from her grandparents because they would have said “don’t travel”
          I think a gun and a knife were part of their sex games that day. She stole the gun expecting to put it back…except the grandparents noticed it missing.

          • CJ says:

            Interesting. I’ve read 50 shades of Gray LOL. But I didnt know knife and gun play was part of BSDM or however the acronym goes.

      • David says:

        You make a great point…IF this was a medical malpractice trial. Res ipsa loquitur usually applies when negligence is involved. The prosecution would have to prove Miss Arias had a duty of care for Mr. Alexander and that she breached that duty of care. For duty of care to apply here, it would have to be demonstrated that Miss Arias had ‘control’ over Mr. Alexander’s well being (like a doctor over their patients), property, or whatever has been placed under Miss Arias’ control. The accident (or in this case, death) resulted from her breaching her duty of care.

        Hope that makes sense

      • Bob says:

        another way to state it , the evidence is self evident, and switches the burden for proving premeditation over to the defense to prove otherwise.

        • David says:

          Under no circumstances does the burden of proof ever ‘shift’ to the accused. The accused only need to refute (not prove) or at the very least, cast doubt on the evidence presented against them. That is the whole point of the article we are discussing here: to cast doubt on Miss Arias’ alleged ‘intentions’ of killing another human being.

          There is no doubt she killed Mr. Alexander…she’s admitted it, but was it her intention?

          I do not believe the prosecution presented strong enough evidence in this case to support their claim that Miss Arias INTENDED to kill Mr. Alexander. In fact, I am arguing they disproved her alleged intentions of killing him for reasons I stated in the article above.

          I’m very pleased with the discussion and feedback from everybody here! Thank you all

          • bill says:

            I think if she meant to kill him she could have left him in the hallway to die or shot him there to finish him off. Since she did lift him and take him to the bathroom, then it strikes me that she was trying to clean his wounds. The blood from his neck wound was entering his trachea and so he coughed blood splatter into the basin. He was probably looking at himself in the mirror. Then he was put into the shower to rinse the blood so they could see the wound more clearly…except the wounds were fatal.
            So she did offer some duty of care. if the camera had not shown her lifting him then we might surmise he dragged himself or staggered to the bathroom.

          • Lynnea Powell says:

            David, intent can be a matter of seconds right? Since Ms. Arias allegedly stabbed the victim 27 times and cut his throat, things that take time – minutes at least, she had time to stop prior to death. Instead we see a progression of actions – stabbing, throat cutting, the gun shot. At the point she cut his throat and shot him in the head, it would seem to me that intent is proved. I’m not a criminal defense attorney so I might be misunderstanding this.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Uscrambling that, omelet… was there, such an insurance, policy, of course, with such, a named beneficiary…??? First things first, despite, this soap opera, having been scammed, from, end, back to the beginning… Edgar…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      In re…. in your face, prima facie, evidence; does that, not, apply to the spastic prostitutor, reversing course, when, his three stooges, conspiracy; that, Jodi, shot, Travis, first, to, gain, the edge, found, to be a fraud, then, to, continue, this mock trial, by, claiming, the opposite; without, skipping a shuck, or, a jive… ??? How does this fit in with anything less than, obstruction of justice; that, you’re guilty, don’t belabor the issue, with, submitting, proofs to the contrary… Edgrrr…

  6. Daniel Tremont says:

    Jon, I know it is a support site for Jodi. And believe me I am in support of her acquittal primarily because I am vehemently against the Death Penalty. But I do not think it does Ms. Arias any good to ignore what the jury may be thinking. I hope that her attorneys monitor these sites and consider their approach (like I understand Jose Baez did). Being in support of Ms Arias imo you must be ever vigilant in thinking first like the prosecution in order to fight and defend.

    • Bob says:

      not to get off point, but regarding the D.P .
      Up here in MN. no death penalty, a guy just was arrested for killing his wife while their young 18 month old son was home. sawed her up, put her in rubber storage bins, and hid them in a former cellmates garage.
      He is charged with 2nd degree murder. I think this is a guy they could trade for JA , and nobody would object.
      http://www.twincities.com/ci_22397350/st-paul-man-charged-wifes-slaying-needed-better?source=most_viewed

      • CJ says:

        It’s not off topic. Why did that happen? Did they conclude the guy killed the person as a crime of passion?

        • Bob says:

          It just happened, and the paper article will give better accounting and than i can. But it does raise some parallel questions. He has also confessed . It definitely has a strong case for it,(passion defense), and diminished capacity,(alcohol) ,comes into play. But I think it tests our bias, and how we rationalize things to fit that bias. Would the same people here advocating for life in prison or acquittal for JA be willing to do the same for this guy? Because of who the victim is bring out a different emotional response? I know it does for me.
          I can safely say there won’t be websites pop up advocating for this guy.

          • Kira says:

            Bob, that is an interesting point. I agree that biases certainly do exist among people in regard to both offender and victim. That’s why it’s important to get as impartial as jury as possible so that they can make a judgment based on the facts of the case alone.

          • Daniel Tremont says:

            Excellent question Bob. I daresay you are correct. No websites will be popping up defending this guy. So why is this different? For one, I am against the DP, so no matter what this person has done, for me Death at the hands of the government is never an appropriate response. The fact he confessed does make it more slam dunk but again..imo, no DP. My mother (who is an Activist against the DP) turned me on to a movie called “I want to Live” with Susan Hayward. A classic.

            But why are there websites popping up defending a woman like Ms Arias that admitted to the crime..(eventually) from people who don’t even know her and yet others there is no such support? Good question. I have stated my reasons but would love to hear from others. Is it that we automatically believe that for a woman to be capable of this she must have been abused and abused horribly…given the horrendous statistics of battered women? Is it something else?

          • CJ says:

            I agree with you. I’m enthralled by certain cases because of my own emotional reaction. Just like others are interested in the zimmerman case.

            Also, If I think there is a possibility the person is a possibility the person is being railroaded, I’m immediately interested in it. I’m biased when females in high profile cases are vilified in the media, before and during trial too. I suppose I have a thing for the underdog.

          • bill says:

            I am in Australia and there is less and less tolerance for alcohol as an excuse. In my lifetime the government has had a sustained campaign to encourage responsible drinking. (forget prohibition – it doesn’t work)
            I was in a jury and the guy was drinking at a pub on Anzac day. An argument broke out over a two up game. he went home and got a gun and cam back and shot the other man while driving past the hotel. Under the influence of alcohol it probably seemed like a good idea. However we felt if you are drinking that much that you lose that sensibility then it isn’t the alcohol’s fault, it is the drinker’s fault.

      • BeeCee says:

        I will spell out my thought process on this one, on why I would support a site for Jodi and not for the guy in MN.

        It has nothing to do with gender FOR ME.

        The guy in MN had an actual criminal history, He was an ex convict, for rape. Jodi has no proven history of stalking and raping anyone. That is my bias, past history, and with Jodi’s case I have not seen any actual documentation of stalking or any past boyfriends, as actual witnesses-not the ones going on the news, stating that she was obsessive.

        • Junior Valdez says:

          It has nothing to do with gender for me either. I support anyone who does harm to another if there was a valid reason for it, such as self-defense. It may well be that this MN fellow was fearful of her and she had hurt or injured or abused him for years prior. If the facts indicate that he had a legitimate reason for killing her then he should be freed.

          • BeeCee says:

            I don’t consider ANY reason legitimate for killing someone. I have a problem with having the death penalty for anyone except people like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, those who do it more than once, once that COULD be self defense.

        • CJ says:

          Interesting. I was the only one where gender played a role in thinking. Hearing how we all approach this case is very fascinating to me. Thanks for sharing everyone.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Jodis’ lieyer, has stated that, she is too busy to read the blogs; so, with not one of dozens of reasonable doubts, entered into the process, how, exactly, is Jodi, getting, competent and, effective, legal counsel ?,

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      It would seem that a lieyer who states that she is ” too busy to read [all our] reasonable doubts,” is not likely to do so, as clearly, evident by the fact, that none of our reasonable doubts has wended through the maze of deceit, to get before the authority of the jury… Why,s that….??? Edgrrr…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Her alleged, attorney has stated, she, is, : “too busy to read the comments…” not,m one of which, reached the jury… out, of, dozens… Edgrrr…

  7. CJ says:

    Thank you for taking the time to teach me/us. Everything you said makes perfect sense. I only hope the defense seizes the opportunity you outlined too. Thanks again!

    • David says:

      My pleasure! I really like the decorum of the folks here and the discussions! It’s always nice to share ideas with like-minded mature people!

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        Too bad, pearls before swine, are the lot, of those who must rely upon the non existent integrity, of the “American,” bar association…. lizards at law… reptillian illitearati… Edgrrr…

  8. Bob says:

    Daniel, I respect your strong stance. For me, it’s some go, some stay, not so strong. The young mother up here absolutely believed in 2nd chances, and she paid the ultimate price. The more info that gets released the more tragic this story will get. For JA, the first degree charge with the DP possible , and no lesser charges filed., puts a lot of pressure on the defense no matter what they feel their case is.
    and leaves the state an out to offer life plea at any time if they feel they are losing momentum. I cant see the defense ever turning that down life.

    • CJ says:

      I used to believe in the DP when younger, but now I think it’s wrong. I also think that if I didn’t think it was wrong, I still wouldn’t condone it because the state has gotten it wrong before and innocent people were put to death. That alone, makes me not support it aside from my personal feelings. (But I respect others views who feel it’s right.)

      • Lynnea says:

        I agree with you CJ. It astounds me that the US signs treaties which clearly state that the death penalty is a human rights violation, but we continue to use this as a method of punishment. It costs more to subject someone to the death penalty than housing them in prison for life.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Let the court jester, do his high wire tap dance, spastic, lying, at law, bogus process… with, just one, Jury person, serious, about this travesty, meeting just, one reasonable doubt, among, dozens, all over the net; scammed out, by officers of the court, weaseling, to let go of this hot potato; ten nmillion dollar, civil suit, in the making… and, bogus guilty, or honest acquittal, either way, it ain’t over; there’s getting even to do… Edgrrr…

  9. Pique says:

    Hello everyone. I’ve been busy these past couple of weeks watching most of the trial and reading various opinions and public commentary on the case. While I haven’t read all the comments on this website, I find that the views here are on the whole much, much more balanced and nuanced than anywhere else I’ve found on TV or online.

    So, I’d like to join the discussion here, not because I’m sure that Jodi Arias is innocent of premeditated murder, but because I have doubts that she’s guilty of premeditated murder. And, like others here, I’m also no fan of the death penalty …

    A post will follow soon …

  10. Pique says:

    One thing I’m not convinced of (at least not yet!) is the importance of the sequence of injuries–this intense focus on which weapon was used first.

    For one, I took the Medical Examiner’s testimony as reasonable and scientific. That is, he said (in no uncertain terms) that the path of the bullet went through Travis’ frontal lobe, and that this insult would’ve caused a tremendous shock to the entire brain. Travis would’ve been incapacitated at the very least; he would not have been able to sustain defensive wounds to his hands after he was shot through the forehead. He, the ME, also said that no bleeding was associated with this wound, suggesting that Travis’ heart was no longer beating when he was shot.

    But, beside the fact that I take the ME at his word, I still can’t see (again, not yet–the defense has yet to present its case) how it matters to the prosecution. If this was a premeditated murder, and the gun was there, at the scene, for the express purpose of killing him, that doesn’t mean that the crime went as planned. Others here have made this point and I agree: the choice of weapons, and in what order, would be a question of opportunity and other factors (e.g., the proximity of the gun, the skill of the shooter, the amount of ammunition available, the proximity of the knife compared to the gun, etc.). The prosecution has also argued that premeditation could’ve been formed in a very short period–that is, it could’ve been simply that the knife was the most handy weapon in that short moment when she decided to kill him. So, no matter which way you look at it, the prosecution can (the way I understand it) argue premeditation.

    Earlier in the trial, however, I remember hearing that if the gunshot came at the end–if he was shot after he was already dead/completely unable to defend himself–that showed “depravity.” Does “depravity” play into sentencing? Could this, perhaps, be the main reason the sequence of events matters so much?

    What strikes me–as a regular person, not as a legal expert–about this messy, jumbled-up crime scene is just that: how messy and sloppy it is! All that incriminating evidence left behind! All the stupid things Arias did and said to try to cover her tracks. It just seems that almost everything that happened afterward was not truly planned, but desperately made up on the spot. Every new corner that she was backed into necessitated a new lie. To me, this points to a crime of passion, of psychological break-down and perhaps even dissociation. And the ridiculous deceptions involved strike me as psychotic–rather than sociopathic–behaviour. I realize that the other side would argue: “So what? All that shows it that she is an incompetent criminal.” But, as I said, for me this creates strong doubt about premeditation.

    I really look forward to the defense’s case. But, having listened to the testimony of some of the state’s witnesses, together with having read Travis’ blog, I’m already convinced this was an emotionally abusive relationship. I’d like to go on and on speculating about THAT aspect, but I’ve already written too much for one post.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      PTSD, explains, enough that a real judge, sitting in on the contradictory stories, could see that she was missing a few jokers, in her deck; evidence, of which, we now see, ended up in the prosecutors, sleeve… so that, she should be tested for fitness to stand trial, at least, until an expert, can explain the sporadic compartmentalization of glimpses of her various realities, that, proves a disconnect, and, not, lies… that is, if, there weren’t a courtroom full of those who are a half bubble off, as well, so, the difference is not, that notable… I do note one shrink made the diagnosis, but, that would just make the bloodthirsty State, look even worse, in the civil rights trial to come, for this rush to judgement… Edgrrr…

  11. FLNJANG says:

    The prosecution left the gap of whether the gun she used was stolen from the grandparents homes so the jury may draw inference. The sad part is like SJ stated that it could be implied and in my opinion not infered. For Gods sake This woman’s life is on the line!!
    . If she stabbed him first it appears to me it was a crime of passion. She may have shot him to stop him from moving or in the chaos of the moment to appear that someone else was present. The 27 stab wounds and neck slicing show she was really angry. Something happened that led her to snap. Like another poster stated be careful how you treat people. I don’t think he deserved to die but they were very toxic to each other.
    I guess this prosecutor hasn’t learned you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt she murdered him in a premeditated fashion. All I’ve learned so far is JA and TA were very superficial people that only cared about their looks to the outside world. They didn’t prove stalking, obsession. They overcharged her. And sorry but if I was in the jury with what they’ve presented so far, I couldn’t convict her. And we don’t know what the defense will present. It’s not as clear cut as the media and the state of Arizona want to present this case. Where are the emails and texts? Soooooo much left unanswered.

    • Junior Valdez says:

      I think the jury should require direct evidence of premeditation, like witnesses who heard her planning the murder or videotape of her planning it. If there is only circumstantial evidence, which is worthless, IMO, she should be acquitted!!

      • Daniel Tremont says:

        Junior, I am not so sure many agree with you that unless there is direct evidence, (ie videotape of her planning murder) she should be acquitted. The fact however that there was photos (direct evidence) of Travis’ in shower alive and next minute bleeding and on floor) is pretty unbelievably rare in and of itself.

        I understand the emotional aspect of not wanting to see Ms. Arias convicted and sentenced to death. As I’ve said, that is NEVER acceptable imo. But you need to think like a juror may be.. in that they often put themselves in the shoes of the victim or the victim’s family as well as in the shoes of the accused. They may be thinking what if this was their brother, son? Would they need direct evidence.. a videotape of her planning the deed? Somehow I think not. Because would that ever be likely? Unfortunately like I have said the evidence thus far presented by the state does not look good for Jodi.

        The flip side of THAT, (them in the shoes of the accused) is why I think they will want to see good hard evidence from the defense that could lead them to the ‘reasonable’ doubt that she had no choice but to defend herself and fight for her life. Because this is a DP case, I am just hoping beyond hope that if this evidence comes through, they will recognize their duty.

        • bill says:

          Jodi intended to kill Travis and we assume she had the gun in anticipation of the crime but the knife was more handy, so she knifes him. Then the final gunshot wound to finish him off. But why lift him back to the bathroom? That takes considerable effort. She could have put 6 shots into him in the hallway and gone on her merry way.
          The fact that she took him to the bathroom has significance.
          In the bathroom you can clean to wounds. The blood splatter in the sink indicates that blood was coughed. His throat was cut at that time and blood was going into his trachea. Thus the cough reflex. With so much blood it would be easier to wash off in the shower and he is moved there. I think he was still alive at this point. She was nursing him. Does that sound like premeditated murder?

          • Daniel Tremont says:

            Bill, she could have been nursing him, possibly regretting immediately what she had done, but Jodi or her attorneys will have to tell that story and it will need to really be convincing. Because if not explained, imo it simply looks like someone’s clumsy attempt to just clean up any evidence that may get left behind. Or evidence they thought may be left behind like dna from the attacker.

            • Edgar Longenecker says:

              Good, that, you noticed the jumbled up, mess, as, that, was the intent of setting, Jodi, up, as if, she was out of control… which, contradictorially, enough, forensically, conflicts, with the surgically precision, kill… proving, that, she did neither, of, the two crimes….as more, reasonable, to, assume… Edgrrr… And, after, Travis, submitted to his eternal soul saving, sacred, rite; heart plunge, ear to ear, throat slice, the rirualn process, is, to bleed out; bloodv atonement… body bwash, and, clothes, or, bedding [ symbolically m], laundered… all, part of the sacred blood atonement, Read, “The God Makers,” book, for the Anderson / Alexander, precision kills, and, do note, why…. Edgrrr… And, then, there’s the anticipatory, apprensive, fear in Travis’s last picture..which indicates, submission, not, combat, ready… doesn’t it…??? Edgrrr….

              • Mad says:

                I strongly agree with you Edgar. I am reading Secret History. The eyewitness account of the rise of Mormonism by, John Ahmanson translated by Gleason L. Archer.
                Check the book out. It’s from 1876. A personal experience of a man. ( gets out with his life.)
                -fan of your posts
                Madeline

          • Daniel Tremont says:

            And if the concern was to “nurse him” I am afraid most people would think about bandaging the wound as opposed to just rinsing blood off. How does that help Travis? And, I could be wrong but I thought I’d read or heard someone at trial infer that perhaps Travis got himself to the sink and that was when his throat got cut???? Not sure about that.

          • Junior Valdez says:

            I agree, Bill. IF she tried to clean him off, then she didn’t mean to murder him. I wonder if there are any pictures of her doing that, that we haven’t seen? I wouldn’t put it past the prosecutor to hide those tender shots, because he is so bloodthirsty for a conviction. Free Jodi!

            • Edgar Longenecker says:

              Cleaning him was the finality, of the voluntary, blood atonement, to, save his eternal soul, as per, doctrine…. Why, if, Jodi, did any of it, did she wait till he got out of the shower, only, to, drag him back into the shower…??? This was a religious ritual, and, all of, us just don’t understand, the significance, of, the separation, between church and state; whatwith, the state, killing, with, impunity, to, condemn, and, the church, killing, out, of love, allegedly, to, save ones’ eternal soul…. Read the book, and, of, the kill squad, Dannites, preferred method, of, killing; heart plunge, ear to ear throat, slice… Edgrrr…

          • bill says:

            junior. The prosecution and defense should both have all the evidence. They just pick and choose to weave their tale.
            I wonder why only two accidental shots went off. was the camera knocked or was it on some timer?
            I found at another site images of duct tape in the bathroom. There is if you look at travis in the shower a mark as if it was removed. An earlier photo had his two fingers in the air and the duct tape is visible on his bicep. If she wanted to kill him, wouldn’t that be the time when he is duct taped down?
            Also one of the shower images of his back looks as though there were whip marks across his back.
            here is a left field scenario: not sexually spent they are already into s & m, b & d, a pretend attack starts and gets out of control. the knife was there from the afternoon games.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      How about the short pieces of rope and, Travis’s knife, that he used to cut the short pieces of rope, as if, he intended to tie himself up… There’s nothing, “pretend,” about a quasireligious, Brigham Young, admonition, that, had redemption for such a devout, religionistic sex glutton, heart plunge, ear to ear, throat slice, eternal soul salvation, on tap, as per the vacuous plea, Travis made to the zipped mouth, bishop, whom, out of religious, principles, is letting, Jodi, take the rap, for Travis’s prescribed, ascension to club playboy, and all those virgin angels… Ther was no pretend; Travis blamed, Jodi, for his own perversions, and, any, duct taping, he might have done, was sneakily, a precurser to tying, Jodi, up with the short pieces of rope, for, his grand finally; disimbowelment, or, not; read “The God Makers,” for ritual, disembowelments, and the revelations, thereof… a grand slam, for such devil worshipping self appointed, god souls… Do notice, how adeptly, the “church’s” “secrets,” are left out of this soap opera, and, how much regard for the Stepford Wives, these potentates, have; classless, bastards, letting a girl, take the rap for their perversions… Subpoena the godamned, bishop, and, watch him mewl, around, evading the questions… Ironic that Jodi, is a Joan of Ark, compared to these, heretics, that lie, first, then, swear to it, as long as they have virgins on some celestial planet playboy, to bribe, morons with… Moroni, the angel, is more honestly, I moron… Edgrrr… It’s time for the Stepford Wives, to kick these indolent hypocrites out, and, repossess, their temple palaces…that the potentates have let them buy, for the patriarchal perverts… Read the deeds…

  12. Jon says:

    I just found this article online and it says that Jodi said that she would choose the death penalty over life in prison if she is convicted because she would not want to spend the rest of her life in prison. She is not afraid to die because she knows she is ok with God. I’m torn I don’t want Jodi to die but I don’t want her in prison for the rest of her life. But, these are Jodi’s wishes. I am praying for Jodi to be found Innocent.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265303/Jodi-Arias-I-choose-death-penalty-convicted-Gods-eyes-Im-OK-Jodi-Arias-startling-revelations-new-jailhouse-interview-48-Hours.html

    • Daniel Tremont says:

      Jon, I have actually been worried about her saying she would rather die from the death penalty than life in prison. The reason being, would a truly innocent person say this? Wouldn’t they be convinced that even IF they were found guilty at trial…eventually… there would be evidence that would prove her innocence and could set her free? Especially, if she knew others were involved (i.e. room-mates or someone other that had a beef against Travis.) I really worry about that statement.

      • Jon says:

        I wouldn’t want to spend my life in a cage. Would you? Innocent people spend their lives in Jail. Are you saying you don’t believe Jodi?

        • Daniel Tremont says:

          I would not want to spend my life in a cage. Who would? Yes, innocent people do spend their life in jail. The problem is that most innocent people always reserve that hope that regardless of any guilty verdict, eventually evidence will be put forth that absolves them. I am WORRIED about how the jury will view that statement, that is all I am saying Jon. (Though it can most definitely be negated imo if the defense brings forth good evidence of their own that Travis was physically abusive.) I wish you could understand where I am coming from. It is CRITICAL for those that do not want to see Jodi put to death, for them to THINK like the prosecution and possibly the jury in order to defend her!! I do NOT want to see Jodi convicted of First Degree murder and get the DP. I said when I first started posting here that I had not come to a conclusion as to what I think Jodi should be convicted of, if anything!!! But I KNOW First Degree should not be it and getting the DP in my mind is absolutely wrong. She did admit the killing so this will go against her unless her attorneys are able to prove self defense. Some people think that the burden of proof is SOLELY on the Prosecution, and legally of course that is true, BUT the viciousness of this crime, in my mind MUST be adequately explained by the defense. So far it hasn’t. This is my cold hard opinion and it is for her benefit to think like this. Pretending everything is ok, the prosecution stinks and has a weak case and everything looks great for Jodi does NOT help her. I am not in anyway trying to be disrespectful towards her or you but I don’t believe putting my head in the sand helps anyone convicted of First Degree murder

          • Daniel Tremont says:

            I also want to thank SJ in advance, as I am hoping, that by him allowing diverse opinions to be posted here, he can see that it may or could be in the best interest of the defendant (or her attorneys) to see how people are observing this trial and the evidence presented, (circumstantial or direct) AND what work her defense needs to do to overcome some problems seen.

            I think these types of blogs are invaluable to a defense team as they sort of get a microcosm survey of people’s views, and they get it…for free! Many defense teams have to PAY through the nose for this kind of feedback.

          • Daniel Tremont says:

            Sorry, meant to say “but I don’t believe putting my head in the sand helps anyone ACCUSED of First Degree murder”.

      • CJ says:

        Daniel,

        If I were accused of a crime whether innocent or not, I would probably want the DP (even if I don’t agree with it) because life in prison would drive me insane and angry with resentment. I would want to fight though all the way through trial. Although, I can’t put myself in her shoes at the time she made that statement but from the outside looking in, I can understand why she would want that over LW/outparole. I wonder how many innocent people have thought this during an investigation/trial?

        • Daniel Tremont says:

          Perhaps you are right CJ, I can only go off what I know has happened with many overturned verdicts (people on Death Row or who were sentenced to Life w/out parole) , they always maintained their innocence and never gave up hope that they would be vindicated. I know if I were accused, I would NEVER, EVER give up hope on appeal because I would know the truth could set me free. But perhaps that is just me and the people that I know have had their verdicts overturned. I can understand the desire to want to be given death and maybe she just said it as a whim comment and if given the opportunity to make a serious decision on it would not have said that. I think Jodi was in-tuned with the idea of “good TV” though.

          • CJ says:

            You have more experience than I and would know better how an innocent person reacts. You made me think of the Darlie Routier case. She is on death row in Texas for stabbing her two sons. ( I think she was railroaded.) She is still fighting twenty years later and trying to raise money for more forensic testing. The state of Texas has fought hard not to let her test anything but a court of appeals ruled if she could pay for the testing, they would review the new findings.

        • Edgar Longenecker says:

          I’d want whatever, costs the Gestapo state, the most, money…. Justice will only exist, when, it costs less than, collusions… Edgrrr…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Ditto, Jon… keep the faith, pal; despite reliance upon lizards at law…

  13. BeeCee says:

    I’m going to step away from this site until they resume the trial…gotta get back to real life.

    But I wanted to say one more thing. I see on other sites people are praying for her to be put to death, praying for her to be put away….etc etc. How about just praying for the truth to come out?? Whatever happened to that?

    • bill says:

      bingo

    • Pique says:

      “How about just praying for the truth to come out? Whatever happened to that?”

      I’m not one to pray, but I still have to say “Amen” to that–to the truth coming out. It’s the most important thing. Without that, we can’t really be sure that the punishment will be appropriate to the circumstances.

      But, we’d be wise not to anticipate the “whole truth.” We’re getting, and will continue to get, bits and pieces–not an entire picture. It’s hardly unusual in a murder trial for the truth to be, at best, just out-of-reach. Crimes between intimates aren’t usually caught on film, in a nice, tidy package like a movie. This one comes pretty close, but–as they say–no cigar.

    • CJ says:

      Or praying for comfort to both families?

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Bee Cee… Come back soon… Edgar…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      You can’ say justice and lieyers, in the same breath… Edgrrr…

  14. CJ says:

    Flores characterized Travis emails as “mean” stating Travis called Jodi a whore and three holed wonder. You are okay with that? The first witness, the Mormon girl he dated had no idea he was even having sex or carrying on with jodi and she testified to assuming he was a temple worthy Mormon. Leading a double life while dubbing your hidden GF as a stalker while emailing, having phones sex is not abuse in your opinion?

    • Daniel Tremont says:

      It IS abuse CJ, absolutely and Travis was NOT this perfect person he was put forth by some as being.

      But the problem for Jodi is ….does it justify murder? There needs to be a lot more than just him being “mean”. Because a lot of men are guilty of this behavior with women. As are some women guilty of being abusive toward some men by using them for their money.

      • CJ says:

        Right I agree with you. And when I speak of abuse with regard to women i often leave out the men are abused which is wrong. They are. I’ve seen it. I should remember that when talking on here.

        I think the question that will need to be answered is how much was Jodi emotionally abused which is why their cyber correspondences need to be brought in by the defense. They need to show a pattern of of ongoing abuse. Emotional abuse sometimes precedes or goes right along with physical abuse and so far, all we have heard is that travis attacked her over her dropping his camera. I think for the jury to buy this, evidence of physical abuse needs to be corroborated.

        This brings me back to her friends she may have confided in. And her wearing that long sleeve shirt. I have to wonder if she had bruises along her upper arms because women do wear long sleeve shirts when abused. But of course I’m only speculating.

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        Read the book; “The God Makers,” and, therer, you will find the eternal soul saving ritual, blood osath, blood atonement, that, Travis, ritualized, voluntarily… Edgrrr…

    • Junior Valdez says:

      I agree Travis was abusive to Jodi; just her saying it is enough to make reasonable doubt. Does anybody know if she is going to testify? Otherwise, if she doesn’t, can her lawyers just tell the jury that he abused her, and that would be enough to perhaps persuade one juror and that juror could reason with the others that Jodi is way too traumatized from all of his abuse to testify in her own defense, therefore she is not guilty because it was self defense. I hope that happens! Or, even better, if Jodi testifies and finally frees herself of the demons created by all the horrible things Travis did to her.

      • Daniel Tremont says:

        Just Jodi saying that Travis abused her is not imo going to be enough to make reasonable doubt. A jury would know it’s in Jodi’s best interest to say anything to make Travis a monster and that was why she killed him the way she did. Of course a juror could decide to believe her without any corroboration but I think that’s highly unlikely. Jodi’s “word” has already been proven as untrustworthy with the various lies she told already. Her lawyers know this. Even if there were good reasons for her lies. And again, this is why its imperative her attorneys need to BRING IT! Would you really want that to happen anyway? Lets say that this wasn’t Jodi and the situation was a different one. You think that a jury should simply take the word of a defendant who has already been proven to be a liar without any other evidence? We may believe with all of our hearts that Jodi should not be found guilty of first degree murder and that she should be exonerated with evidence of the abuse. But the jurors may very well be thinking about this from a perspective that the victim could have been their relation? Won’t that require evidence of physical abuse? Do you believe just the mental abuse justified the killing? For the justice system to work correctly, there must be evidence to show a particular verdict is appropriate. Not operate off just emotions. Because THAT is the way a lot of innocents are convicted wrongly too!

        • Daniel Tremont says:

          But I should clarify, IF she takes the stand, then perhaps she is able to explain the torment to the satisafction of the jurors. But that is a BIG IF. Most lawyers do not recommend their clients take the stand as the prosecution will make mince meat out of her. And that happens whether innocent or guilty.

        • CJ says:

          Jon that movie you recommended – watching it right now. It’s awesome.

        • Jon says:

          Thanks CJ! When I was watching the movie I thought this is Jodi. Susan and Jodi are so much alike. I think SJ should recommend this movie for everyone here to watch.

    • bill says:

      yes, that was interesting. Because for so long we have heard she was a stalker yet the police refuted it. However, from posters on other boards I think they either have selective hearing or are so thirsty for blood that they ignored it.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      And, Martinez, characterized prison sodomy as “rough sex, ” and, “frisky sex;” dismissable, as the norm. Maybe that’s where his spastic squirming, court jester, high wire, courtroom, tapdancing, is coming from. Maybe, that’s why the judge nixed having afdemale, Mexican interpretor, in “her,” courtroom… Maybe, judge Judy, can get a Mexican to “splain it to us… maybe, she should have been kicked off the air for already doing that, because they damned sure don’t pay her for looking like, Peeloosely…. Edgrrr…

  15. CJ says:

    David,

    If you have answered this I apologize. Did the ME say that the gunshot to the head MAY have come last because of the lack of hemmoraging? People are asking about that now and I’m wondering if I again, missed something. Horn said he was stabbed and then shot so why would he not be bleeding from the brain if it occured in that order?

    • David says:

      CJ, go to 1:50:00 of this YouTube video to hear Dr. Horn’s testimony regarding the sequence. Also, if you’ve got the time, some very interesting testimony begins at 1:44:00.

      http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=1tZKYBlfkxI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1tZKYBlfkxI

      • SJ says:

        I just added the ME’s sequencing testimony to the above article, for easier reference. Awesome & factual post too! Says it all…
        SJ

      • CJ says:

        I listened and understand what Horn is saying. So I guess the bloggers arguing that the shot came first because of the lack of hemmoraging didn’t listen carefully.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Because, he was long since dead, when the “let’s set, Jodi, up, by this second crime…” began…………. What, ruptured their entire soap opera, that, mighty mouse, beat up on Bluto, was the brass shell, ejected, onto, four, or, five day old, dried blood; contradicting the three person conspiracy; detective, prostitutor, and, medical examiner, that, she shot him, and, gained the advantage; then, debunked, by, no blood smear on the shell, as would have been, if, their, story, was the truth. Then, for years, they, floated that lie, for which, they, scammed an interstate, kidnapping, at, law, and, a two million dollar, ransom… now, all, debunked, for, fraud. Are these, connivers, in prison, for perjury ??? Sure they are… Is the noncase, against, Jodi, dismissed…??? Sure, it is… So, how, did this mouse, derail, a freight train ??? And, since she didn’t, how can the prostitutor, continue this hoax, in reverse, now, contradicting, his lies of the first part…??? Edgrrr…

  16. Jon says:

    Has anyone watched Blue Eyed Butcher about Susan Wright. I just watched it on Lifetime. This woman is very much like Jodi. She claimed her husband abused her and she stabbed him a bunch of times but she was convicted. I think she may be Innocent like Jodi. I pray Jodi is not convicted. Check it out. Very good movie. You could probably pick it up at the Redbox it’s there too. She is also very beautiful like Jodi.

    http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Eyed-Butcher-Justin-Bruening/dp/B008Y1YK5S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358726235&sr=8-1&keywords=blue+eyed+butcher

    • Junior Valdez says:

      I agree Jodi is innocent. All signs point to an outright acquittal and she will be free like she belongs.

      • CJ says:

        I hope you are right and that I am wrong. I’m not so optimistic.

        • M. says:

          Can Jodi be found guilty of a lesser charge?
          If she is found not guilty of premeditated murder will she walk out of court that day or will she have to serve time for something else?

          I get confused when it comes to this information.

  17. Kira says:

    Well, only the prosecution has presented its case so far, so of course we haven’t seen anything that substantiates Jodi’s claim of self-defense. We won’t until the defense begins calling witnesses on the 29th.

  18. CJ says:

    Everyone might find this interesting as the story is very similar to Jodi’s case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Wright_(murderer)

    • bill says:

      I found this interesting from the link you gave

      At her trial, Susan Wright testified in her own defense. In her emotional testimony on the stand, Wright claimed: “I couldn’t stop stabbing him; I couldn’t stop. I knew as soon as I stopped, he was going to get the knife back and he was going to kill me. I didn’t want to die.”

  19. DD says:

    Can someone please explain to me about the defence’s request of those thousands of text messages that they never received. I think I must have missed something there. What I understood, was that the State had TA’s phone with over 10,000 texts between him and JA, and in 2008, there wasn’t technology available to extract those texts, but that in 2010 that technology was available, and that the defence was not allowed access to all those texts. If I understood correctly, then this should be a mistrial as the State is witholding evidence. And, if I’m correct, I bet you there are many texts from TA proving abuse, and/or asking her to bring the gun for a kinky sex game (which they’ve probably done before), thus also why there was a knife in such close proximity also. Sorry, but if I was “premedatating/planning” to murder my ex-boyfriend, I sure as hell wouldn’t be letting him take such “graphic” photos of me and then leave the freaking camera at the scene, ESPECIALLY if I was a photographer. This is just yet another theory I have. There are too many holes in this case. I still don’t believe that she actually committed the murder. I think she only admitted this heinous crime due to the fact that she and her family was threatened, and that a home invasion, did in fact happen, but in the hands of his crazy relgious crazy peers/roommates. I’ve said this before, but the slice to the throat to me is a “message”, and the police were too quick to jump all over Jodi. All his Morman friends pointed to her. There was ZERO evidence of her being stalky. ZERO. It was all hearsay. I’m going to say something here, and I don’t want everyone to jump all over me, but has anyone considered that perhaps she was a closet call girl? The only reason I say this, is that it took her a lot longer to get to Utah then planned, AND she was depositing cash into her bank accounts. Perhaps she had “dates” along the way. Perhaps she always brought a gun with her on her trips for protection, and this time with TA stuff got out of hand. I’m not trying to say she’s a whore, not at all!! But, couldn’t this be a theory. There are too many thoeries/possibilities. I hate that the world is so focused that she “admitted” to this crime. I also admitted to a crime that I didn’t commit due to threats to my family if I mentioned names. I am still suffering the consequences, but can rest happy that I didn’t rat out, and that my family is safe. Just food for thought.

    • Junior Valdez says:

      I think Jodi is innocent and beautiful. The prosecution is lying about the texts! The prosecution has committed many reversible errors and there must be a mistrial declared. Free Jodi!

      • Pique says:

        I’m getting the sense from your posts, Junior, that “innocent” and “beautiful” mean the same thing. That you’re conflating the terms.

        Beauty is not evidence. Please don’t overlook the fact that she killed a man. The question here is: why?

        I feel that your excessive comments about her prettiness are inadvertently aligning with the views of those who are just thrilled that she could be executed. That, for them “guilty” and “beautiful” mean the same thing.

        • Junior Valdez says:

          i know the difference between beautiful and innocent. Jodi is both. I don’t believe she killed TA. I think she was railroaded and confessed in order to get the real killers off her back and protect her family. Evidence against her was probably planted. Free Jodi!

        • CJ says:

          Yep. Guilty and beautiful are synonymous with haters.

    • Daniel Tremont says:

      My understanding DD was that the Defense DID get the texts once the technology was available. The reason being is that I could’ve sworn I heard the defense admit to eventually getting the texts or Martinez in response to the Defense’s requests to judge for a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, said they eventually got them once techn was available. And I THOUGHT I heard Nurmi state that that was not the point. The fact they did not get them immediately (despite the technology wasn’t available for easy transfer…at the time the forensic guy testified it would have taken him “months” working 5 days a week, an 8 hr day and doing nothing but that to fill the request), was Nurmi’s point that this was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. Honestly, I thought this a weak argument. I would have been feeling more positive about it had they NEVER received the texts.

      DD, I thought the same thing about those mystery deposits and how she was getting the money…which again I thought strange was never explained.

      • Bob says:

        a lot of the fainted objections for mistrial by the defense could all be procedural. If it would ever get far enough down the road where she appeals and all her appeals have been exhausted to the state , she could then still appeal to the federal courts that her constitutional rights were violated, but those constitutional issue objections had 1st been 1st in the original trial. Would give her another 20 years reprieve

    • CJ says:

      Interesting, that is food for thought. If the bloodletting was some kind of religious conspiracy, it will never been proven. And most people would think that theory ludicrous. No offense because I do believe that strange things go on in life but the majority of society, would not believe that this murder was a religious act.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      DD… Great initials; D Day… the end of a war… a great omen… Better that hookers, make a hundred men, happy, than get married, and make one man, unhappy… I never even thought about making deposits, after getting, deposits; are you sure; along the way, to Arizona…???.. It certainly offers no belittling of, Jodi, to real people, I would think… Good that you pointed it out, and it might explain Travis’s contempt for his own schizophrenia, being out gurued, , and, whining that he was “just a dildo, with a heart, to, Jodi; fancy free, and, liberated; unlike the others; Stepford Wives, and, all the lay down, groupies, he could, control. I’d say, disembowelment, reached him, before he could do, Jodi, and, she was rescued, none too soon… and, chased out, before she could retrieve the camera, she hid, in the bedding; then, concealed in the washing machine; which, the intruders, turned on, washed the bled out body, as per mormon blood oath, atonement; heart plunge, ear to ear throat slice, ritual, suicide, by doctrine and covenant… Travis’s “secret blood oath,” called for, and of which, the bishop wouldn’t budge… Ask him; he’ll confess… just as soon as the second coming of Joseph Smith, is resurrected….. Don’t hold your breath…. Edegrrr…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      DD….Good to hear from a thinking person… Edgar…

  20. Bob says:

    To prove Self defense ,the defense team would have to show there was an immediate threat, or if the threat was more latent, abuse would have to be present to help prove that . I’m having a real problem finding abuse here . . There is no evidence to this point ,he had tried to gain any influence over her, either physical or mentally. From a jury’s standpoint, IMO, i think we have become a very visual society, and If she claims she was abused , it’s her TV interviews that are going sink her, . Remember she gave these interviews after the implied abuse threat was removed from her life. She didn’t have to worry about any repercussions. She was free to explain their relationship anyway she wanted, without any rebuttal. She took shared responsibility for the break up, the hook ups, and even when explaining the shower pics; she stated TA was hesitant , and was actually shy, saying ” I had to talk him into it.” Nowhere in any of her interviews did she even hint of him exerting any trying to gain influence over her, either physically or mentally. Was he very persuasive?, yes, she said he was. Was he just using her?, probably, but she even described their relationship as they mutually used each other in so many words. There has been nothing presented to this point , that he DELIBERATELY tried create influence over her, AND THAT IS KEY. They weren’t married, dating, living together or even in close proximity each other. Did he take advantage of her?, yep. Did he call her names, yep. Was he doing these things to gain some advantage over her? , NO. Is that type of behavior , now, to be considered abuse? I don’t think so. I would state we have all been taken advantage of or been called pretty vile things at certain times in our lives, and it becomes a bitter learning lesson, but usually it makes us stronger in the end. But revenge to reconcile this bitterness? The murder rate would exceed the divorce rate in this country if we as a society condoned this as a reasonable response.

    • CJ says:

      Bob,

      While I see what you are saying about jodi’s lies to the media, I respectfully disagree with you about what is considered emotional abuse. When I sought a restraining order, I was required to attend a class about abuse and emotional abuse was talked about equally to that of physical. I also was able to obtain the restraining order based on verbal abuse, threats etc.

      I googled name-calling and emotional abuse and many help sites came up.

      http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm

      When looking at the signs listed to warn a person of the relationship they are in – some of what Jodi has asserted through testimony was listed.

      Nevertheless, she has to show this was an ongoing pattern and not just an isolated incident in the one email discussed by Flores.

      Also, to be fair, friends of travis talked about her threatening suicide when he wanted to break up with her which also constitutes emotional abuse from her to Travis and if that is proven via texts or messages from Jodi to Travis it will not look good for her.

      I suspect some of the jurors will understand the cycle of violence and know what emotional abuse looks like before the experts testify.

      In the end I agree with you that Jodi’s defense needs to BRING IT in terms of proving this assertions because what has been shown so would not (IMO) be enough to help her…

      • Bob says:

        The evidence threshold for TRO’s is pretty low because they are temporary. But unless there are new emails and texting showing a pattern that TA was using gain control her behavior, I think the inflammatory words or colorful rhetoric used so far are pretty flimsy to substantiate abuse. And I think some of it’s responsive to an isolated conversation at the time, not an ongoing theme. I’m not excusing his choice of words, but inflating their meaning after the fact has to be taken into consideration also

        • Bob says:

          not to make light of this , but I’m sure if he had a chance to do it over again knowing what we know now ,he would have chosen his words much more carefully.

        • Bob says:

          I also see where you can say verbal abuse, but that is an ingredient to make the case of domestic abuse which was precisely the point I was trying to make. There was no domestic relationship for this to foster. the evidence so far shows he had no “control” over her decisions either mentally or physically. And the TV videos reveal that, and they also reveal that she hadn’t even eluded to any type of abuse as a pretext , IMO.

    • joyce says:

      From “Jane” Show, an ex-girl friend of Mr. Alexander will be a witness for the defense. She maybe will collaborate some of Jodi’s accusations.

      • Junior Valdez says:

        I knew it! Travis was leading a double life. Nobody knew what was really inside of him. Well, Jodi did. I bet this girlfriend is secretly grateful to Jodi for exposing the truth.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Bob didn’t say, that, Bluto, hovering over, Olive Oyl, was immediate enough to be a threat, or, that Travis’s knife, which he used to cut, short pieces of rope, constituted an immediate threat, or, that the short pieces of rope, obviously, to tie Jodi, up, or, the fact that he weighed a hundred pounds more than her mousy self, or, that, his being, a wrestler, bare knuckle fighter, bodybuilder, weightlifter, who’d already broken one of her fingers, sodomized her, and, whined his lament, that he was just a dildo, with a heart, constituted, the need to time, what events, would make self defense defensible in the opinion of those not there, arm chair quarterbacking, after the fact….. Threatened people, should have no time constraints, to see to it that some prosecutor, having frisky jailhouse sodomy sex, considers it an affront, to any self respecting pervert to get off before he gets off, to choose when to defend ones’ self, which, legal timewise, or, not, Jodi, didn’t do, because forensics proves she never fired a gun, and, because, Travis was yanked off her, and reached around, ear to ear throat sliced, to, near decapitation, impossible, from the front, or from a Minnie Mouse, attacking a dinosaur… rotated, and, ritualistically, heart plunged; bled down the shower drain, body washed, bedding washed, all, symbolics, of Brigham Youngs,’ hundred years old, adminitions. Read “The God Makers,” for, clarity, as to what these “religionists,” are capable of, and, have not disavowed… and, still, consider to be a sacred oath… Read the books, on all of it… Imminence, like eminence, is in the eye of the beholder. Edgrrr…..

  21. Bob says:

    In reading in the blogs here, there is a great emphasis in proving or not proving pre-meditation ,or her original intent was to kill TA, to take the death penalty off the table. From what I’m researching The death penalty in AZ. can be sought for Capital murder AND felony murder. Capital murder by their own definition has to include premeditation. Felony Murder by definition includes, (obviously a murder), but also lists other conditions present to make that charge. They name off 6. One of them is burglary. Which brings me back to an earlier discussion when their were questions of why they would include that charge. The state does not have to prove there was premeditation to commit murder, but there was premeditation to commit a crime, (i.e.-assault). They only have to prove she went there to hurt him, and not kill him for the death penalty to stand. That is why the weapon gun or knife is so important here.
    Example- if you went to somone’s house to threaten them or even rob them, and you end up killing them you could still charged with murder 1 even though that wasn’t your original intent.

    • CJ says:

      I think their law is vague and very counter intuitive to a fair defense.

    • Junior Valdez says:

      That’s totally unfair!

      • Bob says:

        It’s called “malice of forethought”. And she did admit to this. So where’s the gun???? Has she ever said where the gun is? she admitted to shooting him

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Quasilegal as well as quasireligious, at law, bantering, does not require that we presuppose, justification or not,; when, this entire soap opera, teeters on the One as in 1, I.Q. perch of the criminal at law, prosecutor, who conceals, vaccuous proof, that, Jodi, had a gun, and, contradictions by forensics that, she never fired a gun, which, blows his smoke somewhere else, besides trying to mesmerize the jury with his spastic, ballerina moves; he thinks will keep focus upon what he’s been trying . to keep concealed, all along, while he pats the jurors on the back, and, with the other hand, picks their pockets…. Bring in the forensics team, and let them admit that they found no gunpowder particulates in the blood, proving that, Jodi, never fired a gun; and, why, they never told the prosecutor., and, or how they can’t imagine why, he’d keep that from the defense.. Then there’s ten gallons of gasoline, which could have sent Travis, and, the house up in smoke, but, she didn’t do that, either. Then, while she was locked up, another home invasion, occurred, wherein someone was also, shot in the head… can’t blame that one on her, either… Arrest the spastic bastard, for concealment of exculpatory evidence; that crime, is called, obstruction of justice… Edgrrr…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Bob… All that, suggests that the thought police, get to, imagine vwhatever, they want, to, scam, an unrestrained, inquisition…to, create employment, for, lieyers… Edgrrr…

  22. Bob says:

    There also to be aggravated circumstances present to proceed with the death penalty, and they list off 10 things, one of them being no. 6-.murder committed in an especially heinous, cruel or
    depraved manner
    I suppose there is some wiggle room there depending on your sensitivity level

    • CJ says:

      That’s whey they sought the death penalty from what I’ve read as well. The particular crime was considered cruel which is why the defense filed the FIRST motion discussing the changing stories about the sequencing. At that time, they were arguing that if the shot came first as the state said in prior testimony, but really happened last, then cruelty would not be a factor. Maybe that’s why they didn’t hammer the ME? Because of what they argued in their first motion.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Bob says, “sensitivity level;” translated, religiosity, level, to describe what is an eternal, soul saving, heart plunge, ear to ear throat slice, sacred, transition, on up to planet playboy, and, all those virgin angels; only murder, and, all its’ quasilegal cramifications, to misguided, infidels; ; none, nearly so important, , as is the sacredness, of doctrines and covenants… and, separation between church and state,; whose got their scapegoat, a wannabe Stepford Wife, sacrifice; no problem; the brood mares can squeeze out some more sacrificials… to burn at the stake. Do note the word, “stake;” that’s no less than a word; or, is it, ward…???

  23. CJ says:

    There was a question Martinez asked during the testimony of the police officer who responded to the buglary at Jodi Arias’ grandparents’ home that’s been bugging me.

    He had a photo on the overhead projector showing the front door. A green garbage bag was hanging from the door. He asked what was the the bag, which I assumed was to see if the officer looked in the trash for the items taken. BUT, when the officer said they were cans, I think he asked if the cans were for the purpose of making money ie selling aluminum and the officer responded that they were for recycling, I think. I don’t understand why he would ask that or the relevance of what the purpose that question. I know it’s not really important in the larger scheme of things but I wondered what the inference was.

    They say attorney’s know the answer before they ask the question so what was he inferring with that question?

    • Bob says:

      i’m sure he was clearing away clutter for the jury as it was not germane to the case, but it was noticeable. you noticed it.

    • Debbie says:

      He could have been implying that they were very poor people with that question. I know that would be placed in my mind if someone asked if the cans were there for selling aluminum. The inference would be that the grandparents were poor and collecting garbage to sell it to make money to live on.

      • Debbie says:

        That also could imply that Jodi felt that Travis was well off and that is what she wanted at all costs. The pictures have already been shown of his home and inferring that she was from a poor background could imply she was just a gold digger, wanting to be with him because of how well off he was, not loving him at all.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      C J… so he could pretend that, “see, the gun could be hidden in the bag, along with, anything else, stolen,” as the question died on Martinez’s lips… no, stolen items, in a bag of aluminum cans…no other reason for the question to start and stop, just so…. Edgar…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Nah… todays’ cops,” intelligence, rarely,, exceeds, their age… They, just try to jockey, for position, to, make sure you understand, their, superiority, by, keeping your atterntion, to, how, magnificent, they are…no matter how lame their questions are… Edgrrr…

  24. Daniel Tremont says:

    OK, so trying to figure out and get to the truth of the matter in re: to those letters/texts/IMs/whatever they were…. that were found to be in-admissable due to the fact they had been found to be forgeries…is really difficult. There is the State’s response to Jodi’s request to have these letters admitted as evidence (that supposedly has Travis admitting to some pretty vile stuff) with their contention that the state has no way of validating the authenticity of the letters (as being FROM Travis) since Jodi has only produced electronic copies via a third party who she did not want to name. They also argue that “hearsay” is also an issue and a few other arguments. THEN there is a document (in the correct dated timeline) called ‘scientific examination’ of “handwriting’ that came to the conclusion that portions of some documents were found to be consistent with Jodi Arias’ handwriting. THEN there is Jodi’s defense’s (Kirk Nurmi) response to the States argument re: the “hearsay” rule that texts and instant messages are NOT hearsay (which I personally agree with) but nowhere does he address the majority of the argument the state raised which was verifying the authenticity that Travis wrote the letters to begin with. In any other situation I would agree with the defense here that texts and IMs should NOT automatically be considered hearsay. Especially if they are coming directly from the person at the heart of the matter and not someone’s opinion on what someone else said, thought etc. But unfortunately, in this case as we already know, and we know it directly FROM Jodi, she did hack into his private accounts and send messages ‘as Travis’ in the past.

    But I am still clueless as to whether these letters that were deemed fraudulent were texts or IMs at all…because otherwise how would there be some “scientific evidence’ report claiming that handwriting found to be on a certain document was consistent with Jodi Arias’ handwriting??? Anybody know about this and can clear up??

    • J says:

      Daniel from what I read in the link CJ provided above there was 10 or 12 hand written letters as well as texts and google mail being discussed. It is a bit unclear as in the scientific evidence report as they refer to journals but I am assuming they were referring to the letters she was trying to addmitt- the conclusion was that all writings were consistent with the handwriting of Ms Arias. They also noted these were not original letters but copies from a 3rd party which would make them hearsay Ms Arias has not provided the source or location of the original letters. I could be wrong on this as things are very vauge but it seems to add up. The text/ email argument in short was about whether texts and emails are hearsay as it seems the state is arguing that it all should be considered hearsay. And the defense disagrees they each state the reasons why.

    • bill says:

      how did jodi hack into travis accounts? I am married and whilst I do know some passwords because my spouse gave me access, I don’t know all. Thus either travis gave jodi the passwords or she is some sort of IT wizard.

      • Junior Valdez says:

        I bet she is a wiz. She is a girl of many talents! And great beauty!

      • Daniel Tremont says:

        bill:

        Jodi stated numerous times to numerous sources that she had Travis’ passwords to his accts as did he have hers. So its not really “hacking into”. Sorry, misspoke. But she admitted to Ryan Burns that she responded to a girl that had texted Travis, when he was sleeping (or showering?) , as if she were Travis telling the girl (as Travis) that he was very happy to be with Jodi on a trip. She somehow got caught, Travis got angry about it and confronted her. She also told Det Flores that that had a lot to do with their “trust” being broken down. She said she knew it was wrong and should not have done it though.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      “The state has no way of validating the authenticity of the letters,” then, by what lawful right, have they done so; as if, the hell they don’t; but, by concealment, because, the letters can exonerate Jodi, or not; an issue for the authority, of the jury, not, lizard food, for connivers, scamming to save the crooked state from a ten million dollars civil suit. Print the letters, and, side by side Travis’s known, handwriting, and, let English majors, shrinks, palm readers, remote viewers, and, linguists, determine what came from the pen, mind, abberations, and, perversions of Mr. Jekyl and Hyde… What, graphologist, did the state pay to, disprove, Jodisd’ lawful, defense ? Picket the godamned courthouse, or, not; the verdict, is in the tar and feathers… A penstroke, can identify, a writer; so can the content of the pen strokes, which grow up to become words, and, revealed, thoughts… and, now you know, the rest of the story, why the lizards at law, keep on keeping on, embezzling, exculpatory evidence, and, twisting, evidence for, theie illegally accused, into, evidence against. Without even looking, I’m betting the handwriting is, Travis’s, in a drunken fog, or not… and, revealment, will prove it… No doubt, many usees of His Guruness, have letters he’s written, and, can prove just another, obstruction of justice… and, it’s likely he was in a drunken rant, when he wrote them, if, they’re that, off the wall; which, sober, he wouldn’t have, and, this is the excuse organized crime at law, is claiming, as fraudulent; because his schizo other self, wrote them, and, only the Cherub, King Alexander, may appear, in court, to assure the severity, of the penalty; not the Hyde, slasher… Jack the ripper…Good God Almighty, when will America be free at last, of these reptillian illiterati, lizards at law…??? It’s also likely that some of those same letters were written within the same stupor.; proving incontrovertible, proof, the lizards at law, cannot, slither out of….. Demand to see them, for all to see… Also, there are many graphologists; see Charlie Cole, San Jose, and, his students, and, reveal, who got bribed to get the State, off the hook… This soap opera, is, all of us, against the organized crime, lizards at law, system… It’s time that jurors, ran the courtrooms, with, input from us all… The dark ages, are gone; we have electric lights… Edgrrrr…

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Now, you get it, that the law is for lieyers, and, doublespeak, and, we caqre subservient…Edgrrr…

  25. Trixels says:

    Here’s an interesting video about Jodi and her life behind bars.

    http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/20643221/2013/01/21/an-exclusive-look-at-jodi-arias-life-behind-bars

  26. David says:

    Thank you SJ for posting that link within the article! It really articulates the point.

    • Pique says:

      In another thread, David wrote:
      “The absolute BEST defense right now for Miss Arias is ‘reasonable doubt’.”

      DAVID–these may be very silly questions, but, here goes:

      If the defense, in their opening statements, laid out a self-defense scenario (that it was her life or his), is this THE one and only strategy they are now obliged to follow-through with? That is, is this inevitably what we’re going to hear–that Jodi had to defend herself against a physical attack–when the defense presents its case?

      And, if that’s indeed what we’re going to hear, is this how the defense plans to–not PROVE that he attacked first–but to create “reasonable doubt” that this was a premeditated murder? I just want to make sure I understand.

      Also, could the defense change/shift their strategy mid-stream, or add other aspects to create doubt of premeditation, such as suggesting a mental illness/defect or that this was a crime of passion? I don’t know how much other “stuff” can be rolled into this claim of self-defense, before it becomes an entirely different, or even contradictory, argument.

      More questions:
      is the ultimate goal, for the defense, to save Jodi from the death penalty–nothing more and nothing less? Are all those motions for a mistrial just planting seeds in the record for any future trials or parole hearings–or something like that? I hear people sometimes claim that she could “walk free”–but, to a regular person like me, this sounds like a legal impossibility. Who, after all, gets away with murder, except in the most clear-cut situations, where the defendant is a very sympathetic character, and all the exculpatory evidence or extenuating circumstances are completely known? I mean, really, this case is not headed in THAT kind of direction …

      Sorry, that was awfully long! But any clarity you can offer would be appreciated!

      • Bob says:

        I think there are 2 phases to this trial.. first phase is the guilt or innocent of the capital murder charge. The 2nd phase is the sentencing charge. If she is found guilty of the charges she is on trial for, it doesn’t mean she automatically is going to get the DP. I think a lot of people think that. This jury could find her guilty which could make her eligible for the DP, but they could still spare her life in the sentencing phase.

        • Bob says:

          I may be wrong, but I don’t believe a woman has ever been put to death in Arizona for being responsible for killing their children or (husband/boyfriend/ relationship connected partner).
          There may be some currently on death row now, but short of being a serial killer, it just hasn’t happened…

          • CJ says:

            I heard from a credible source that the prosecutor has a women he convicted on death row, who also used self defense….

        • Pique says:

          Thanks Bob. Right, she’s only eligible for the death penalty if found guilty. So, to state the obvious: a not-guilty verdict removes that possibility entirely, while a guilty verdict would be only the first phase. Her defense team, then, would also be planning for this second phase–should things not go their way. That is, they will be presenting a case that, ideally, would work to spare her the death penalty, IF she’s found guilty. Am I right on that?

          If, however, she’s found not-guilty of the capital charge(s), then what?

          My understanding, from the article published above, is that are no lesser charges. (By the way, why wouldn’t the State include a second-degree/manslaughter murder charge? Does it weaken a State’s case to include lesser charges?)

          • Bob says:

            Probably, but to compare it to a card game, it ups the ante , and puts more pressure on the defense. The state is saying ‘All in”. And they have a lot more chips than she does. Based on the evidence, she even admitted in the TV video based on the evidence, the probability of her ever seeing freedom again was not good. Then to add her life to the pot, changes the whole dynamics of every piece of evidence presented. I think It also puts pressure on JA to take the stand. If there were lesser charges.they may be more willing to take their chances. I don’t know if we will ever know, but I wonder if the defense put forth the self defense reason in the pleadings in hopes of getting a plea, or if they have already asked for a plea at this point.

          • Kira says:

            I think it’s a stupid move on the State’s part to not include every charge possible. It’s great for the defense though. The State seems overconfident that they’ll get their first-degree conviction, but it doesn’t always go their way! Like in Casey’s case, they had absolutely nothing to work with when charging murder 1 and their cockiness bit them in the ass.

      • David says:

        Great questions! I wouldn’t consider any of your questions to be ‘silly.’

        To answer your first question

        If the defense, in their opening statements, laid out a self-defense scenario (that it was her life or his), is this THE one and only strategy they are now obliged to follow-through with?

        My answer…

        Not necessarily. However, it would be Miss Arias’ best interest for her defense team to follow through with their opening statements. Otherwise, it severely weakens their case for the accused. Keep in mind that at the present time, the jury already has in the back of their minds that Miss Arias ‘defended’ herself from a potentially fatal attack as per the opening statements of the defense team. So, as the jury views the exhibits from the prosecution, they are potentially analyzing them in terms of ‘Self Defense.’ (as we ALL are even right now! Consider our extensive discussion here, we have been analyzing everything in terms of the ‘Self Defense’ claim. So, do you see the importance of following through with it?) Thus, it would be most unwise for the defense team to suddenly shift this focus…only in rare circumstances would it be wise to suddenly shift the focus.

        Next question…

        That is, is this inevitably what we’re going to hear–that Jodi had to defend herself against a physical attack–when the defense presents its case?

        Again, not necessarily, but most likely as it pertains to this particular case.

        Your next question…

        And, if that’s indeed what we’re going to hear, is this how the defense plans to–not PROVE that he attacked first–but to create “reasonable doubt” that this was a premeditated murder?

        That is absolutely correct. To avoid an unfavorable verdict, there has to be doubt among the jury that Miss Arias intentionally killed Mr. Alexander. Under United States Code Title 18, Chapter 51, Section 1111 murder is defined as the criminal act of taking a human’s life with malice aforethought. “Aforethought” is the planning of the act, or premeditation. The jury will take EVERYTHING of the trial into consideration and then determine a verdict based on Arizona’s statute of First Degree Murder.

        Your next question…

        Also, could the defense change/shift their strategy mid-stream, or add other aspects to create doubt of premeditation, such as suggesting a mental illness/defect or that this was a crime of passion?

        ‘Change/shift’ is probably not the words I would choose to describe this situation. To put it differently, the defense team could ‘enhance’ their strategy mid-stream by adding other aspects to create doubt of premeditation. It would be very difficult for the defense team to even suggest mental illness at this point without some sort of documented history and not to mention, this would have definitely come up during discovery. (ie. there would have been subpeonas for Miss Arias’ psychiatric records and I do not believe this was the case here.)

        The defense team would completely invalidate their original Self Defense claim if they suddenly decided to suggest that this was a crime of passion. There is a HUGE difference between Self Defense and a Crime of Passion; the two are very much different. The key difference between the two is who is ATTACKING who? If this were a crime of passion, then Miss Arias is undoubtedly the attacker because she is quite peeved at Mr. Alexander. In Self Defense, Miss Arias is ‘defending’ herself from an attack. So in this particular case, the defense team is suggesting that Miss Arias was the defender, not the attacker. Suddenly changing it to a crime of passion would then suggest Miss Arias was the attacker…do you see now why suggesting that this was a crime of passion is not viable?

        Next question…

        is the ultimate goal, for the defense, to save Jodi from the death penalty–nothing more and nothing less?

        No, the ultimate goal would be to get a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ from the jury which is seemingly feasible considering she is charged with premeditated first degree murder and burglary…that’s it! There are no lesser charges for the jury to consider, although they can suggest a lesser charge(s) which will most likely happen if they cannot convict her of first degree murder and burglary.

        Last question…

        Are all those motions for a mistrial just planting seeds in the record for any future trials or parole hearings–or something like that?

        Sort of, but not really. The motions for mistrial are really just something more for the appellate court(s) to consider. In other words, if an unfavorable verdict from the jury is handed down to Miss Arias then begins the appeals process. The case will then go to the appellate court for further examination. There, they will review the motions for mistrial (among a myriad of other things to consider) and then determine if it was legally appropriate for Judge Sherri Stephens to deny the motions. Rarely does an appellate court rule against the lower court’s decision to deny a motion for mistrial…although, it does happen.

        Hope I’ve answered your questions.

        • Bob says:

          David, isn’t she charged with 1st degree murder? Does’t that includes Capital murder(premeditated), and Felony murder( murder with intent to commit a crime, in this case burglary). They aren’t one in the same are they? They don’t have to prove that she went there to murder him, but only she went there with ill intent. She already admitted to killing him. That’s why the gun is so important here, isn’t it?
          And what happened to the Gun??? has anybody asked her what she did with it?

          • David says:

            Okay, allow me to articulate this and hopefully eliminate the confusion…

            First Degree Murder BECOMES Capital Murder when the death penalty is involved. Hence, the familiar term “Capital Punishment.” So, when I say, “So and So is on trial for Capital Murder charges.” It would be the same as saying, “So and So is on trial for first degree murder AND the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.”

            Now, regarding ‘Felony Murder.’ ‘Felony Murder’ occurs when another person dies because any other felony was committed or attempted. It does not matter whether the murder was intended or unforeseeable, if another person dies during the commission of a crime, it is a felonious murder. In other words, if I were to set fire to my house and then my maid dies, this would constitute a ‘Felony Murder’ even though my intent was NOT to kill my maid, but to burn down my house. Or another example would be if I robbed a bank and then I shot and killed a teller with my pistol, this would also define a ‘Felony Murder’ since the teller died during the commission of my crime. Hope that makes sense.

            “Premeditation” is just simply an aggravating circumstance of murder.

            Felony Murder and Capital/First Degree Murder are not one in the same for reasons I’ve mentioned above.

            This is precisely why the gun is so important. The circumstantial evidence suggesting that Miss Arias stole the gun from her grandparent’s house ‘potentially’ indicates that she had the intent or ‘malce forethought’ to commit the murder of Mr. Alexander.

            The gun has not been recovered, only Miss Arias knows what happened to the gun (assuming she did in fact use the gun.) Detective Flores did ask her about the gun to which she replied, “I don’t have a gun.”

          • Bob says:

            thanks David. But i want to get back to where the gun is. She admitted to the crime. He has a bullet hole in his head. A gun was used. Where is it? By claiming self defense , would the state be able to amend their filing to include a series of discovery questions, and compel her to answer? Doesn’t she waive some of her rights against self incrimination by that pleading. Her version of events leading up to the killing and after should already be part of the court record by the state whether she takes the stand or not
            It shouldn’t be a mystery to where the gun is, the state should already have her answer on that.

        • Pique says:

          Those were really nice, thorough, clear answers, David. I’m sure that many other readers here will also appreciate your taking the time to write that post.

          I’d like to say more, but I’m pressed for time, so for now I’ll just say: Thank you!

          • CJ says:

            Yes thank you David.

            I love learning all this.

          • Edgar Longenecker says:

            Youse guys, really don’t think she’d rat out the guy who saved her life, do you; if, she knew who the guy in the mask, was, taking on Travis / Jack the ripper, in training; do you ??? Get off the speculation about the requirements the crooked state has to come up with so the necrophiliacs, get to watch people get iced… Focus on the written letters, comparison, for all to see, to smoke out any similar drunken formats, taken in his Jekyl, or, Hyde mood…as those with such letters, may come forward, to authenticate, the writer… What is the reason that the court jester, is so hell bent, upon keeping jury authority away from, their own judgement, by his oath perjuring antics, at, obstruction of justice ? What’s it to him, that, she didn’t do any of it, and, why, speculate contingency sentences, for an innocent person, so let’s cut the bullshit, and, focus, bofus…. To be guilty, she had ten gallons of gasoline, and, was free to torch the joint, and evidence. Didn’t do it. She had a gun,; didn’t use it, proven by forensics; concealed by the court jester, spastic, tapdancer at law; trying to mesmerize the jury, by, pasing, curtseying, bowinn, scraping, shucking and jiving as if every jurer, isn’t getting lulled to sleep by his whirling dervish act… Next thing uou know, he’ll climb up a magic rope and disappear into the clouds, or, get out his flute, to charm the vipers, before they, eat him…… Noncase, closed, no fire, no gunfire, no premeditation, or, physical possibility, to overpower a fighter, wrestler, weightlifter, one hundred pounds heavier, fighting for his life. Demand that the letters, and, forensics, proof of no gunpowder particulates in the combined blood analyses, and, Alice can get the hell out of Wonderland… What part of not guilty, don’t youse guys, understand… Non case, closed; over, kaput… Civil suit, pending… Edgrrr…

      • Edgar Longenecker says:

        What day, has it been proven, that, she, left and, timeline, when he was killed. Are we to believe, she killed him, and, sat there, for nearly a week, with, his dead body, when, she could have just, driven away……??? And, if it can be proven, she left, before, forensics, determined the day of death, then, she obviously, could not, have been in two places, at once, could she ??? And, ditto, five days, after death, when, the second crime, was proven, by, the blood drying time; where, was, Jodi, while she vwas being, set up, with, the second crime… Edgrrr…

  27. eli says:
  28. Bob says:

    The stakes are very high for this jury. I don’t think this jury wants to be first. – They will probably convict on the charges, but not follow through on the sentencing phase. http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1221129.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      The stakes are very high for you to demand, all the concealed, thousnnd phone and, computer messages, as they can validate the letters, and the letters can validate the messages… If you’re not going to do that, and, demand forensics testimony, then, you are not just whining, but are pandering to this obstruction of justice. This entire soap opera balances, upon the concealed and unsettled proof that Jodi, never fired a jun, so I don’t give a damned, if she called herself the Duracel Bunny… or thinks she’s Mother Teresa, or, the pied piper… nothing computes, without, shooting him, so as to gain dominance, and, she never fired a gun… What part of innocense by reason of mass hysteria, by Gestapo, bootlickers, escapes your lucid moments…??? And, the subsequent, home invasion robbery, with a gunshot to the head, while she was locked up, and, couldn’t have done that one, either ??? picket the den of thieves,and, demand forensics, either commit perjury, to add gunpowder particulates, in the combined blood, or, admit that there wasn’t any, and, they told the court jester, his bluff, wouldn’t hold up. That’s what his spasmographization is all about; lying through his teeth, with the implications in every “question.” Edgrrr… whose side are youse guys on, anyway ? Picket the courthouse, or, wimp; your choice…

  29. eli says:

    who are Dustin and Ashley Thompson who the defense were talking about in day 7 of the case regard a viocemail?

  30. eli says:

    Is he just sad or is he in fear of something this is the interview NG had with Travis’s roommate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vUNjseDrd4

  31. eli says:

    listen to this recording starting from 25:00

    very interesting facts

    http://scaredmonkeysradio.com/audio//20130122s.mp3

    • Debbie says:

      Thank you eli I listened to the entire broadcast. It was very interesting indeed! Who is this Thomas Brown guy?and how does the media find out these things?

  32. Connie Eckerson says:

    This is AWSOME! What I want to know is this, Did she guvs the cops the gun? Cause if she was protecting herself wouldn’t she keep it to prove her case?

  33. Connie Eckerson says:

    Can I ask questions, and will they be answered? I’m taking law in the SUPERBOWL CITY!

  34. BevInAz says:

    I recently started watching the trail and have been glued to In Session the past 2 weeks. I ran across this site while searching for some of the witness statements, specifically past boyfriends, in hopes of learning a little more about her past relationships.
    From the time I read the details of how TA was killed, I’ve had major issues in how a 120 pounds woman could overpower a 200 lb man to stab him over 29 times, slit his throat and shot him. It doesn’t add up. It just doesn’t add up!
    And listening to her testify this past week and basically tell a story of her abusive childhood, multiple boyfriends who both cheated and abused her, there is not one account of her displaying an ounce of violence. It doesn’t add up.
    Just listening to her relationship with Alexander, he chased her , pulled her in, pushed her away continually and she was definitely his dirty little secret. When she tried to move in and even went on a date with another man, he wasn’t gonna let that happen. She was his sex object and no other man was gonna get a piece of her until he decided he was finished with her.
    It was sad the way he treated her and she would wait however long he took just to have a minute of his attention. Sad.
    I’m not implying that he deserved the way he was killed. No one does. But I’m just not convinced that is happened in the way the prosecution and media is reporting. It does add up.
    Regardless of how it ends up there are no winners. TA will still be dead.
    I was watching Jayne Velez Mitchell’s coverage of the days events in the trial earlier this week and she had a female defense attorney, a female prosecutor and a male attorney commenting on Jodi’s testimony thus far. I was amazed at the surprised by the male of the group. He said there was no doubt that Travis tormented her and treated her like a whore, his personal whore. I thought he was going to take the view that she consented to everything and he never forced her to do anything, but that wasn’t how he felt at all.
    His comments made me feel that Josi might have a good chance of beating this since there are 11 males on her jury. It will be interesting

  35. april says:

    Didn’t Dr. Horn also testify that the gunshot would have been fatal if Mr. Alexander would have been alive when shot? Yes, it were the knife wounds that caused death, but the gunshot had the capacity to be fatal.
    In regards to the premeditation and cause of death, it isn’t unreasonable to assume Jodi showered after 2 hours of sex with Travis (as is alleged) and after that, she dressed while Travis was in the shower. Isn’t it possible that her pants had no pockets and the waist band was unable to securely hold the .25? In this scenario Jodi would have taken a knife from the kitchen and hiding it in the waistband of he pants, she returned to the shower stall where Travis was.
    I’m not saying this is what happened, rather I’m suggesting a possible prosecution argument to your defense strategy. With Jodi on the stand, all this is academic; at some point she will explain where the gun came from and why she shot him.

  36. CuriousCourt says:

    Dr. Horn testified the gunshot would have been fatal but that does not mean he is correct in that assumption. I think he is wrong.

    • Edgar Longenecker says:

      Curious Court… Who cares whether or not the gunshot, would have killed him, when forensics proves she never fired a gun ??? Cut the con, and stay on point, without the deviant irrelevancies, unless you have plausible deniability, that you have facts, beyond what you think. What somebody , thinks, is what got this soap opera, started. What we think, is not going to unwind, Arias Bias… here in the USSR….it’s guilt, until proven broke. Your asumption that the gunshot wouldn’t have killed him is irrelevantly immaterial; he was already dead… so for nothing that it’s worth, you’re right; just wrong about what the issue is… Edgrrr…

  37. Edgar Longenecker says:

    Me, comment…? Of course, and do add this, to my four years plus, echo, that, she did none of it… as proven by forensics failure to prove she fired a gun; so, how did a 120 pound mouse, overcome, a 200 plus pound, wrestler, fighter, weightlifting, bodybuilder, fighting for his life, without shooting him, first; which forensics medical examiner, proves he was shot, last ? Playing this chess game, backwards, from the “just know, Jodi, did it,” Arias Bias, belies, with perjury at law; that the sequence and facts, mean nothing, once the Gestapo. and, cronies of organized crime at law, scams its’ victim, of the power of the State; facts, be damned; full steam ahead… No gunshot, no case. This non, ” it, ” should have been dismissed before it started, but for the grandstanding D.A. Did the Gestapo, not, hold a pacify the sheeple meeting after they had Jodi, locked up, and, not even mention, it…??? Was she not given time to fight extradition, based upon no such proof of facts likely to enable a conviction, with non facts, now proven to be and to have been defective…??? Over four years, and, cancelling third grade Nobel laureate blogsites; name calling, and, Steven Alexander, hysterical, death threat, and, yet, still, not one argument against or for, tthe fact that the states own forensics’ team, cancelled the court jesters, tap dance at law, charade… and, not one reasonable doubt, of dozens, I have posted, and educed from others to post, which have found there way, into the court; so what the hell are they judging, with all the connivers, concealment of the proof, she did none of it ? These comments are all, dated. Let’s see whose heads will roll, when the appellate, court has to perjure their sleazy bar association asses, to cover for the aptly named, lower and inferior court, and, has to put on their skit, to convince the world, what the free world, USSR, united states socialistic republic, is all about… With GLIBERTY, and JUST-ICE, for all… Bring us your poor, your tired and your huddled masses, and, we’ll molest your wives and daughters, steal your labor, tax your asses, enslave your faiths, and, make you wish you’d stayed the hell, back where you came from… Do we even deserve a country; this world, zoo…??? Edgrrr…

  38. Melinda says:

    I am so happy to find a place where people are actually discussing what may have happened with intelligence and courtesy. Been thinking there weren’t any objective people left. With her testimony today i am concerned that it doesn’t look good. I do believe when events are frenzied they r hard to recall completely accurate but to forget so much complicates it for me. Anyone else have trouble with this? It seems obvious that Travis had a horrid side but so many people won’t acknowledge it. Mostly reporters /commentators. I would guess that’s because twitter and Fb people r so prejudice and that’s what they see. I don’t think her story today helped, however Martinez is such a jerk when he questions witnesses he may turn the jurors off. He does me.

    One question. Reading past comments one said the jury couldn’t find her guilty of 2nd degree or less, others are talking as if they can. Will someone clarify that for me?

    • april says:

      The jury will have the ability to vote for first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter. It’s described as ”First degree murder with lesser included charges.”
      If Jodi is convicted of first degree murder, the jury will also vote for the penalty which would be either life in prison or death.

      • jenni says:

        There is one plausible way in which reasonable doubt AND premeditation could be taken out of the equation. That would have been for jodi to have expounded on the “Little Red Riding Hood fantasy.” She could have said that travis requested those weapons as props for that scenario. Perhaps the “legitimate porn” that he had fantasized about making could have had a snuff film element to it. Either of these scenarios allows for jodi to have brought the weapons with her without bring them for the purpose of premeditated murder. Her new hair color could also be explained in this as she was trying to disguise herself for the filming of the fantasy porn. The purchase of the gas could be explained that she didn’t want any later proof that she was in utah at that time for the purposes of concealing her true identity for the porn. She could have explained that travis agreed not to show her face in the porn, giving more credence to the red riding hood story line. Then, she could claim that the acting turned into reality,and she feared this was nothing more than travis setting her up for her own murder. Things escalated, and she got the best of him.

  39. JESSE says:

    I hope they find Jodi innocent just to spite Mr. Juan Martinez! I find him so disrespectful and repulsive. I bet there are jurors who are thinking the same. He is a miserable troll.

  40. William Doyal says:

    This was clearly not premeditated. There is more than enough reasonable doubt about premeditation. The simple argument is that she could have walked into his house and blown him away with a struggle. Jodie was convicted on premeditation because of hate not factss

Want to Comment?
Welcome to the #1 Jodi Arias Support site. All comments are moderated. If you are a knuckle-dragging hater - or a TravisTown pedo-hugger - then do not waste your invaluable time here. Your post will be deleted and you will be banned. You have been told. We are TEAM JODI… and WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS. Make no mistake. SJ / Team Jodi.

*