Self defense, reasonable doubt, premeditation, mistrials and the viability of a not guilty verdict – (attorney post)

in Latest News by

If, like most of us, you’re still pondering over the relative ins & outs of the self defense scenario, reasonable doubt, the alleged premeditation, the viability of a not guilty verdict for Jodi, and the current mistrial motions…  check out the post below from David, our resident criminal defense attorney.

It was posted in response to some questions raised earlier this week, and certainly makes interesting reading.

Leave your comments below…

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

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 subpoenas 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.

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


  1. I have some thoughts..
    One- the stab wounds in his back are all in one central location, as thought he was on top of her while getting stabbed.

    Two- Arizona in June and no one smelled his body for five days? I have had a mouse die and knew in a day because the smell was so bad. Why is no one questioning this?

    Three- That amount of blood and she tracked none through the house? Because if she did, why didn’t anyone notice..again, for FIVE DAYS?

    They talk about her leaving a voice mail..

    What if she was there, and it was in self defense and the roomates played a role? Don’t you think you could mentally snap and act “normal”? It happens to people all the time after trama.

    • Yes, Jessica, it really is weird that someone could live with that smell for 5 days, with each day surely becoming worse than the last.

      However, I have also smelled decomposition–of a person, not a mouse. This person lived across the hall from me (in an apartment complex) and apparently had died from a stroke–during a heat wave (several days of 40 degrees celsius!) So, you can imagine. Yet, nobody nearby thought, “someone has died.” It smelled, to us, like garbage that someone was neglecting to take out to the dumpster. So, as bad as it must’ve been for the roommates, it is very possible they thought it was a terrible dog-crap smell. That is, apparently, how they explained it away … plus, the bedroom door was locked.

      • Absolutely NOT… if you have ever been in the same “house” as a dead person, the decomposition smells worse then any thing. it over powers the smell senses and u wont be able to smell any thing but that for several hours… I don’t buy the Room-mate’s story. There is no way that he wouldn’t have noticed. According to the roommate he stated that he got home at 6 pm the night of the murder June 4, 2008.. the other roommate didn’t return for several days bc he was staying w/ his gf at his gf’s grandma’s house house sitting. :/ their story doesn’t match with the time line either… If Jodi did a load of laundry then that’s 30 min after 5:30 pm when TA was killed, cleaned the house?? another 2 hrs now were up to 7:30 pm what gives??? Y cant ne 1 see that TA’s friends stories don’t match 100% with the time line theory or the prosecutions??? this isn’t rocket science. there was a struggle. there is evidence of that with that pic of the ceiling. also there was blood in the kitchen, on the stairs, and down the hallway that shows that some1 was being chased. There is a lot more evidence of the attacks that every1 is ignoring. y did the female voice on 911 mention Jodi by name??? there is more then meets the eye. Also where was this dog??? y did she allow some1 to kill her master. that is out of character of any dog. y did the roommate have a key to the master br too many questions and getting longer everyday!!!

    • I want to see if I understand your points.

      One – The stab wounds in Travis’ back indicate to you that he was on top of her. Do you mean, she was lying on her back with the knife, and Travis was straddling her with his back towards her head and facing her feet?

      Two – It’s my understanding that he lived in a house, not an apartment. Does that change your feeling about not being discovered by the smell for 5 days?

      Three-You seemed confused as to why no one noticed the blood she had tracked throughout the house for 5 days. It’s my understanding that no one was in the house from the time of his death until Travis’ friends discovered him. Does that answer why no one would have seen the blood, i.e., no one was in the house to see it?

      I didn’t know Travis had any roommates.

      • On your point Three–Travis had two roommates, and at least one of them was there, on and off, during those five days.

        Detective Flores testified that this roommate though that the bad smell came from the dog having an accident.

        All the visible blood was apparently in the bedroom–behind a locked door. Not throughout the house.

        • No way. The roommate was there during those 5 days. I stand erected. Unbelievable. I guess it helps to know the facts … thanks for helping me in that regard.

          I had thought there was blood in the hallway and on the carpet–on the wall in the hall is where the bloody palm print was, right? And although a lot of the carnage was in the bedroom, how did his roommate not use the bathroom (more than 1 bathroom???) while he was there, and see the corpus delicti?

          What day was the roommate there? I suppose if it was only in the morning on the day after the death, the body would have had only 18 hours or so — so maybe it wasn’t THAT ripe at that point, and I suppose it could be explained away as the dog. But any more than that. We’re talkin’ the SW in June. Unless the air conditioner was set at 55.

          • At least one roommate was there the night that Travis’s friends came looking for him (5 days after his death). The roommate is the one who unlocked the door to Travis’s bedroom and found his body.

          • Kira, how did they unlock the door? was there a key in the outside or was it a press button door that you can sometimes open with a coin or screw driver?

          • Bill,

            From what I recall, Travis’s friends came to the house and asked his roommate where he was. The rommate thought that Travis had been away, and the friends mentioned that he hadn’t answered any calls or texts. The roommate checked Travis’s bedroom door, noticed that it was locked, and then grabbed some spare keys that were in the house. He found the right one for Travis’s room and opened the door.

          • MickyD- the bloody hallway and bathroom were part of Travis’ master bedroom suite. Supposedly the roommate came home at 6pm on the day of the murder which occurred at 530pm.

          • I have gone back and read the statements of the housemates. one talked about the things being moved around downstairs and they had thought it was travis cleaning. One even said the bannister of the stairs was cleaner.

            I can get that, wash the sheets, towels, clean where there might be finger prints. But how close a call was it to kill Travis at 5.30pm, do two loads of washing, clean downstairs and get out before the housemate got back at 6pm.

            If Travis got jodi to do a clean up before the killing. Maybe the sheets were washed prior to the killing. What exactly was in the cycle with the camera? Somewhere I read there was a Tshirt that was too small for travis. Is that correct?

      • Micky, I think that Travis was facing Jodi and she was stabbing him by reaching around. His back wounds were to one side, as if someone was reaching over him and stabbing. The wound pattern looks to me like she was reaching around him – not stabbing him from behind.

        Has anyone considered that Travis slit his own throat in an act of rage? That’s the one piece that I just cannot seem to figure out.

        • Jodi is left handed which means the grouping of the wound on the back would have to be formed from left to right of jodi’s site but from right to left on Travis’s side, is that consistent with the evidence

          • I am trying to picture myself as defending myself, laying on my back on the ground, being straddled. I’m in the fight for my life, and instead of thrusting the knife towards the person’s chest and face (in what feels like the most natural motion for me), I instead try and reach around and stab this attacker in the back? I’m having trouble picturing this calculation and this motion during such a struggle. I can see if the person is laying on me, but I can’t imagine being laid upon without my neck being choked or my arms being held down.

          • I guess it would depend on the position of the person on top of you. If you weren’t being straddled, but instead pinned to the ground by the full weight of the other person, then you’d be able to reach that person’s back way easier than the chest/face.

          • Thanks for your response Kira. Help me understand the logistics and body positioning thatyou are talking about when you say full weight. That means no knees are touching the ground, no feet, no arms, all the weight of the above person is on the lower … to me I’m thinking that means the person on top is laying on the person on the bottom. Is that the position you’re thinking of, or standing on?

          • I thought he was on top of her. I read the ME report on the actual cuts. some were only superficial and oblique. the group in the back were direct and penetrated to the bone.
            they tested him for drugs and alcohol. he had a blood alcohol of 0.01% and no drugs. neither street or prescription. Oh, I just realised that Mormons are not supposed to drink alcohol.

          • MickyD,

            Yes, I’m picturing someone fully on top of another person and pinning the shoulders/upper arms down with his hands. The person on the botton would have use of the lower arms and could swing at the top person’s back.

          • Kira,

            I understand that you are “picturing him …. pinning the shoulders/upper arms down with his hands.” That is a valid scenario for you.

            I’m picturing myself now, on top of someone who is defending themselves with a knife.

            I think I would be so focused on that knife and trying to stop it, that I would be grabbing the arm or hand that the knife is in.

            I can’t imagine holding down someone in a way that allows their knifed hand to flail around and cause more damage. Certainly not allow it such freedom that it could stab me in the chest let alone reach all the way around and stab my back.

            I’m just having a hard time processing that scenario, but you may be right. I’ve never been in such a situation, so I don’t know any of the possibilities.

          • Kira,

            I’m also wondering what your sequence of events is that leads you to this situation. He’s in the shower, she drops the camera, he gets enraged, she see’s that he’s enraged and knows this time it’s life or death, before he gets to her, she grabs a knife, maybe she stabs him in the chest, he wrestles her to the ground, he holds her down, but she stabs him in the back. You know, that kind of sequence of events.

          • MickyD,

            I’m really not firmly subscribing to the theory that Travis was lying on top of Jodi in this manner. Obviously, I don’t know for sure. I was just replying to your question about how someone could lie on top of someone else without having their chest/face in reach of a knife.

            Personally, I think I’d be focused on the knife too! I was just saying that hypothetically, someone could neutralize the other person’s upper arms and think that that would be enough. Another possibility is that the person on top could be strangling the person on the bottom and wouldn’t expect the bottom person to swing the knife.

            As to the sequence of events, I think it would be similar to what you described if it is a true case of self-defense. Again, none of us know for sure, but I expect Jodi’s lawyers to argue a similar scenario. They won’t want to say that she stabbed him in the back from behind.

            • My sister was attacking me once, she sat on me. The only thing I could do was reach around on the ground for something to hit her with. I found a glass pop bottle and hit her on the back of her head. She stopped after that and I was able to get up and away. I always thought TA was sitting on Jodi or above her in some way. The knife wounds on his back were not as deep as a stab, more like she was trying to get him off of her and she was hitting him with the knife blade in a chopping motion

          • Junior, I just saw your comment on the discussion of Jodi’s artwork: “I hope Jodi makes plenty of money from this so she can go on a well deserved shopping spree when she is freed from jail. Maybe a spa weekend. She deserves it!”

            That’s a very funny comment! I can see why you’d want to satirize ridiculous theories of innocence and the people who make them up. Really, I do understand what you’re doing and why. Also, I can see that you have others who are helping you with this comedy.

            However, there are many reasonable people here, who are having reasonable discussions. Some of us haven’t made up our minds one way or another. I’m pretty sure that you want your phony, over-the-top views and feelings to appear as if they represent anyone and everyone who is questioning the premeditation aspect of this case.

          • Junior, I’m trying to understand how that would even be possible, and it doesn’t make sense at all to me. If he slit his own throat, it would be clear. The cut would show it was self inflicted, like a pre-cut that suicide victims do. Also, wouldn’t you think the knife would be at the scene if he did it himself? I don’t know. To me, that doesn’t make any sense.

            Tony, did you know Travis…?

        • When you say you can’t figure out if he cut his own throat out of rage, are you saying that you heard the theory from someone that he might have done this, and you just can’t figure out how it could be, or you yourself think he cut his own throat out of rage, and have some questions about that?

          Can you help me understand the thought process and logistics of that. I mean is it like, he attacks Jodi cause he’s angry, starts getting stabbed by her, gets even angrier, then asks her for the knife, or wrestles it away from her or there’s another knife in the room, and is so angry he cuts his own throat. After which (assuming this order of events) he lays bleeding on the floor, at which point Jodi shoots him after he slit his own throat, and then drags him back into the shower for some reason.

          I’m just trying to understand the sequence and thinking here. Sorry if it sounds sarcastic, I just can’t think of how it happened.

          • I only think it a possibility because abusers will often use suicide as a weapon. I can’t really comment on the sequence of events because I just don’t know. The wounds all seem to be consistent with defensive wounds except for that one.

          • Yeah, I don’t think that will even remotely fly. No offense, but its pretty fantastical and unlikely to be taken seriously.

          • I don’t think that suicide is likely to fly either. People have a survival instinct when faced with danger and would fight to stay alive.

          • Explanation is simple; Travis nearly cut his own head off, by proxy, with his heart plunge, ear to ear throat slice, ritual, sworn obedience to doctrines and covenants, that, whatwith being suicidal, Travis, was tapdancing upon the edge of, sanity; subscribing to the right to get, iced, for his twofaced, contempt for, church doctrine; in short, death wish, for doing what even he, knew he shouldn’t… also, testing the other axe murderer, in his life; Jodi, and himself; good old wrestling team, spirit; killing himself…Sad, for, all, and, denied by, too many… Edgar…

        • Kira, thanks for your response, I understand now you were more responding to my question than suggesting something to begin with. It will be interesting to hear what comes next.

        • Travis cut his own throat…? You’ve heard of suicide by cop; meet suicide by religion. “Do you love your brother enough to kill him, to save his, eternal soul…???” Read “The God Makers,” for, more of Brigham Youngs,’ admonitions, and, remove all doubt… as to who had the motive to do the soul saving ascension to planet playboy, and, all those angels… and, who, agreed to abide by the rules… see Anderson / Alexander killings…

    • Exactamundo… she was bent over, as in, face down, while Travis proceeded to use her, as, his words; stalker, whore, slut; a, ragdoll, for his stated, desires of anal sex, with, or, at, her; so chalk up another demerit for the moron at law; since while, face down, and, getting violated, does not lend much opportunity, to stab anybody in the back. The gestapo knows she did none of it, except, maybe, chasing him with his knife, to the shower, after he got done, violating her; a serious crime, in the church, and, even in a serious mitigation of a trial…. The lazy gestapo, is willing to sentence an innocent person to death, for not naming, the two people in masks…

    • If, Travis, was on top of her, and, she was facing him, she would have stuck the knife in his stomach, or, given him a squeeky voice; and, surely, not, have reached around, where, bone, could have impeded, the knife thrusts… But, as I see it, Mr. Devout, came in while Jodi, was face down, being mauled, and, unable to escape; as per her statement that Travis would be in prison; why else, would she say that; surely not by the pictures, of consentual sex, that, she had no problem with… but, by rough sex, bent over sex, and, frisky sex, as defined by the prosecutor , who ignores his own titled observations, as if, broke butt mountain, is his hometown… Edgrrr…

  2. Hello David. Thank you again for answering the questions! As the person who originally asked these questions, I want to look a little more closely at the possible ways the defense could “enhance” their claim of self-defense by making other claims and using other forms of evidence (such as text messages) to create doubt of premeditation.

    I understand, now, why the suggestion of mental illness, combined with self-defense, is unlikely, both for the reasons you outlined, and–I would think– because self-defense relies in part on the defendant being a “reasonable person.”

    You also wrote that if the defense were to suggest that this was a “crime of passion” that would invalidate Jodi’s claim to self-defense. You gave good reasons for this: in the former, Jodi is the aggressor, acting in the heat of the moment; in the later, Travis is the aggressor, from whom Jodi must defend herself. OK. But, I’ve been reading some of the court documents, and I came across something interesting. I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere on this website.

    In the chunk of quoted text below*, the defense is arguing with the State’s assertion that the text messages are hearsay and inadmissible, and that no exceptions apply. That’s just the context. I’m quoting it because the defense mentions, here, other defense strategies. Specifically, “the heat of passion.”

    (*For reference, the quotation below comes from the “Court Docs” available on this website; there’s no page number, but it comes about 3-4 pages down from the heading, “B. MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AT ISSUE ARE NOT HEARSAY”):

    “The State in asserting that the text messages … ‘do not show either the victim’s or the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense or who was the first aggressor’ … ignores several key facts, the most prominent fact being that Ms. Arias’ claim of self-defense is made to ARS 13-415, which allows the jury to assess Ms. Arias’ actions as those of a reasonable person who has suffered abuse at the hands of Mr. Alexander regardless of its form. Thus, statements Mr. Alexander made to Ms. Arias, be they verbal, or through electronic communications, that could be seen as exploitive and/or abusive are relevant in this regard. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of this defense. The charge of First Degree Murder can also be defended by assertions that a lesser included offense was committed. In this regard, any evidence that speaks to whether or not Ms. Arias acted without premeditation or under the heat of passion is relevant pursuant to the dictates of Rule 402, which are quoted above.”

    So the defense, in arguing that it’s “not just a matter of this defense [self-defense]” are, to my understanding, saying that they can and might use other claims, including showing evidence that speaks to whether Ms. Arias acted “under the heat of passion.”

    What do you make of this?

    And here’s where I’m still confused about the whole self-defense claim. Isn’t self-defense used to prove (in any criminal case, not just Arias’ case) that the defendant is NOT culpable? That, in fact, the defendant’s actions, being self-defense, were perfectly legal (which is much stronger than introducing reasonable doubt)? Whereas, this “heat of passion” claim would show that the defendant IS culpable, but on a lesser charge–i.e., not First Degree.

    Like you said, a HUGE difference. So, how could the defense team–as they seem suggest in the text quoted above–argue both? This brings me back to “switching mid-stream,” rather than, more wisely, “enhancing” the self-defense claim. Or, is there possibly a fancy way to blend the two claims in a potentially non-contradictory way?

    • I know the burden of proof is on the state, but I want to get reiterate my earlier posts. BY admitting she did it in self defense she gave the prosecution the “holy grail” of having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. She let them off the hook of having to prove half their case.- An admission. She committed everything in that crime scene. Now her defense has to present enough evidence to support 1 SPECIFIC theory instead of just trying to suggest many possible stories ,just not the one the state put forward..
      If they start co-mingling evidence to support other theories their whole case falls apart.
      David can correct me, but it your opening statements present one thing, and your closing statements can’t back it up, not good.

      • Nah… no sense relying upon logic, when PTSD is at work… contradicting theories, and, iotas of truth, in each schizofacet, do not, need to fit, reality. Jodi, lived 27 years without killing anybody; why, start, now…??? Why reason why; it just happened, all, without her consent, and it’s a cinch that Olive Oyl, did not have the strength, or expertise, to, chop at Bluto’s throat, and stab, from behind, while face down getting anally raped… Tell me, this is not exactly, in keeping with the facts, and, add the vicious retaliation by whoever dragged, Travis, off, her, and, executed him on the spot; then, in keeping with ritual; heart plunged, bled out, washed, and, laundered the bedding… as precisely, according to doctrine; read the book “The God Makers,” for, guidance… Free Jodi, and, tar and feather the D.A…..Edgrrr…

      • She didn’t do anything, or, the house and Travis, would be ashes, with her gasoline cans… she is only, suffering with PTSD, while these lizards at law, are attempting to deritualize the killing, they know, she did not do; otherwise, why conceal exculpatory evidence, in such a slam dunk, bobbing for apples, with a shotgun… Obstruction or juastice, is all this soap opera, is… The prosecutor should be imprisoned for such fraud… and, ditto, the judge, who’s concealing the knowlege; hearsay or not, of a juror, speaking with Travis’s group…

    • Pique, I saw that too about the defense bringing up “in the heat of passion”. David, was this a mistake on the part of the defense or is there a way to mingle the two defenses in THIS situation that do not jeopardize the self defense claim like you articulated above?

      Also, I am pretty sure that it was not the roommate that made the claim that the house “smelled like a dog shat in the house” but the girl, the friend of Travis’ who went to the house that ended up discovering the body WITH the other friends.

      Also, David, I had asked a question earlier in regards to your post/answers above, but hadn’t got your response and would love your feedback. (Another poster asked same question). I had heard several defense attorneys talking about this case (on different programs), discussing the self defense claim, and all of them had stated that with her claiming self defense, she WILL need to prove that the injuries she inflicted were in balance or were an appropriate response to what she claims Travis was beginning to inflict. This is where I believe some people are worried that the whole self defense argument has effectively shifted the burden. I know you disagree but if you could answer just in terms of the burden of her needing to prove she responded appropriately and proportionally. And then how this could be achieved since Jodi had no wounds whatsoever. How will she argue proportionate?

      • on other boards I have read about the dominant /submissive quality to their relationship.
        He never smiled in photos, not even with his family. His my space page had his quote “I think I look presidential in this photo”
        Reading on this sort of relationship it says that there should be a code word that the dom needs to back off should the sub use it. It states that sometimes these relationships end badly because this was not discussed in the beginning. Like that experiment done years ago that people inflicted more and more pain because they could.

        • I did some reading about BDSM. I found that the community feels that a person who oversteps in those roles are considered to be psuedo doms. Punishing a sub without it being in the context of role-play is frowned upon. One needs to be stable to be in that relationship is basically the point that was being made. And, they believe that when people are abusive in their regular life, they shouldn’t engage in role-play until their issues are worked out because people can get hurt.

        • The D/s lifestyle, and I say lifestyle because (those who role play are not true Dom/sub) is totally consensual. The submissive freely offers her submission to the Dom, it’s not forced on her, and the submissive has the right to take her submission back.

          In a true D/s relationship, the submissive has the control. And yes, there is always a “safe word”

      • Actually Daniel, she did sustain wounds…if you recall, it was to her hands (presumably from the knife she used to stab Mr. Alexander.)

        Now, regarding the ‘proof’ of Self Defense.

        Miss Arias does not need to ‘prove’ a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g…n-o-t-h-i-n-g…at all.

        Case in point, if I told you that I own the Golden Gate Bridge, you would probably respond with something like, “Yeah OKAY buddy! And I bet you believe in the tooth fairy too!”

        BUT, if I told you that I am a partial owner of the Golden Gate Bridge and that each year I get a small percentage of all the crossing tolls, you would then likely give my statement due consideration WITHOUT ANY PROOF. Never did I ‘prove’ to you any of this that I say.

        Do you see what I did there?

        I made an unsubstantiated claim. I did not prove ANYTHING as to what I said and what I said COULD be plausible.

        SAME applies to Miss Arias’ defense. Her defense team need only make PLAUSIBLE claims which would effectively generate DOUBT in the minds of the jury. In this case, it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility to think Miss Arias acted in Self Defense…in other words, her claim is plausible.

        Now, can her Self Defense claim be substantiated? Unlikely. (But, truly, who knows?) Just like I cannot substantiate my claim of receiving a small percentage of all the Golden Gate Bridge crossing tolls. But, the fact that it is plausible or COULD/MIGHT be TRUE generates doubt of the prosecution’s evidence/accusations.

        Of course, it is always BEST PRACTICE to be able to substantiate your claims to eliminate ANY doubt…but then, she would most likely not be on trial either if she could substantiate her Self Defense claim, right?

        I know more folks here have asked me questions and I do sincerely apologize for not answering them in a timely manner. That said, I will do my best at answering your great questions. I truly did not expect that my posts/analysis would generate so much interest. Nevertheless, really great questions and discussions here!

        (Oh, and by no means do I have any affiliation with the Golden Gate Bridge!)

        • Thanks Daniel. I just HOPE that her defense can bring more than just “the realm of possibility” because right now I am concerned she needs more than that for the jury to come away with “reasonable doubt”. (No offense but I would probably ask for proof of your percentage of the Golden Gate Bridge tolls before I bought that, especially considering its a public bridge, not private …But I am a pessimist at times I admit :)) With the jury already having heard her variations on the story- which I don’t think anyone can deny the purpose for…not having hard evidence of the ‘threat’ she had against her, I personally don’t think just introducing the idea (via her attorneys) unsubstantiated – that she may have been in physical danger – is enough to avoid a conviction at THIS point. Yes, I do know about the injury to her hand, but again does it rise to the level of showing that Travis was really going after her and commensurate to the injuries inflicted on Travis? You didn’t answer though the comments from the other attorneys about Arizona’s Self Defense law requiring the injuries or force used to defend herself be commensurate with the threat. Unless you are saying she doesn’t have to prove that, only that the jury need think they were?? As I have stated over and over …I hope her defense attorneys have clear evidence of Travis’ physical abuse. I agree it is highly unlikely there would be evidence she could use to prove that in that situation she was fighting for her life but I think that jury will need proof of some sort that he was physically abusive.

          • Okay, so AFTER the judge gives the jury these instructions (or something very similar)

            ” To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

            1. (Victim) is dead.

            2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

            3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).”

            Then after reading out loud to the jury the definition of ‘premeditation’, the judge will further instruct the jury: (or instructions very similar)

            ” The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.”

            Indeed, substantiating her self defense claim would greatly strengthen her case and likely set her free. But lets be honest here, she likely cannot substantiate or ‘prove’ a self defense claim. But for her sake, ALL 12 jurors MUST be “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt…” that she is guilty of the crime as defined by the statutes of her State.

            If ANYTHING, her public defenders are going to ‘prove’ the PLAUSIBILITY of Self Defense, NOT necessarily prove that it actually happened.

            Believe me, I think we ALL want to hear/see the proof! But, did we see/hear it in OJ Simpson’s murder trial? Nope. Did we see/hear it in Casey Anthony’s murder trial? Nope. Are we going to see/hear it in this trial? Again, nope.

            It’s just one of those accepted realities of criminal defense and EVERY jury is different.

          • David, Can you clarify? What happens if Jodi has 11 jurors convinced of guilt BUT there is ONE juror that is NOT convinced of her guilt? What would happen?

          • David,

            In response to what I assume is a quote of the legal texts: ”The question of premeditation is a question of fact … of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.”

            “Premeditation at the time of the killing” confuses me. I would assume premeditation comes during the planning phase, before (long time or short time) the ‘time of the killing’. That’s why it’s called PRE.

            I’m sure the legal speak is not saying what I think it’s saying. Any help is appreciated.

          • there is a guy on the net who claims to have previously been in a relationship with Jodi and saw the damage that travis did to her hand. She never went to hospital. She didn’t want the police involved. He was asked if he would lie for Jodi and he said yes. He said that they do not want him to be a witness.

          • Bill, I thought I read that guy was posting here too. Big problem if he said he would lie for Jodi. That obviously means he could be lying about seeing the “damage Travis did to Jodi” and her attorneys know he could be a liability if he would say such a thing. Why would he need to lie for Jodi anyway? The truth is the truth. But I also agree with others here that it is horrible if he truly is being straight and really did see the damage then why NOT come forth? Something is wrong with that guy and my impression was.. he is a fraud looking for attention.

      • Please see my post below which clarifies the definition of “heat of passion” with respect to criminal law.
        After reading my post, you would see that no ‘mistake’ was necessarily made by the defense team.

    • What do you make of this?

      Well, I think you might have misinterpreted the statement, “furthermore, this is not just a matter of this defense.”
      That statement can be translated as, “furthermore, this is not just some statement/allegation of this defense.”

      Under no circumstances does Self Defense relieve the accused of culpability. In fact, it does just the opposite. If I said that I killed somebody in self defense then I’ve essentially admitted that I AM culpable or blameworthy of the killing. There is no other person to blame for the killing other then me.

      Perhaps you meant to say is “could self defense JUSTIFY the killing?”

      If that is indeed what you meant then absolutely it can, but the caveat is that you have to be in a dire situation to justify killing another human in an act of self defense. It has to be that there were no other options available to you. It was either kill or be killed as the defense team for Miss Arias has already asserted. This precisely why they want the texts/emails to be admissible…to prove the PLAUSIBILITY that Miss Arias COULD have been in a grave situation of either kill or be killed.

      Killing another human being in an act of Self Defense is NEVER ‘perfectly legal’ (as you’ve labeled it.) Again, perhaps you meant justifiable?

      Moving on to “heat of passion”…

      I’m not exactly sure how you are defining “heat of passion”, but it doesn’t appear to be in congruent with Criminal Law.

      In Criminal Law, “heat of passion” is defined as an intensely emotional state of mind induced by a type of provocation that would cause a reasonable person to act on impulse or without reflection. Hopefully this definition clarifies things for you regarding “heat of passion” and addresses your questions/understanding in the last paragraph of your post.

      • Actually, David, I wasn’t uncertain about the definition of “heat of passion.” In my comment earlier in this conversation, I was interested in HOW the defense team could use evidence of Jodi acting “under the heat of passion” (their words, not mine) to introduce doubt of premeditation when the “defense of self” claim has already been laid out in opening statements. My questions were concerned with this apparent contradiction. I don’t KNOW that they will present evidence of heat of passion, only that, according to the court document I quoted above, they might.

      • Sorry… no other person to blame, is only valid, if as deceased, he’s no longer a person… Getting himself killed, mitigates the guilt of those who gave him what he was cruising for… if, mwwting force with forced, ended in kill or be killed… It takes two to tango; nobody rides for free…

    • Pique… Self preservation, is spontaneous, and, requires no analytics, before acting. Try sticking your hand in boiling water, for your demonstration. Is, post traumatic stress disorder, a bucket full of glitched, glimpses, of lucidity, an otherwise rational person, might be experiencing, so, that doesn’t fit the parameters, of what, an adjudicator, gets to call, mental illness, or not; for the purpose, of the at law conviction, maniacs, at law ? Trying to fit this square peg prosecution, into a round hole, is, ludacrous; as is, thinking that there is only one scenario, which must be chosen, while the schizootherzillion [of course, that’s a word]… other, defenses, are concealable, by a lizard at law, is, surely, inconsistent with, competent and effective legal representastion, especially, in this Alice in Wonderland, twilight zone, cinderells, yellow brick road, charade, soap opera… All these, fragmented stories, each, contain, reasonable doubts, so, keep on keeping on; the more tales, the better. I’m looking forward to the bishop, who’s concealing evidence, under some church / state, collusion and conspiracy, non separation of alleged powers. to indemnify their mental illnesses, at religion; at law; to tell us why the Mormon country club, refuses to take responsibility, for this clear and transparent enactment, of one or their law breaking; above the law, antics at Godliness… and, vilification of our laws, which, gives their heresies, the privilege, to exist; as in, biting the hand that feeds them. It, is no accident, that the hundred year old, Anderson murder, by doctrine and covenant, exactly prefaces, untold hundreds, or not, others, whose, existance, was fatal, in mimicking the antics of their perverted leader, gluttons, with, harems, and, palaces, like the latter day, ayatollahs, they pretend to be; to so, reveal to all us lesser included, beings, what their pose to be a church; tax dodge, is really all about. How dare, Travis, emulate, Brigham Young, and, Joseph Smith, sex gluttony; three groupies a day, and, a waiting list of those who seek to just touch the hem of his ministerial robe… Sure hope all those thousand year old, virgin angels, are smothering these guys, whose heresies, have isolated them, on their own planet; Kolob; Bollock… Free Jodi, or, bring down the quasireligious country club, for such complicity, and, denial… Compare, Anderson and Alexander “eternal soul saving, ” heart plunge, ear to ear throat slice, above the law, ascensions, to planet playboys’ geriatric ward… serves ya right… such teeming in mental illness; inflicting it on a girl, while you reptillians, bask in your self delusionals…. Here’s a dose of antidote to your poisons….. Edgrrr…

  3. Since she claims innocence, she needs to go on the witness stand and explain everything.
    That would be the best thing she could do as she should have nothing to hide.
    This would give her the chance to explain all the lies, deceit and actions everyone is questioning.
    The “truth will set you free”?…we not likely in this case, but it would set the record straight.

    • I agree Allen D Smith. Unless her attorneys have evidence that proves Travis was physically abusive she MUST get on the stand and tell her side of the story. Given the reaction of her fellow inmates…I think its a possibility she can really do good.

    • Negative… Spaced out from anal rape, gets blocked out, and, bits and pieces, result; which explains the incoherrent, stories. The last thing she needs to do, is try again to be a third party, viewing this soap opera from a distance; we can surely, see how that has put a noose around her own neck; as if, she’s emulating, Travis’s suicidal antics; tempting fate, wagainst, a serious church, and a latent axe murderer… This has been a non case, from day one, and, hers to lose. If, she had a real lieyer, she wouldn’t have been paraded before a worlwide audience, with those, happy enough to let her convict herself, when, she did none of it…

  4. Yes, Bob, so it would seem. The case falling apart if there is more than one justification. And, yet, there it is: the defense has argued that evidence that could speak to Jodi acting under the heat of passion is relevant. It’s right there, in black and white. As if it were a kind of “plan B.” Take note, too, of the “lesser included charges”–according to Wikipedia (blush), this is always an option in capital cases.

  5. I know this is off the subject but wanted to call attention to this utube video I thought some people would want to watch. Omg you guys have to see this “Jodi is innocent” video on utube from: CRAPPLESAUCEY

    This, lady is an idiot, she thinks she’s so funny and she’s not! she’s also making this video infront of her kid. I don’t think this is something people should be making fun of. its wrong in all kinds of way. disrespectful to TA and his family, the way he died and an insult to JA’s self defense!!!

    So I marked her post with a “dislike” I didn’t find any humor in it. Check it out!!!

  6. “This is where I believe some people are worried that the whole self defense argument has effectively shifted the burden.”

    I am wondering about this as well, Daniel. If, in self-defense, in ARIZONA, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, or, if the prosecution is burdened with disproving self-defense.

    • I think many of us are waiting for David to return, and to begin his second shift of the day!

      On the subject of “lesser included offence,” here’s a snippet of the Wikipedia article, for your information:

      “In criminal jury trials, the court is permitted (but not required) to instruct jurors that they can find the defendant guilty of the most serious crime charged, or of a lesser included offense of that crime … In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the United States Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors, given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free, might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.”

      What I don’t understand is if this “lesser included offense” is automatically understood to be contained within the greater offense (.ie., manslaughter is included, by definition, in First Degree murder–because you cannot murder a human being, in the First Degree, without also committing man-slaughter) or if it must be a formal charge–that is, one that all of us can read, and point at, on those handy court documents.

      • The trials within a trial, charade, is an obstruction of justice; letting crook D.A.s add charges, and, inflict, fraudulent ransoms, and, outrageous lieyer defense charges, to do their “Innocent until proven broke,” soap operas; when you’ve sold your soul to lawyer satan… and the lieyers, take what they can get, from a verdict… with, a concurrent, double or triple jeopardy scheme… trials by the handful, all at once, as trials within trials, to sleaze an end run around, the law… Toadies of the system, should, try a case, win, lose, or, draw, upon only a trial, consistent with what is provable, period… not, five trials, concealed, within a fraud, levied as extortion, to embezzle a plea, to a lesser included, lieyer, con… Edgrrr… First or last, we kill all the lieyers…

  7. It’s rather difficult for me to articulate this for you simply because I do not know the statutes of criminal law in Arizona as it applies to the trial court. I’d have to further investigate the aspects of ‘lesser charges.’

    But, in my State, a defendant can request that the court NOT include instruction of lesser charges to the jury. Then it becomes sort of a poker game…the defendant is essentially putting the jury in an ‘all or nothing’ state. Either the accused is guilty or not guilty of the State’s charges presented in the beginning of the trial. The judge MAY (at their discretion) deny the defendant’s request and provide instructions to the jury for lesser charges. This usually happens IF the judge believes the State’s evidence supports lesser charges. Additionally, if the instructions for lesser charges are not provided to the jury (at the request of the defendant) then the accused severely limits their appeals. Also, the prosecution may also decide to retry the case in the event the instructions of lesser charges were not provided to the jury AND the defendant was found to be not guilty of the greater charge(s).

    Again, this all varies from State to State.

    • David, I thought that would be considered Double Jeopardy? So if there are different “charges” for the same crime, DJ doesn’t apply and the state could try her again???? That does not seem fair. Thanks

  8. okay, I’m not a lawyer, but i have to disagree with David with regards to the defense not having to submit evidence to support their self defense claim .David stated, “Miss Arias does not need to ‘prove’ a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g…n-o-t-h-i-n-g…at all ”
    First of all, By admitting she killed TA in self defense , they made the states case Prima-Facie, ( there is no longer any doubt she committed what resulted in TA’s death). That point is a matter of fact, no longer argumentative. What is still argumentative is the reason she took such action. If she was under no burden to prove her case, the defense would open up next Tuesday by stating they “rest”, since the state hasn’t submitted any evidence that would support the defense’s claim, and clearly there’s been no cross evidence that points toward self defense.
    Also with regards to the “all or nothing Capital murder charge”. There is a Supreme court ruling that states in the case of only capital murder charges being sought, the judge may direct the jury to entertain lesser charges. The opinion stated that by giving a jury an all or nothing verdict, it prejudiced the defendant, that a jury might elect to convict when they felt the defendant was obviously not innocent,, but also not guilty of the crime charged. Whether that applies here, I don’t know.

  9. Why did the color of TA’ hand look much darker than other parts? Can it be an indication he was hitting Jodi before he was killed?

    • Joyce, the ME explained the dark areas of Travis’ hands were from lividity…decomposition. But if there was a possibility of this I would have thought her defense would have mentioned it. But not sure how you would be able to differentiate bruises HE received from injuries inflicted ON him versus bruises received from punching someone else.

  10. An excerpt from an article on best explains this.

    “Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.”

    No matter what…the burden of proof falls squarely on the prosecutor…even in self defense cases, but as the article states in the first sentence, it’s ‘inverted’, meaning the prosecutor must now ‘disprove’ the self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

    My apologies for not making this more clear in any of my previous posts.

    • An excerpt from above- “Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents SOME EVIDENCE on each of the elements of self-defense”
      I guess you can make that claim, but you can also claim aliens did it.!There has to be some reasonable evidence presented to back it up.

      • I thought the whole point of your argument was regarding the placement of the burden of proof on the defense…

        So, coming back to your original argument…

        Presenting ‘SOME EVIDENCE’ (as you put it) still does not ‘shift’ the burden of proof to the defense. (Or disproof in this case.)

    • So yes, I would have to agree with your statement above; it is indeed feasible that the defense could come to court on January 29th and effectively rest their case simply because [personally] I believe the prosecutor neither proved Miss Arias premeditated the murder of Mr. Alexander beyond a reasonable doubt nor did he ‘disprove’ Miss Arias’ Self Defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Not saying at all that I would personally do that in this case. Only saying that it is not an impossibility.

      (Although the likelihood of them actually resting their case is doubtful…at best)

      • I am understanding what you mean here David.
        It’s not that the defense has to “prove” self defense, they just have to cause reasonable doubt in at least of the jurors minds.
        I guess I can see how some are getting this confused, but proof and doubt are two different things.

        As you said, there was no proof that OJ didn’t do it, no proof that Casey didn’t do – just reasonable doubt that obviously caused one juror to question the prosecutors claims.

        I don’t know how else to explain. But I do understand what you are saying.
        Thanks for the information all.

      • David, when you say personally you do not believe the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt pre-meditated murder…do you think you may be looking at the case strictly from the perspective of a defense attorney ? I would think your standards are much higher than that of a lay person juror. A defense attorney understands legally so much more than a non legal person.

    • Interesting David. That makes sense to me in terms of the prosecutor having to prove it wasn’t DV while the defense has a lot of convincing to do in terms of evidence.

      You should be a law professor. I’m a teacher by trade, and you explain concepts very well.

  11. The state’s version was that Jodi started to stab him in the shower. He was naked, wet and defenseless, though I do not understand why a naked and wet man of 190 pounds was defenseless. It looked like the carnage started in the bedroom and near the hallway. Did the state check the blood pattern in the shower? The shower looked tiled and even after washing it still should show blood spatter if stabbing really started there.

  12. He had roomates, one who was there nearly the entire five days and there is no way a dead body smells like dog piss and even so, why would you not search out the doggy accident to clean it up?

    As for Mormons not drinking alcohol, they aren’t supposed to have premarital sex either, so he wasn’t exactly a “good Mormon”.

    I have a hard time believing that a woman so much smaller than him could stab him, then slit his throat, then shoot him and he does nothing? I think if I am being stabbed, I am gonna fight like hell.

    I am not saying she was not there. I think she was. I think he attacked her, I think she fought back and I think someone else helped her. But I think she is the one being made to take the full blame.

    • I didn’t understand your comment “made to take the full blame”. To me that sounds like it is something that is being thrust upon her beyond her own control.

      I would argue that if she were covering for someone else who was at the scene, she is exercising a choice (either by her own reasoning or advice from her lawyer). Either way, it doesn’t seem to be something she is ‘made’ to do.

      Regarding her size and being able to stab and slit his throat. If I follow that argument about her size, it seems much more likely then to me that getting the jump on him, attacking him first, having the element of surprise in her arsenal, and his already being wounded and trying to react with more wounds to come seems more likely than his getting the jump on her, and with her small size being able to fight back.

      • I believe that her self defense is against lynch mobsters, who “just know she’s guilty.” Forensics, and, three cans of gasoline, proves, she had no such intent, and, did none of it. Her disjointed stories, are PTSD speak, and, pandering to, try to explain, without, pictorializing, anal rape. by reliving, the only act that could have launched her into atomic mode, to do all that mayhem, in, two minutes; as claimed., once, Travis, ended his felonious assault, and, this is proven by the uh oh look, in the shower, and, as someone said, “he knew what was coming…” because he made it happen… that’s called suicide, and, that’s his murder of himself, for which Jodi, should not have to pay the price; while the bishop, conceals, Travis’s confession, to prove his perverse, other face… If she transported a gun, for premeditation, then, why aren’t the cans of gasoline, also, suspect, if we’re to believe, premeditation ? Because, there was no premeditation, or, the gasoline, would have been used; therefore, proving that the gun was for protection, and the gasoline, was for the car; neither, for preplanned execution; or, all, would have been used, if, she had a gun, in the first place, which, she wouldn’t have needed, with three cans of gasoline…

        • Yes Edgar….PTSD, compartmentalization…I can see everything you have said. Now, if only the truth would come out…then we would know if we are right and Jodi could go free. The Mormon people Hughes…that whole group basically ganged up on her based on erroneous stalking claims and the lynchers are only looking at the “evidence” as if she were already guilty instead of looking at it from an objective viewpoint, which only some of us have the capability to do, and it is a small percentage of people who can do this. If he was a pedophile, they knew it and they took his life.

        • Edgar,

          Did you get the impression that the gas cans were for a potential ‘burning bed’ scene–torching TA’s house?

          My understanding is that the prosecution does consider the cans suspect, and is alleging that the extra gas allowed JA to fill her tank by the side of the road, and not leave any trail of her whereabouts.

          Had she not taken the gas cans, she would have had to stop at a gas station, and leave a trail of gas receipts or be seen on station video cams.

          She originally claimed that she hadn’t seen TA (or maybe even been to AZ) for several months.

          The gas allowed her to travel hundreds of extra miles than her car tank would normally allow her to travel without leaving a trace.

          • Mickey… It’s possible, as is anything we each can imagine; primarily, that a Minnie Mouse of a girl, doesn’t want to be scoped out, in some far out gas station, so, she fills up the cans, and hits the road. A “burning bed,” scenario, would have required that she first, gained at least par for the course, capability, considering his weight difference, and, school wrestling, and, bodybuilding, No way, did she have any of it in mind, as, she had, Travis, dialed in… If, she had any such intent, she would, have circled the house with gasoline, and, smoked him, and, whoever he “must be shacking up with,” whatwith, him being such a whore master, motivational, guru… Consider why, all, of our speculations are outside the system, and, why our reasonings, can’t get past these lizards at law, to enter where they should be; within the trial; otherwise, what is a trial, but, a charade, put on by court jesters…??? No, Mickey, I don’t think the gasoline, was even considered, nor, the gun, I imagine she carried for protection; which, by nature, constitutes the second amendment, anticipated, self defense, now and then called, premeditation…Surely, if, her attendance , coincided with, a home invasion, her out of State car, would have been looted, on the way in., and, therein solves the mystery of where the gun that was in her car, no doubt, went; and, likely, figured in the next home invasion, with the same modus operandi; a bullet to the head. Copycat, burglars, or, the same guy and girl, with the same gun…??? Don’t forget, that, while she was locked up, another home invasion, occurred, wherein someone got shot, in the hed; De Ja Vu, all over again… and, Jodi, didn’t do that one, either… Also,with the gun that we can concede, or not, that she had; and, whatwith, the premeditated diabolics, how is it that forensics proves she did not fire a gun; at least, before, she collapsed to the floor, by the explosion, wherein, she got a bloodied hand, or two; or, as the abberations of this soap opera, suggest: a gun in one hand, a camera in her other hand, a knife in her third hand, dragging the body with her fourth hand, rinsing the body with her fifth and sixth hands, an, with her seventh hand, had the presense of mind, with all that premeditation, to have a bloody hand, left over, with which to imprint the wall; to prove she was there, then does the kaundry to prove she wasn’t, and “forgets’ to retrieve the camera, she wouldn’t have been dumb enough to throw in the washing machine, in the first place, because the pictures proved the fun and games by and between herself, and, said whore and slut master… and, to sing her Arias on the way out the door, had she been guilty, in the first placue gasoline, everywhere, would have been the nightcap, of choice, and, closure to her Travis, syndrome… all those hands, and stilol, that moron of a lieyer, is still laying lies on the jury, he hand picked… Edgrrr… Mickey, everyone at work, knew Jodi was there; the wicked witch of the west, seducing, poor defenseless, Travis, so the question is, who ratted him out to the bishop… while he was busy sodomizing a helpless girl ? Even now, Jodi is protecting, Travis’s “image;” even as his halo is falling….Asking why she left the camera, in the washing machine, includes the premise that her defense lies in the pictures; and, the fact is, she wouldn’t have put it in to begin with, and, if she did, why would she have done so, then, not, have burned the house down with all that gasoline…??? Yoy see, Mickey, every one of these imagined scenarios, just like her varying tales, contains their truths, and or, untruths; and, with some of each speculations, constitute, all they need to constitute, and that, is, no more, no less : reasonable doubt… So, why, if not, for self aggrandisement, did the lizards at law, prosecute this non case ? is there a political career that needs an extorted prop up; worthy of trying to murder an innocent person; only guilty, because these reptillians, were adept enough to pick, a hanging jury… ? Edgar…

          • MickyD, have you not read so many other posts about the freakin gas cans???? Why is it so hard for you to believe they are innocent???? Expand your mind a bit. Maybe you should take a drive in AZ in a car with a tiny tank????? Would that help you see it?

            I’m sorry but you are frustrating me by not listening to what people have already answered to you about the gas cans and you seem hung up on them.

            • Hi BeeCee,
              You raise a good point. Based on the content of his previous posts, it would appear “MickyD” has a hidden agenda of some sort.

    • I concur with your theory but I’m not sure someone else was there. I can see why you think so though. Flores said early on, that more than one person was involved.

      • Travis, was there, and, totally responsible for his church blood atonement, sacred oath, and, quasireligious, demise; just as surely, as if, he’d shot himself in the head…

      • CJ,

        “Flores said early on, that more than one person was involved.”

        Did Flores say this in any context other than “playing” Jodi in an interview, or not seriously during a network interview?

        I thought he was stringing JA along, saying what she wanted to hear at one point, challenging her at others, calling her a liar at yet another … all as interrogation techniques.

        Not really believing anyone other than JA did this???

        • He was reported as in a media interview that “there was no way this crime was committed by one person because of the injuries ( slightly paraphrased.) I didn’t watch it though…

          Did you?

    • I agree. Decomposition doesn’t smell like a dog accident. I think some people though, wouldn’t care about finding the source. They would just live with it.

    • Hi Debbie,
      Thanks for the PDF link of Flores’ investigation. I read it twice. Interesting to note how Zach Billings stated he did the laundry on Saturday June 7th, then when asked again he changed it to Wednesday June 4th. He can account for his activities (and all the times, places, people etc) with military precision throughout that week, but he couldn’t remember when he did the laundry.

      Did he quickly realize that if it had been the 7th, he would of had to have taken out the clothes, bedding & camera… done his washing… then put the aforementioned items back in the washing machine? There was only one communal washing machine after all.

      Equally interesting was Lisa Andrews’ statement… where she recalled the double tire slashing incident (while spending the night with TA), and subsequently tried pinning that (and started the “stalking” rumors) on Jodi… but totally bypassed the thought that the stalking and the tire incident could have been directed at her by her ex Steve Bell? That’s the same Steve Bell that had serious issues with the law both preceding and following his break up with Lisa over her escapades with TA.

      That explains Martinez’ obvious reluctance to put Lisa on the stand, does it not? I believe he said he didn’t want to call Lisa because he didn’t want to create an “inflammatory situation” for the jury causing an appellate issue.

      Just a thought…

      • and when you try to analyze the words the “John Doe” sent to Lisa its obvious that the sender is trying to say that he don’t want that Lisa should have some one else in her bad in other words it looks like a man is angry on her that she sleeps with someone else by the time she still have another men, read it again and you will see what i mean

        • Im with u on this one, Eli. And i also think it could have been Steven Bell. I wonder if Flores interrogated him??? I woulnt be surprised if he didn’t considering the shitty job he did!! And how come SB name haven’t came up at all??? No one seems to notice that he was a possible jealous ex too.

        • Eli… Agreed… a man, pandering, to his hypocritical woman, trying to reach her fanaticism, button…. Edgar…

        • Of course… a long list of disgruntlers, from the church, with their repressive brainwashings; no wonder, they’re all, banging like screen doors… demented, souls… Edgrrr… and,of course like all quasireligionists, blaming, others for their condition…

      • SJ,

        This IS a good read.

        I am not as compelled by the laundry 4th vs. 7th as you are. Even with your support that he knew all other details like the back of his hand.

        And here are the two reasons why I think that:

        1. The police who created this report did not write in his report that Zach initially stated he did laundry on Saturday the 7th. (I can hear you objecting already) The police wrote in his report “he THINKS he did laundry”. I believe that this policeman then followed up on the lack of certainty created by the “THINK” comment, later on in his interview with Zach.

        2. And thus upon being asked again, Zach had a chance to realize he had switched two cleaning events in his mind: he cleaned his clothes on 6/4 and cleaned his room on 6/7.

        Not as suspicious when looked at this way … to me anyhow.

      • LOL SJ I guess this means you read both of the links I put up here 😛 and you are right. The reason I actually was reading the link of Flores investigation to see if it had written anywhere at all about Steve Bell. It did not mention him at all. After having read the blink report, I wanted to see if I could find anything else out there on him. I know you are much more gifted at these things then I could ever think of being, so maybe you can find something that links him somehow. 🙂

      • Here is another interesting note from flores investigation. Zach stated he remembered seeing Travis on the thursday morning , that they had said hi in passing, but thursday was the 5th and Travis was already dead. The pictures are taken on the 4th. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt because he was in shock over Travis death? He had also stated at one point that he thought it strange that the dog gate was up because the dog was allowed to roam freely around the house, yet never in those five days did he even attempt to knock on Travis’s door and with him coming and going like he was, surely he must have noticed the smell getting worse and worse.

        • Debbie,

          I read that as well. And I momentarily got confused and suspicious. Additionally thinking that it was a slip up that no one else caught. Especially when in the next paragraph it mentions Thursday June 5th, and the police asked him what he did for the weekend.

          But, I pieced the “Thursday in passing” comment together with what he said earlier, which was, that he hadn’t seen Travis for several days. So, I believe he passed Travis in the hall on Thursday, May 29th.

          What do you think?

        • Debbie,

          Not to mention that the dog roaming around the house would be barking and scratching at “his master’s” door, right? Why didn’t that happen. The dog would be sensing if not smelling something was wrong.

          No wonder the jury is asking all these questions about the roommates.

          Thanks for your comments.

          • Good question MickyD I thought exactly the same thing. Mimi Hall did say the dog seemed to be acting strangely when they went in, but why wouldn’t room mates notice? According to Enrique, he gets home between 1800 and 1830 hours which is 6-6:30 pm….. not a lot of time after the killing of TA. Would it be enough time to gather up the laundry take it down and wash it, put the fence up for the dog, get all your stuff together and get out… after making sure that TA’s bedroom doors and front door were locked?

      • SJ,

        Are you saying that you think Zach Billings may have been the true attacker of Travis and that Jodi may be covering for him? Why would she do this at this late stage?

        And if she is, then why the whole self defense claim?

        • Though I’m not so sure I’m agreeing with others concerning the conspiracy type theories, if I were to look at it from that point of view I think Jodi would be covering up for whomever because maybe she’s afraid no on would have believe her. I mean Detective Flores consistantly told her he didn’t believe her, until she told him what he did believe (that she did it).

          And of course Detective Flores thinks Jodi did it, everyone was pointing at her. Why investigate any further. Is it just me or is he kind of lazy. Maybe lazy isn’t the word, but something. Not wanting to spend the time to photography or photocopy the text, pinning Jodi from the get go, ect.

          Again, this is what I think IF Jodi didn’t really kill Travis. However, I’m not really thinking in that direction considering Jodi did confess. I’m simply trying to focused on the current trial and admissions.

          However, I do find it interesting with the laundry, the dog, Steve Bell. Hopefully, the defense is able to bring these facts into play in the courtroom next week.

          • Jodi was there. We know from the time stamp.
            Jodi was cut as often happens when someone is handling a knife to stab another. She left blood behind.
            It had to have been blood from that time and not prior because her hand print on the wall was in travis blood.
            did she get help? Was it planned previously?
            I don’t think it possible because how do you coordinate that sort of thing? phone? IM? the police have been all over those records.
            She had all afternoon to kill him. Why then?

          • An extorted tale, is not a confession; we’ll execute you if you don’t show enough remorse, for us to prove, that by your remorse, you’re admitting you did it all, because you wouldn’t be feigning remorse, if, you didn’t do it; we’ve got you checkmated, before you open your mouth… just like, the pie in the sky, charges, that, require a two million dollar, ransom, the amjount of which, conversely, proves the charges; reptillians at law, psychular, reasoning… is anybody innocent of anything…??? No wonder our prisons are filled with innocent people… Edgrrr…

        • I think it’s more likely that Zach just has a lousy memory. My husband is like that; he can’t remember if an event took place a month ago or a year ago. He probably saw Travis on Wednesday morning and confused it for Thursday.

    • Thanks Debbie

      I find it interesting that Marie Hall said Travis was upset about breaking up with his girlfriend Lisa. So how long had he been going out with her? Back to the time of the tire slashing? It states that Lisa broke up because of Jodi. She told Travis to sort it out with Jodi before they could resume.
      There is a lot of mention of cleaning that had gone on downstairs eg the ballustrade had been cleaned. Good grief! How was she able to clean and get out before the housemate came home?
      The photos were described in more detail. I had thought the photo taken at 5.31 of the ceiling was of the hallway light but Detective Flores states it is the bathroom light and the image was taken as the camera was in motion.

      • I believe that was the one that got Travis so upset…. that picture was taken while the camera was falling I think… I could be wrong though Bill.

      • Bill in answer to your question, according to Lisa Andrews Diadone, her and Travis started dating in July of 2007. That boy wasted no time since he and Jodi split up on June 29th of the same year.

          • She is married now. She is the person that the defense asked for her info from the prosecution just after the prosecution rested because the prosecutor did not call her to the witness stand. She has been subpeonaed and defense wants to question her whether she wants any part of the trial or not. It is not her choice. If she is called to the witness stand and does not show up she will be in contempt of court. My question is, why does she want no part of this trial? One would think, if she thought that much of TA, and she had the right info, she could seal the nail in the coffin for JA. I think she is afraid that the defense will bring up Steve Bell, after her telling police that there was no one else it could have been but Jodi who slashed TA’s tires.

          • I remember reading Lisa’s blog and she made a comment about Travis being “very persuasive” and she needed to get some distance from him because he always talked her into getting back together. I think the defense wants to use this to highlight that Travis had controlling tendencies.

      • I know. If the roommate got home by 6 pm, that’s like 25 minutes to clean up, put stuff in the laundry, close the dog gate, get out the door and drive away before crossing paths with anyone coming in the door. I wonder if she knew someone would be home at 6 pm, or had no idea or what?

        Very confounding.

        • But wait, MickyD, there is more…. she also apparently washed all the blood off him. So she had time to do that as well, and according to Flores investigation report, she may have used a plastic cup to do that,

    • This is exactly why I was asking David if his view, that ‘the state has not presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of premeditated murder’ wasn’t seen w/ too much bias and through the rose tinted lenses of a defense attorney. By reading this denial above it seems the judge believes so far they have. Is that how others see this denial of both motions? You have to read the document in its entirety but its all at the end.

  13. URGENT- A BIT OFF TRACK BUT IS THIS GUY FOR REAL OR IS THIS HIS THEORY? I have cut and pasted from this link (ignore the title of the page, I don’t think that by the way) Look under the subheading I know that Jodi admitted to killing Travis but has ANYBODY seen the admission yet?

    Tizoc Robles wrote ” He worked for a company involved in law of some sorts, the pictures I have seen seem as he pissed off a person who was somebody in or out of jail. he got hit that day and for whatever reason Jodi was the pawn in the hit. they threaten her and told her to keep her mouth shut, made her witness the murder and told her the same would happen to her and her family if she snitched on them. she got caught they took everything but placed the camera as a smoking gun in washer so she would take the blame, they made her rent the car they stole the gun and that’s why nobody new nothing about it, it might have been a quick murder but they had a lot of time to prep. that’s why there was blood in the passenger set and the back, I believe there was a girl and a guy who helped do this. they gave her the scenarios and they told her if that don’t work use 2 people if not you’re best bet is using self defence, she was probably not bright and wanyed to say the truth but even in jail no one is safe! that’s how I feel it went down.”
    Yesterday at 5:26am via mobile · Like

    So if this is really true then???

    • Awesome, Hayley…. And, as great an account, as can be… I’m buying it, except for the blood atonement heart plunge, ear to ear throst slice, bleed out, body wash, and, laundry, doctrine and covenant part… all, religious, stuff… unless, of course, there are Mormons who are as capable as you’ve outlined… then, I for sure, agree with you… but, I’d think that in and out of jail guys, having more class than the lizards at law, who, feed off them, wouldn’t leave Jodi, to take the rap, for their beef, with Travis; even if, they’re Mormons, to whom, what’s right, means nothing… Could that, be…??? Edgrrr…

  14. This is my opinion ,but in following and reading the threads, there are many opinions and opposing points of view being discussed, but there seems to be one point that everyone so far agrees on. Jodi Arias is lying. If you think she’s guilty as charged , it pretty obvious what you think. If you are posting here with the mindset she’s innocent or shouldn’t be convicted , well, then she must be lying to herself ,,based on the alternative theories being presented that contradict her own defense filings. Remember- she said she did this.
    All the attempts on here to help Jodi’s defense by discrediting the witness statements and testimony of others is irrelevant. Unless JA takes the stand and says, “I did this in self defense, and so and so knows it because they were there”, the only relevant prior actions are those of Jodi . For the defense to get up next week and try to make out everyone else a liar, only shows weakness in their own story. Again, I stand by my prior posts, and submit that the defense has put an extra burden upon themselves to present a plausible and believable story of self defense. This isn’t the CA trial. Pointing fingers won’t produce reasonable doubt.

    • That is not true Bob. All the defense has to do is cast reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. All the questions being posted here means we all have reasonable doubt as to her guilt of premeditated murder which is what she has been charged with. The defense does not have to present any plausible story at all as we learned in the CA trial, although Baez did a wonderful job in his opening and closing arguments. In the CA trial it was Ashton that caused me to have reasonable doubt but I already figured out that Caylee had drowned in the pool long before that case ever went to trial. JA never has to take the stand. It is not usually in the best interest of the defendant to take the stand because the prosecution asks questions in such a way as to make a person seem guilty whether they are or not and when someone answers, they are not allowed to expand on what their response is.

      • Point taken, they don’t. But the more far fetched the defense, say it was aliens for that matter. Your odds would be much better if you did. but I think it’s wishful thinking for CA supporters here to think they are going to get a similar outcome. In the CA trial the jury could never get a consensus of the” what” of what happened, and the “how” became secondary. Here there is an actual crime scene,”The What” , and an admission form the defendant on the “how”it went down.,(Self defense.) Like i said earlier , she didn’t hit him over the head with a flower pot. She just happened to have a stolen gun and knife at ready on her when she was attacked. Is it reasonable for a juror to assume self defense based on evidence submitted so far?
        Also- I think your way over emphasizing the brilliance of Baez. The state in that case, could never prove beyond a doubt a crime actually occurred. they over charged what they could prove. Baez didn’t have a lot of heavy lifting to do in establishing reasonable doubt. on the facts submitted. Public opinion magnified everything in that case.

        • We don’t know that she had a stolen gun. A gun has not been produced into evidence by the prosecution as yet. All we know is that her grandparents reported a gun stolen from their home, we have no proof that JA took it. The grandparents did not say we think Jodi stole a gun from our house. The prosecution has rested its’ case. There are far too many questions to presume guilt of premeditated murder at this point in my opinion. Also no knives were produced into evidence but it was stated by Detective Flores that none of the knives from the sets of knives in TA’s house were missing. How does he know that? Knives come in various set sizes.
          There are two very key pieces of evidence that the prosecutor has submitted into evidence thus far. Two pictures. One is a picture of the bathroom ceiling and the other is the picture that people keep saying she was dragging the body. According to testimony both pictures were taken from the floor which is consistant with JA claiming she dropped the camera and TA went after her. There is your reasonable doubt as to premeditation.

          • The ownership of the gun is irrelevant. That s like me admitting to hitting someone with a car, in self defense I might add, and the determination of whether I owned it or stole it has a bearing on the act i just admitted to.
            Are you thinking that by proving she stole it might help in showing pre-meditation? Just having it and bringing it into the house is enough to prove that..
            That gun doesn’t have to found either. The hole in his head and bullet in his mouth proves she shot him. Remember she admitted to doing this.

      • well , yes. Not having an actual crime scene, they had to try and re create one. And half the jury wasn’t convinced there was even a crime.

  15. she has to somehow convince this jury she brought those weapons into the house for defensive purposes , instead of for a nefarious and offensive reasons

    • There’s no proof anywhere that she brought the knife. We don’t know if it was in the house already. As for the gun, the defense could argue that she was carrying it for protection as she drove.

      The burden of proof is on the prosecution to convince the jury that there is no reasonable doubt. The defense really doesn’t need to come up with a grand theory of their own at all.

      I disagree with you about Baez – yes, the prosecution did not do a good job in CA’s case, but Baez did his research and managed to debunk all of the “evidence” that the state had of Casey committing a crime.

      • It was his knife, used to cut, the rope in pieces, with which to tie , Jodi, down, for his anal rape fantasy…

    • All the defense needs is for people to come out and say that TA could be quick to anger and JA’s story of self defense becomes very plausible indeed. His friends won’t say it and often times guy friends of an abusive man don’t even know they are because what goes on behind closed doors is never talked about. They didn’t even know that he was still seeing JA, but the room mates were aware of it. My questions are all about why it took them so long to find him when his roommates were home at least part of the day every single day he was in the house. Something does not seem right about that. There is a dog in the house that belonged to TA and we all know what dogs are like. It would be trying to get to TA . The one roommate, Enrique, stated that when he got home the door was locked, travis’ bedroom door was locked, his ring was in the kitchen on the counter(something he never took off) and the dog gate was up at the bottom of the stairs( dog was allowed to roam the house freely) yet he just went on about his business for five days.

      • Yep Debbie. I agree about the roommates and dog. The dog’s master was dead. Either they were totally oblivious to pet behavior, and smells or something doesn’t add up. Didnt one of the roommates get home that day at 6:00 p.m.? That would mean she had a half an hour to clean up??

        • Debbie,

          The dog is an interesting aspect to this case. The dog’s master was dead in the bedroom. Marie testified to that the dog looked upset. She could see that. And the roommates couldn’t? And the small of decomp would cause the dog to react? That fact that the dog “looked upset” to Marie but the roommates overlooked this causes me to wonder.

        • Debbie & CJ,

          I can see how you say things don’t add up and that there are questions about the dogs and the roommates. But allowing the nature of those questions to point to anything like guilt or complicity on the part of the roommates makes no sense to me at all. Let me explain it like this.

          I remember when everyone was getting all bent out of shape by Amanda Knox’s cartwheels at the police station.

          First of all, I believe Amanda is innocent and am glad she got acquitted. I’ve met Raffaele and know someone who knows Amanda: and I pass by her apartment in Seattle all the time when I eat down in the international district.

          Anyhow, if I killed someone, and were in public–especially inside an Italian police station–I would be feigning sadness, I would pretend to be shocked, I would fake care and concern.

          The last thing I would be doing is cartwheels. The cartwheels to me if anything indicated innocence. The cartwheels had me asking questions about Amanda’s relationship to the world, but nothing about guilt.

          Same with the roommates and the dog. If they were involved, does it really make sense that they would just blithely go about their business hoping that when the body is eventually found, no one gets the bright idea of blaming them.

          On the other hand, if they were somehow involved, isn’t it more likely they’d spend the next few days cleaning up and covering their tracks????

          Questions yes! Leading anywhere near involvement or guilt or suspicion? Please, no!!!

          • Maybe your right. I don’t know. You raise some good points except that in Amanda Knox case, her cartwheels were part of an entire campaign to paint her as a fem fatale and as such a deviant murderer. We are just looking at different circumstantial evidences that don’t flow like the cart-rwheel analogy in the Knox case.

            These are just honest questions. I don’t claim to know one way or another whether they were directly involved or if was.someone else entirely. ( I go back and forth usually ending with no due to lack of enough direct evidence to say for sure they were directly involved in any murder or cover-up. its just speculation.

            Why do you think the witnesses weren’t called when the state rested? These are my concerns about the roommates that rooted in evidence that has presented yet, that logically should be when it comes to these roommates and why I think they MAY have not been called. ( Im not confident enough to say they won’t be rebut witnesses for the pros after the defense rests. LOL)

            Nevertheless, I think there is a good chance we will never hear from them and sometimes the best evidence is the evidence not used in trial when making conclusions. It also counts in deliberations too.

            So after mulling it over objectively I notice that the defense is planting seeds worth noting for later on.

            For example, the roommate referenced by Lisa D who knew enough about his cheating with Jodi, should be called to substantiate her flip flop testimony and strengthen the defense case and or/ prosecutions case. His details about about WHY he didn’t want Travis to know it was him and what he knew about this cheating could help her case because cheating and lying is abuse. I know guys don’t want to look like a rat, but why care? IMO, most men stay out of things unless they feel something is wrong. Was this roommate standing up against Travis by telling Lisa D that travis cheated? Also, if this roommate knew Travis was cheating with Lisa D. then maybe he knew other issues about Travis as well good or bad to his character, since it is on trial.

            He and the other roommates could affirm or deny that Jodi was stalking Travis. After-all, Travis would been in reasonable fear of harm and as responsible and considerate as he has been portrayed to be by Martinez, Travis would have most certainly would have warned them that a stalker was around right? That would help cinch Martinez premeditation over obsession theory. Yet they weren’t called by him. So how likely do you think it is that they will be called on rebuttal knowing one of them knew Travis was a cheater and maybe more.

            Legal analysts have been breaking down testimony all week saying that the defense witnesses turned into prosecution witnesses. And Lisa D. was used as the primary example. As the initial reaction directly after testimony, I can see how everyone felt that way. But people tend to think things over and some of the jurors reason like i am that there were inconsistencies in her testimony that need to worked out before making a final decision about who she really helped.

            .When Lisa D was testifying for the defense, it doesn’t take a body language or statement analysis expert to note that she did not want to be testifying for the defense. She was a sweet natured, hostile witness from the get-go. She was intentionally vague at times and stuck to an obvious script cleverly avoiding perjury. This young woman is intelligent and a bit naive in her thinking about adult interactions and what this court is defining as abuse in this case. She doesn’t get what abuse is at all which is why she answered the way she did on cross. I’m sure some of the jurors went with Juan but other’s could see it like i do.

            For example, she doesn’t commit to her FEELING what she said in the email. She cleverly answers over and over again, ” Yes, I wrote that,” or “Yes, I guess I did write that and sometimes with attitude, albeit she hid it well. Nevertheless, She DID write that letter and did accuse Travis of various offenses that are abusive such that she felt like her kisses didn’t mean anything, that she perceived he was a bit pushy when making out and that he did belittle her about her teaching which was bad. This is still the lexicon of someone that had been mentally and emotionally abused in the beginning stages. It wasn’t that deep, because they weren’t having sex, but the characteristics were still present om that email.

            “The reactions of the pundits usually against the defense agreed before cross examination occurred. Jean V, said she she felt mad at Travis for how he treated that nice, sweet, girl.”

            She proves he maintained his double life aspect with her on redirect when she clarifies that she was SHOCKED his was a virgin, And save some texts and calls from she saw come in from Jodi where Jodi “just knew” she was with Travis. While, she neglects to clarify how Travis referenced Jodi to her it;s reasonable to conclude that she didn’t arrive at that opinion of Jodi by herself!

            Furthermore, most telling statements were when she talked about how it was her fault about the email she sent because she wrote it in anger over hearing he cheated on her yet, dismissing those concrete examples she listed in her email based on anger sounds dismissive as if Juan couldn’t ask anything else because he didn’t explore that topic further cause it could have bitten him. Same with Martinez blaming it on high school behavior on both their parts. Travis was thirty. that? (Not to mention Lisa D. sounds like a victim taking the blame)

            Maybe Flores did a score a point on cross with a few jurors when he asked her the questions such as was Travis ever abusive to you. No. Did he push himself on you? No Did he ever get physically violent with you? No.

            I admit Flores gave me pause for a minute when she answered those questions. After thinking back over her entire testimony as a whole though, it occurred to me that Lisa D. defines about abuse as just very, very aggressive behavior, and hitting. But more mature educated adults on the jury may see it like I did. A testimony worth thinking over.

            Another witness jumped out at me at trial last week, was that the guy who testified with his sister, forgive me I cant think of his name, Well, he did say that Travis seemed cocky when he first met him and and the sister said something about an angry outburst that was proportional to the event at hand, ( but that she couldn’t remember (?). He says Travis kept Jodi from one group of friends and treats her with physical affection on their trips and that Travis draped his arms around Jodi in the water sharply contrasting it with his sister’s testimony of Jodi being ignored publicly.

            The sister mentioned Travis drove off while Jodi was trying to get in the car! And that she did get upset because he did this, it was intentional on his part and she did nothing to instigate.

            While Martinez is scoring some knockouts the defense is throwing steady blows laying the foundation and painting the picture of Travis that certainly needs to be considered when evaluating whether this is a case of self defense.

            Found his testimony to be credible with no motives.

            Point: Through out all these testimonies I’m still seeing a common theme here on part of travis other side appearing at times showing, odd outbursts of anger, manipulation and abuse etc. If some of the jurors consider the the double life aspect as a serious thing associated with abuse, the defense may have done it’s job laying the ground work for self defense.

          • What the media did to Amanda Knox was shameful and I’m so glad that she and Raffaele were released.

            CJ, I agree with what you said about Lisa. I think she feels an extreme amount of guilt in saying or feeling anything about Travis that’s negative because he was killed. She also strikes me as very sheltered. Had Travis lived, I think she would have went on not speaking to him and probably would not be as willing to take the fall for all of his shitty behavior. It’s that “never speak ill of the dead” thing going on with her.

        • Did she confess? Or is this just her defense? i’ve read differing opinions on this. I dont think she ever confessed. If everyone keeps coming back to the roommates, maybe it just doesn’t make sense?

        • Are you saying that the defense should present testimony that the jury will conclude, we don’t believe the state’s story, but we don’t believe yours either .So Not guilty.

          • The jury didn’t have to believe CA’s story for not guilty verdict. In JA’s case , she backed herself into a corner by admitting the killing in self defense. If they can’t be presented a plausible story to back that up they will convict her. Its all or nothing for her.

          • Actually, the never obtained a confession according to insession. I don’t see what the problem is with exploring ideas either. I think there are aspects of this case that just doesn’t make sense with what occurred such as the roommates not smelling decomp or noticing the dog. Travis was their landlord so IMO, their behavior would be to look out for him. Something was amiss for a week and Marie noticed the dog was upset? But the roommates didn’t? Too bad the dog can’t talk! LOL

          • The word, “admitting,” is a biased opinion, regarding denial that other factors, are inspiring the plea; such as, “self defense is the only plea that will keep the State from executing you.”.. Then a “confession,” is not a confession; and, while on the stories, called lies, that she’s told; now, it is claimed that because she’s now saying what some people want to hear, they deem her now, to be tellingt the truth… Words are just words, and, there must be facts, to convict; not, to be exonerated; innocent, until proven guilty…

          • Bob, Neither, need to be believable, when the facts, are controvertible, and, as such, depict the opportunism, and perjury of oath of office, by these lizardsat law; who have cheated all along to conceal, witnesses, known to refute their soap opera, non case; to prove nothing; relying on pressure to make her dance to their Crap session……

        • Sorry, but, Marc Carr, said he killed Jon Benet Ramsey, but / and, he’s not in prison…. Facts, beyond a reasonable, doubt, create convictions; not, PTSD generated, glimpses, of trauma, playback…

          • Excellent point re mark Carr. I’m thinking more and more that she did not do this in self defense or otherwise. Our society is conditioned to believe the official stories that law enforcement contrives and the media repeats. We are becoming sheep to the point of believing ‘official’ stories that defy all logic.

          • That line of thinking would make more sense to me if Carr had known JonBene, known the family, been to their house, hell, been to Boulder, or of course had DNA that matched the crime scene.

            Given that Jodi qualifies for all of these–been to the house, knows Travis, DNA left at the scene–I don’t understand under these conditions why one would opt to lean towards PTSD flashbacks.

      • ??? TA ring was on the kitchen counter? ????? I MISSED this!!!! When was this ever stated??

        Yes I agree with you, Debbie. It all doesn’t make any sense to me either. And now hearing about a ring that he never took off adds more curiosity.

        • MickeyD… When you see a girl, being jailhouse raped, by as avowed, sodomist, and, dragged off her, with, an ear to ear, throat slice, spun around, heart plunge, with blood splashing on you, then be considered guilty, because you were there, yet, forensics proves you didn’t fire a gun, the dawn will come that, you can get it, that it takes more than such nonevidence to justify, Arizona, lynch mob, “justice…” Thanks for expressing your doubt; that, is a double edged sword… It’s generally referred to as circumstantial evidence, and, conversely, reasonable doubt. Better, in fact that she has been proven to have been there, considering that, forensics, proves, she did not, fire a gun, and, the pictures, prove her fun and other indoor sports, was in point of fact, her alibi, proving they were best buds…. We each and all, get to decide our own realities, as we are, not necessarily, as they are. Does her brainwashing stop, just because the guru is gone; L think not. Do we really know of her legal mindset, liabilities, when, the brain dead judge, refuses to order, a psych evaluation, to determine why a person, now, deemed to be subject to our reasonings, would recite, one contradicting story after another , without, neing a few frenchfries short of a happy meal? Or, is the brain dead judge also, of , a same such questionable sleight of mind; as in a story for every occasion? Note that the office sheeple, admitted that they knew Jodi was there, with Travis, and that they were obviously, sacrilegeing their respective devoutness, as to which idol, Travis was worshipping, and, just knowing she did it, are they, then not circumstantially, accessories to murder, for not, intervening, to save their gurus, ‘ life, from the wicked witch of the west, who after five days, surely had cooked him in her cauldron, and, eaten him, by now… Let’s not apply reason to that which is unreasonable, nor justice to reptillian lizards at law… Edgrrr…

    • Ha. Exactly. It’s all about the gun. The knife is less important. No story is plausible unless there’s a plausible explanation for her having a gun.

      • Note: my “ha” was in response to Bob’s flowerpot comment. How much easier this case would be if she had killed him with a found object such as a flowerpot or frying pan! I agree with you Bob: introducing reasonable doubt depends on a plausible story. And not just part of a story, but a cohesive one.

        It’s easy to believe that Travis was cruel to Jodi. It’s very hard to believe that a gun was just lying around. The defense has to explain this.

        • I agree about the gun. The only thing is though, Travis could have owned the gun right? In AZ, one doesnt have to register to own a gun? That’s my understanding. So to me, it’s very plausible he had a gun in his bedroom for protection. I don’t see how LE could know without a doubt what he owned or didn’t.

          But I agree the gun will be a big problem that needs addressing.

          • The reason I say he could have owned a gun is because he hid many things about his life. I know the missing gun may negate my argument, but the gun was never found. Also, .25 bullets were found at the mother’s home when the cops raided the place. Yet they never brought that up which tells me the the bullets didn’t match? (unless i’m wrong about gun forensics.) The parents didn’t own a 25 either.

          • Not add more speculation, but it is possible to fire smaller ammo through a bigger gun.( 25 caliber through a 9MM???? not sure there), but it most likely would jam, as the spent casing would get stuck.
            You could load the clip with wrong ammo too, maybe there is too much variance here .25 to .38, but you can bet they are checking that 9mm gun right now. If they call the mom up for the defense the state will introduce that as evidence on cross.

          • I believe every gun that was purchased in the last 15 years is registered to the original buyer of the gun.any type of gun. What isn’t kept currently is reselling of private purchase transactions that aren’t registered. If i bought a gun and sold it to you , then you don’t have to register it.

          • OK, I must admit I’m not following the speculations about other guns, ownership, ammunition, etc. Maybe these are possible explanations. But to my mind, the gun stolen from the grandparents’ house seems most likely to be THE gun she used. If the defense tried to show that the stolen gun was just a coincidence AND that there was another gun Jodi got her hands on during her self-defense ordeal … well, that’s a lot of dancing around. I think the jurors would get dizzy before they’d be inclined to believe a tale with lots of twists and turns.

        • CJ,
          I think that was the reason for Rule 20 motion to the judge asking her to dismiss the charges after the prosecution rested. JA was admitting -yes I did this, in self defense. but is there any evidence I committed a crime?
          She confessed to carrying out the act, but didn’t confess to committing a crime. Is that semantics?
          I don’t know.

          • Semantics, by reason of post traumatic stress disorder, and, schizocompartmentalization, of bits and pieces, of lucidity, which a judge, who’s in control of her own faculties, would have recognized as a reason to put a screeching halt to this charadeof a trial, to have ptsd experts, testify as to her fitness to stand trial, as well as the judges’ fitness to adjudicate, and, the persecutors, fitness, to have warped and twisted, evidence into, non evidence, as he plays, chief cook and bottle washer…obstructing justice, with impunity…

      • Having a gun; if we need to agree, that she did, does not even come close to proving delusions of premeditation, or, else, every gun owner is guilty of premeditated, self defense… and,if she did, then that pretty much, trumps her need to bring a knife to her allegedly premeditated gunfight… and,why would she need a gun, when, with all that gasoline, she could have roasted him, without,any risk to herself , as, pouring gasoline, does not, make gunshot, noises, to drag the cops away from their donuts…? …Edgrrr…

      • The other theory is that if someone else was involved then who and why. Well she said there was 2 people. 1 girl and 1 guy and based on his wounds someone mentioned it looked like a sacraficial type killing maybe something to do with his religion and I thought that whole theory sounded crazy until yesterday when the sister and brother were introduced into the picture. Did anyon else find those 2 to be strange? God forgive me but I would be lying if i didnt admit that Edgar longnecks posts didn’t come to mind this morning as I listened to that brother testify. I forget their names but those 2 took ranks with Jodi or maybe for jodi but it just seems so far fetched and crazy and why wouldn’t she give them up if they were truly involved?

        • The fact that, so much controversy is floating, is, exactly what has been known by the D.A., who should put a shock collar, on his, prosecutorial, pekenese…, and, never have brought this soap opera to trial; with such contradictory, “facts.” Granted, this is a tragedy, that, Travis’s friends, hadn’t whipped the hell out of him; knowing of his other self, and, ditto, the church, not keeping a shorter leash on Travis. There are plenty of dispersions, to go around, here, and, their existance, would, exonerate, Jodi, but for, lizards at law, concealing, all that has been posted, from the record. Not one reasonable doubt, has gotten by the goal keeper, and, that, is a tragedy. Apparently, you are not reading church doctrine, and, sworn, to blood oath, blood atonement, as proscellatized by, Brigham Young; who claimed that the blood of Christ, did not atone for all sins; those, of which, required, yours; if, knowing the law, and, is not obeying, it, got you, atoned for; heart plunged, ear to ear, throat sliced, blood, drained, body washed, and, clothes, [and, sheets; symbolically] laundered. The, grab from behind, and, brute force, near decapitation, was beyond, religious, and, was, vengeful, but, spinning him around, for the blood letting, heart, plunge, was, doctrinal; as is described in “The God Makers,” and, other books. Ask yourselves, why, not one of your concerns, have been entered into this Alice and, Wonderland, soap opera… Wherein, lies, justice, when lizards at law, decide for us, what is or is not, admissable; to, let the jury, decide,? Surely, they, have the same doubts, we do… The pekenese, has tapdanced all around, anal rape, yet, has no qualms, about passing around, x rated, and, autopsy, pictures, to disgust, and, inflame, the jury, but, conceals, justification, Jodi, had, that she was, incapable, of doing… “rough sex,” “bent over a table,” [desk, whatever]…. no biggie… while he emphasizes, that, was just “Frisky Sex, and, expects us to believe that, reading, his “stalker,” “whore,” “slut,” comments, flipped her out…??? Maybe, he enjoys, jailhouse sex, as long as the behavior is prefaced, with, Travis’s statement, that, “oral and anal sex, is not as much of a sin, as, vaginal sex;” and, other, same subject, devout pleadings, by, Travis… No gunpowder particulates, in the combined blood, hand print, proves that, neither, Travis, or, Jodi, fired a gun, so, how did Minnie Mouse, overcome the gorilla…??? And, all arguments; pro and con, mean just one thing; resolve them, or, they’re, reasonable doubt; both sides. So, by what lawful right, do you not, tar and feather, the persecutor, for, seeing to it that, not one of your observations, gets into this non case.?… Edgrrr…

        • … Give who, up; they had masks on; remember ? Show me a more plausable explanation, for being, bent over, rough sexed, and, frisky sexed, as to, in what way, this time, Jodi, went ballistic, and, couldn’t physically do, what the others, got done; that, differed, with, all the sex, they had, before; if, it wasn’t to act out his admitted anal sex, perversions. ? And, now you know, why they never killed, Jodi; because she, along with the girl, was also, a victim, of the guru, mindtwister… Sorry for the sordidity, of the truth, but, no sense in letting the State, murder, another, innocent, person… while the State, condones, the prison rapes, it, uses, to facillitate, its’ plea “bargains.”…., and, allows, lizards at law, to control, justice… Edgrrr…

        • Evie… She wouldn’t give them up, because, they had masks on, and, she wasn’t in on it, so as to know, who they were, or, granted, she knew who they were, and, she was in on it, so she can’t rat them out, without, them saying that she put them up to it… so, Evie, chalk another one up for another, reasonable doubt… another issue that can go, either way, just like the gun, she didn’t fire, and, the knife she didn’t bring, to her imaginary gunfight, and, the gasoline that she didn’t bring to barbecue, all the evidence… Thanks for your question; it was as valid as the reasonable doubts, it, proved… none of which will enter the lizards at law, closed meetings, process, at law… Why, aren’t the audience, permitted to ask questions, that are, concealed, by, how criminally, the lizards, pick the jury…? Edgar…

      • Yup… see the second amendment… it says, hot bodies, should not travel the interstate highways, because highway robbery patrols, prowl for victims, who are without guns for defense…

  16. What bugs me is she takes the knife, she takes the gun, she cleans off enough so she isn’t dripping blood through the house but she doesn’t take the camera?

    • And lvs the memory stick IN the camera!!! Being a photographer….
      It bugs me too, theres something about that, that doesnt make sence.

        • Im STILL stuck on the thought that she didnt do this alone. That when she left the house there was still that other person. That would explain some of those questions (camera, lic plate, stians in the car). The rental car guy said therecwas a man with her but he coukjt tell if hecwas with Jodi or was there on his own. Does anyone know anything elsecabout this?

          • Also, doesnt anyone think its wierd that a vacum cleaner would be on the middle of floor??? Why was that vacum there n for how long had it been there? Had the roommate n girlfriend not seen the vacum there (n not put it away, just walking around it to get around)? Im sure that wasnt the storage place for the vacume cleaner. Most people store vacumes in a closet???

          • I heard it exactly as you did about the guy being with her. It was unclear as the rental guy was not sure.

            My question is this: is a half an hour enough time to clean what she cleaned, and do the laundry etc?

          • My teenaged son would walk around things I would leave at the front door, pretty much blocking it, as a reminder to take to the recycling bin or garbage. I could see the roommates walking around it.

    • I think the fact that she left the camera there is something that the defense could use to show that the murder wasn’t premeditated. They could reason that if Jodi planned to kill Travis all along, then why woul she 1) take pictures that clearly put her at the house on the day of the crime and 2) not bust her ass to find the camera and take it with her after she was done? The theory that she killed Travis either in the heat of the moment or in self-defense would explain her being disorganized and panicked enough to forget about the camera or lose it in the bedding.

    • While I understand the myriad of questions as to how Jodi could have done all she did in 28 minutes, I think that just because she was thinking logically about “cleaning up after the deed” doesn’t mean she was completely calm and able to be present and thinking about everything she needed to do. Meaning, she forgot the camera was in the washing machine or was perhaps startled by hearing a roommate return home and left quickly or hid and had to make certain choices in order to get out of there…or any other number of reasons could have been why she cleaned up partly but left the camera in the w. machine… I agree Bob. She said she did it. This is not the question. Its about proving self defense or at least making it plausible that this was a situation of kill or be killed- so there is reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt…..but we need Reasonable Doubt.

      • Come on, troops… Let’s flip a coin; the butler, or, the bishop, did it…Let’s watch the quasireligious, Blood Atonement heart plunge, ear to ear, throat slice, as in hacked throat, suicide, by butler or bishop, privilege, keep the bishops’ mouth shut, as to who, ratted Travis out, to the bishop, for his diversions and perversions., and, do read “The God Makers,” book for the precise, parallel, between the Anderson / Alexander, “Mercy Killings,” of which: “Do you love your brother enough to kill him to save his eternal soul ?” Read the admonitions, by Brigham Young, regarding that the only redemption, for fornication, is, the preferred method of killing; heart plunge, ear to ear, throat slice, bleed out, body wash, clothes / sheets laundered; as in suicide by doctrine [ law ] and, covenant [ agreement ] Now, add to Travis’s eligibility for ritual murder / agreed to self sacrifice, his degenerate “oral and anal sex, is less of a sin than, vaginal sex,” pleadings as to what he wanted to do to Jodi, and, his knife, and the pieces of rope, he had cut, and, no brain surgeon, is required to figure out that he didn’t intend, to tie himself up; so as to ride herd, on Jodi; broke butt mounty style, while pinning her down; as in unable to escape, as admitted by the prosecutor, saying that rough sex, had her bent over, for what the prosecutor deemed to be, “Frisky Sex.” Is that what anal rape is called, there in the twilight zone ? Likely, bending someone over, works both ways, depending upon ones’ written intent; proving of course, that, someone grabbed Travis, from behind, and, veangefully, reached around, to nearly, decapitate him; spun him around, and, did the quasireligious, blood atonement , eternal soul saving ritual, sacrifice. With his head, nearly severed, why, would it be necessary to spin him around and heart plunge, if not, to observe some preordained ritual; as generated by Brigham Youngs’ eons ago, admonitions ? Want proof ? Continuation of the ritual killing; blood drain, in the shower, body washed, and, bedding, laundered.. as per a hundred year history, of Anderson, fornication, and, submitting, voluntarily to his eternal soul saving heart plunge, ear to ear, throat slice, redemption, blood letting, ceremony; so as to vacate his degenerate existance, here on planet evil, for doing his stepdaughter, so as to ascend to planet playboy, and, all those virgin angels; the reward, for fornicating, here on planet, evil. Does that work for you ??? Religionists are above mans’ laws, and, murder to a higher, calling, and, a political State, is not going to do anything but, aid and abet, all those rich voters… Translation, of course, is the fact of Steprord Wives, brainwashed into the :When the bishops speak, the thinking has already been done;” not one of which will come forward and tell what they know. Travis’s halo is slipping as the hours go by, and his canonization, is a delusional manifestation of denial, that, he was never a god in the making, but, just another jekyl and hyde. Do you think, Jodi, will demean herself to explain, anal rape, ropes, and a knife, which, with a gun, never needed a knife. There’s also the matter of emphasis, on gas cans; we all use them to put gasoline in; so whatwith all that premeditation, why didn’t she turn the entire hous into a funeral pyre, to erase the evidence, and, why didn’t she keep the camera to prove that it was all fun and games, between herself, and the mindtwister, motivational speaker, guru ??? And, why, after allegedly using a gun, which, forensics proves that with no gunpowder particulates, in the combined blood, handprint, she did not, would she nonchalantly, wait for the gestapo to finish their donuts, and, answer the gunshot, call, there, in blueblood acres, where, “nothing like this, ever happens ?” Then, there’s the other non matter, of a home invasion, wherein a gunshot to the head, was a calling card, while, Jodi was in jail, and, couldn’t have done that one, either… Much more, later; just as soon as the butler, bishop, D.A., prosecutor, or judge, gets charged for obstruction of justice; I won’t hold my breath… will you …???

    • Jessica, because, partyline propaganda, just doesn’t compute; it usually proves that what doesn’t make sense, is, because, that’s not, what happened. It makes more sense to let the facts and proofs, speak for themselves; despite the likeliness of two day, brainwashing, overcoming, the jurors, common sense… and, I don’t see, that the prosecutors, technical knockout, of himself, convincing anybody, of anything… beyond his warp and twist of the Frisky sex, label. to describe, anal rape, for which, Jodis’ statement, that, Travis would now, be in prison; why, if not, exactly that, as skated over by the prosecutor, as rough sex, and, frisky sex; maybe, as per the prosecutors, lifestyle., but, not Jodis’ idea of Mormonism… Will the bishop, save her, or, let the State cover up Travis’s suicide by bishop…???..Ask yourselves, why BYU, carries Brigham Youngs’ name, if, his words were not, still large and in charge; read, “The God Makers,” and others, for the actual words, of the revered, Brigham Youing… and then, note the execution ritual, by which, Travis, signed his own death warrant… along with, Anderson, and the thousands, in between…

      • I have to say your post are refreshing. I was about to jump off this board for good, but its nice to see I am not the only one who thinks this way

        • Your not Jessica…. ; )) I am so on the same page, im waiting to see what the other person above (not going to point out who) has to say about Edgards common sense comments. lol!!!

        • BC… That was a nice thing to say… much obliged… much better than, no arguments to the contrary, as blog sites come with bared fangs, and when confronted with reasonable doubts, leave, toothless… so, I can see that the only way for a conviction, to occur, is for this hodgepodge, of speculation, to be concealed, from the jury., because the fact that arguments and conflicting issues, exist, proves that there is reasonable doubt… Edgar…

    • Whoa, Jessica… slow down… There’s no proof that she had a gun; as I have heard it; the grandfathers’ gun, was not even the same caliber as the gun, used against, Travis… The knife was his, to cut the rope, which he did, into short pieces, with which, obviousy, not to tie himself up or down with; who else, then, but, Jodi…

  17. In Casey’s case, they said she did 84 chloroform searches in a span of three minutes causing logical people to pause. I still think the time stamps could be wrong on the camera. I know it doesn’t matter much given her defense but if Nurmi puts on a forensic expert it could cast reasonable doubt on the state’s case. And he is testing a camera right?

    • CJ, Other than just showing that sloppy police work was involved with the forensics, what do you see that could argue in Jodi’s best interest if a defense forensic guy were to discredit the date and time stamps?

      • If they were wrong, and the state intentionally knew the time-stamps were wrong but submitted the time-stamps anyway, it would weaken their credibility.

        Isn’t part of the argument for premeditated murder was how fast this crime occurred? The argument that Jodi had no time to be defending herself because she had the gun, knife ready ahead of time in order to carry out the deed? That’s been argued here even.


        Part of what is interesting for me is to speculate and think of different scenarios looking at other information that has not been presented yet. I’m certain others like to entertain different ideas as well. It’s just the way my mind works. Every comment I make doesn’t necessarily reflect that what think actually happened. I’m actually waiting for the defense to put their case on before making my mind up for sure. In the meantime, I’m throwing out ideas…

        I do think the defense needs to show much MORE in terms of real evidence that she was abused. While, I personally think she was abused, because of the whole double life aspect that doesn’t mean I think the defense has already proven their case.

        The missing gun has also bothered me. I know the defense fought to keep that info out because it hadn’t been proven she took that gun. It may be probable that she did, but it’s also possible she didn’t.

        For people (NOT YOU) to sit around and berate another poster for looking at different scenarios, IMO, defeats the whole purpose of meaningful discourse.

      • That, no gunpowder particulates, in the combined blood sample, proves that the gunshot, was in the shower, and, after the knifework, as evidenced by the blood on the floor, that, Jodi, printed on the wall; if we’re to believe any of it..; proving that Jodi, did not fire a gun… so, Jodi, could not have overpowered Travis, to begin with. Someone, church related, because of the unnecessary, heart plunge, and, ensuing ritual, wash, and laundry, did this, and, Travis knew it was coming, everytime he relapsed into carnal mode. but, this time, included his bishop confession… Not likely, the bishop, will reveal, what, Travis, confessed to… even if it means, saving Jodis’ life… So much for religious principles…

    • Testing the camera… might explain why dufus, dropped it… deliberately, to, allegedly, despeculate what, 45 seconds, means to someone, circumstances, slow down, time perception… to, slow motion… No need, therefore to try to destroy the camera… we all, see time fly; that’s why we throw our alarm clocks out the window… Edgrrr,,, if, Travis, didn’t know, his sacred blood atonement oath, was coming, why did he delude into, “shame, ” and, “repentence,” mode, after every carnal episode, which was getting more deviant by the day; three groupies a day, and, now he wants, anal rape; I don’t think so… and, his repentence / guilt mode; read, coming, heart plunge, ear to ear throat slice; is only, placated by another carnal episode, in his unmerry go round, of conflicted, insanities… his, axe murderer, against a girls axe murderer; hardly a fair contest. Good thing, for the high priest / paramilitary intervention, or, today, Jodi, might not be here to experience American style justice, under color of law; and, Travis wouldn’t be up there, somewhere, perverting all those virgin angels… Edgrrr…..

  18. MickyD,

    LOL. A ton of cases would be proven if dogs could talk. However, since dogs are so loyal, they may lie for their owners. (laugh at my own joke now)

    • Hey CJ, do you know is there one central location that would show where all my comments are, let alone when they are responded to? This is a lot to keep track of 🙁

      • LOL I agree with you MickyD sometimes it is hard to follow all the comments. Just grin and bear with it and scroll through the comments . There is a sidebar to the right that you may see your name on.

      • No. I have trouble keeping up as well. I think I’ve even caused some misunderstandings because I’m reading comments out of order. I’ll pay better attention.

      • Even being behind the website, there is no way to track all of one person’s comments. They are deleted after you post. (FYI)

    • MickyD… your point is well said, and, should be a character witness.. to see if he goes ape, with, Jodi… Smart move, on your part…

      • The dog, surely would freak out, when faced to who done it., and, dogs don’t lie, except the dogs that are lieyers;, so, let’s call the dog, for a witness, and, see what he does… If, dogs can be trained through association, to help old guys, cross the street, I’d say, that dog, knew what was going on and will cower, before the killer.; believing, he’s next…

  19. It looks like Matt Macartney is going to testify 🙂 or at least he is on the witness list. I don’t know whether to say Good for you MM or sorry that you have to go through this.

  20. Pique,

    There was a police report that talked about the same type of ammo seized at Jodi’s mom’s home among other things. Her family didn’t own a 25 caliber so the assumption was that Jodi hid the ammo at her mom’s. However, this was not brought up during trial. My question was why wouldn’t they bring that up? There bringing up the burglary although it was never proven she took that gun so why not bring in the matching ammo to which was to a gun the parents never owned either. I like to look at things from every angle.

    I’m with Debbie that there are things that just don’t add up.

    I agree it’s not probable that Travis kept a gun at his house, but it is possible.

    • I see, CJ. The ammunition at Jodi’s mother’s place would seem to strengthen the State’s case. You’re saying that, perhaps for some reason it might’ve done the opposite? Maybe the defense will bring it up …

      • Do you know if the find the ammo, can they match it to the casing proving she used that weapon? Wait that sounds illogical. All it would prove was the ammo found, matched the TYPE of weapon fired right?

        They need the gun to match with casing yes?

        Maybe the prosecutor will bring up on rebuttal. She was caught with another rental car, packed with stuff. She was being monitored by the cops. They arrested her before she could leave. Yet, we hear none of this in trial? Odd. Don’t you think so?

        • Here is my question on rebuttal perhaps it is a question for David. Can the prosecution enter new evidence into trial during the rebuttal phase?

        • Can prosecution bring in witnesses on rebuttal if it’s relevant to the defense’s case? Maybe they’re saving the ammunition evidence so they can end with–yes–a bang.

          • Pique,

            I read that yes, they could bring in new witnesses but that it isn’t a good way to present a case. Yes this is a question for David:-)

        • I just don’t think they are too interested in finding the weapon as she has already admitted to using one. It’s all coming to down to why, now

          • Right. Not finding the weapon, no. But offering a plausible explanation for how a gun became part of Jodi’s self-defense.

            It’s very difficult to have more than one conversation in this thread. Wires are crossing!

          • Pique, what i do that makes it a lot easier for me is, I go back to the “Recent Comments” on the righr hand side. Look at the last post YOU posted, the comments AFTER yours are the latest ones. Hope that would help a little. : ))

        • Does anyone know anything about this prosecutor’s style? Past cases and how he prosecuted them? Does he often present a case skipping a lot of little detail? (Not to say I think much of what was omitted was “little detail” but…) I have heard that in the CA trial, some TV attorneys speculated that the prosecution presented TOO much evidence. Lulled the jury to sleep. Confused them. Could this be a style- ‘quick- not getting bogged down in minutaie’? Let the defense bring up some of the OTHER information…. only for Martinez to be waiting in the wings to pounce & introduce things that continue to make the state’s case?

          There is just soooo much seemingly omitted that it beggars the question…Was this done on purpose?

          • Daniel,

            I read that he is considered the best DP prosecutor in AZ. I also read he withheld exculpatory evidence in another case that was overturned on appeal.

            I found this link about a high profile case:

            I know he is considered good at what he does and it’s been said countless times that he hasn’t lost a DP case yet, even one with a woman claiming self defense.

          • Wow!!!!! Thank you CJ for the website. Im amazed!!! They get bonuses and everything!!!! And Never Let The Truth Sand InThe Way Of A Conviction????!!! Wow it just blows me away!!!

            Can the defense bring this up for the jury or the judge (not the whole story of course) but the fact the Martnez HAS IN THE PAST, withheld very important fact like those letters and clearly that is what he is doing now?!

            This makes me dislike him even more now!! Aaaggguuu How can he sleep at night!?? SCUMBAG!!!

          • When getting divorced, my lawyer explained to me why he chose family law. He first worked in the public defender’s office and was turned off by having to represent people who admitted that they were guilty, so he switched to the prosecuter’s office and said that was even worse. If you don’t get enough convictions, you lose your job. So there is pressure to get a “win” even if you know the person never did this.

            I am really struggling today because the more I look at what info we have the more things get suspicious for me. Travis looks odd in his shower photos..arms crossed..looking down…

            Devil’s advocate here..what if the pressure from being raised in such strict religion was getting to him? Imagine being raised most of your life in such a church (not that it’s bad) after seeing your parents’ “sins” ruin so many lives..and you have these sexual desires and needs that you havent been able to resist. The mounting pressure and depression that could stem from knowing that you should be living differently but you can’t seem to help you think suicide is an option..but then you can’t repent the suicide so you will go to Hell if you do..but if someone kills you, you go to Heaven….so you ask the one person who truly seems devoted to you to help you. She couldn’t have told anyone that, not risk Travis’s salvation or the cops instantly not believing her..and knowing assisted suicide is still considered murder…

        • I’m no gun expert either, but I think that the shell casing can only be linked to the actual gun by the unique strike from the firing pin … so we’re out of luck there–the gun would have to be found and then test the strike on another casing. But if they had the gun, they would be able to do ballistics on the bullet from inside TA’s head.

    • On the contrary, as to how schizo, argumentative, and indefineable, it all is… That’s called, reasonable doubt. Non case closed; but for, lizards at law, aborting the law. Then, it’s anybodys’ guess… Edgrrr…

      • The gun, doesn’t matter, as long as the lie, persists that Jodi, fired it. Forensics, proves the fact that she didn’t… and, in addition to what the prosecutorial knucklehead says, known to be irrelevant, why is he getting away with, his lies, in contradiction to the facts… and, why does the jury not know, of his lies, as, contradicted by the States’ own, department of forensics ? Tar and feather, the jerk… for more concealment of exculpatory evidence… Edgrrr…

  21. Is a license required to buy ammunition of any kind? I’m almost clueless on such matters. Eh? So, can an adult go to the store for milk, bread and bullets?

    • I’ll let you in on my ammunition prediction, I said, twenty years ago… No threat is imminent, until the agressor is within, ten feet of you, so, you don’t need bullets that will travel to the next State. Therefore, bullets, will be criminal possessions, unless, they are, purchased from, govern mentals, and, of course, govern mentals’ bullets will not be so restricted, as to travelling further, than forty feet… therefore, stray bullets, will be harmless… and, driveby shootings, will be nonexistant… Edgrrr…

  22. Jose Baez is going to be a guest on Dr. Drew on Monday and plans to discuss ‘what the defense in the Jodi Arias Trial needs to do to win.’

      • Anthony’s lawyers appealed the convictions, saying her lies should have been construed as a single violation because her statements were made over the course of one extended interview with detectives who responded to the missing person report.

        The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach split the difference on Friday, finding that Anthony gave two separate interviews to detectives, thus letting two convictions stand but throwing out the rest.

        Good thing she only gave two interviews 😀

  23. Whoa. I stand corrected on a reply post I made earlier. Somebody had mentioned a post by a guy (ex-boyfriend) claiming to have seen proof of Travis’ abuse. I had no idea the guy was Matt McCartney. And that it WAS Matt McCartney that was posting here. While I stand behind my statement that there will be credibility issues if he really did say he would lie for Jodi, I think its great that he is on the witness list. Obviously her defense saw something compelling he could provide in testimony.

    • I had stated wrongly the guy was probably a fraud looking for attention. Obviously he is NOT a fraud in terms of being Jodi’s ex-boyfriend, having something to say and knowing her. So again, sorry… I stand corrected.

  24. So, iv had this though in my head for a while now but dont know how to put it in writing. But ill try cuz its been bugging me. I hope it makes sence, if not, ask n ill try my best to clarify myself.

    So knowing how an abusive mind might work. Being Jodi, lets suppose that the stabbing came first (in self defense ofcorse), then TA still fighting for his life n cmg after Jodi, yelling at her that he’s going to kill her. He falls on the floor n thats when she has the opportunity to slash his throat. He is still alive (but ofcorse not able to do much at this point). She does lv. Runs out, gets in her car, SCARED AS HELL n she suddely thinks, KNOWING that if TA does make it through all the stabbing n the slit throut, if he makes it n comes out of this, I KNOW for sure that in a few months from now he WILL come back to kill ME!!! Remember Jodi was “at least” mentally abused by him. She KNOWS he’ll want revenge n will come back to kill her. So thats when she grabs the gun, goes back up n shoots him. She shot him becuz she knows he would have came back to kill her!!

    If this is the way she was thinking “I” can see how it would be some type of SD (especially in an abused state of mind). Would this count as seld defense to you??????

    • That would be considered premeditated murder according to the law LC. Premeditation does not consider a time frame, only that one has the thought in their mind to kill before they do it apparently. If she ran out was leaving and figured she better kill him or he would kill her, she is thinking and planning murder at that point.

      • Debbie… Don’t forget the flammability of three cans [two ?]…of gasoline, and how quickly, the entire houe could be toast; that, time element, I agree with. An intent to do anything, vascillates, what, when, how, should I, how will I get away with it, will I get hurt… etc, and, finally, deciding, on the spot, hell yes, is a far cry to call such decision, undecision, premeditated… or, not… Nothing is written in stone, unless the “de- cider,” Is pissing on your leg… Absolutes, are few and far between. A contingency plan, based upon what perversion he has in mind, at the moment, makes him the de-cider, as to whether he wants to commit suicide, today, or, live for a while, longer… See the second amendment, for anticipated self defense vs. premeditation… you, decideif you’re lucky enough to, or, it gets decided for you. Jodi never fired a gun, so how, did she, do it; that, is the question……Edgar…

    • Sure, LC, I can imagine that. Especially if the gun happened to be hidden in her bag/purse. But, why did she have the gun with her in the first place? Like Bob has said, she needs a plausible reason for having it. A reasonable person would wonder if she was anticipating violence. And, if she was, that would seem to undermine the unexpected quality of the attack–Travis getting angry because she dropped the camera.

      Ugh. I don’t know. From what I remember of the defense’s opening statements, they will say he was actually attacking her all afternoon–sexually and perhaps verbally. Jodi was going along with it to mollify him and keep herself safe. They might say that, in the bathroom, she could no longer go along, could no longer keep herself safe by submitting. Still, though, she brought along a gun! No matter where she got it from, she brought it.

      We all have opinions about what went down in that bathroom (in that relationship). Mine is that this crime falls into some dark and hazy area that was a mix of premeditation, self-defense (both physical and mental), and the heat of passion. I wouldn’t make a good defense attorney. I think she’d hit her limit, forced his hand by refusing to submit, and that it triggered him to violence. And that she was ready for it AND in denial that she was ready for it. That’s a lot of “and”s. Because I think it’s that complex and murky. In the end, though, it’s clear that the gun didn’t fall out of the sky and into her hand like a gift from the goddess Artemis.

      • Ok. Well, iv stated before that she porb took the gun due to the road trip alone. And that she might have taken the gun before on other trips and never went missing becuz shed put it back without the grandparents knowing. Just this time she used it. And wasnt this grandparents gun missing since April anyway??

        Idk…. it was judt a thought of what if, in an instance like that. That ifvyou KNEW someone was going to kill you, would you kill (for ur own SD or would u wait to be killed)?

        • If I got out of the house and got in the car and locked the doors I would be out of there like a shot. I wouldn’t even think of going back in and shooting him. My thought would be to get as far away I could as soon as possible. I would be going somewhere he couldn’t find me. My cellphone would be gone out the window so there would be no gps tracking me.

          • Yea..I know…. im such a scary cat, I wouldnt have the balls to go back in either. I wouldnt even have the stomach to slice someones throat either. BUT she did n i was just thinking that other people might feel diff. Especially being abused. She prob was tierd of the abuse, wanted to end it n thought, “I need to end this now, hell come back for me”

        • That may be how they explain it, LC: that she took the gun for protection on the road. But wouldn’t they then have to admit that she staged a burglary? If she had taken it before, on road trips, why was this the first time she made it look like a burglary? And, if this was the first time she took her grandparents’ gun for protection on the road, what was so special about this trip that she took it?

          But all of that implicates her in another crime. Would they do that to her? I mean, would it be worthwhile? At this point, I just can’t imagine how they’re going to explain her having access to a gun during an attack. Any other ideas on this?

          • Pique you are assuming that she in fact took her grandparents gun in the first place. There is no proof she did that. Maybe TA did not have a gun but maybe one of his roommates did. Don’t forget there were other people living in that house besides TA.

          • I was jumping off LC’s comment that Jodi may have taken her grandparents’ gun at other times. For protection on the road. That’s why I said I didn’t think that explanation would work out ver well.

          • Some .25 caliber bullets were found in Jodi’s parents’ house. Maybe she got the gun from her parents long before the burglary. It will be great for her case if it can be proven.

          • Sure… how many ways, need be told, that, forensics proves, Jodi, did not, fire a gun, prior, or during the mayhem, otherwise, gunpowder particulates, would have been found, in the combined blood hand print… and, there goes, premeditation; vaporised, just like the rest of this, non case…except, for this, stretch; to put him out of his misery, to stop his suffering… somebody, shot, Travis; who was already, on the way, to planet playboy, and, all those virgins. That, is proof, that Jodi; so consumed with jealousy, would not, have facillitated, sex, with all those virgins. This soap opera, is, just that…. Edgrrr…

      • I have traveled via car a lot and often take a gun with me for safety. Rural areas, bad cell service..I always took a loaded gun. She could have had it in her purse for her traveling, not for murder

      • Pique,

        I appreciate your comments, very open to different possibilities. It made me think of something, I hope you can comment.

        I know some are having difficulty believing that this could all have happened in a minute and a half, but let’s say that the 1:38 time frame (1st to last photo in the bathroom) is true: that the murder/self-defense (whichever) took place in that time frame as the pictures ‘indicate’.

        I’d like to know which scenario below would take MORE time and which would take LESS time: (assuming some of the assumptions about each are plausible…if not, I’d like to hear your understanding of how you imagine the details unfolded. All I’ve heard is “lunged at”, I’d like to hear more details)

        SCENARIO #1

        Jodi takes the picture of Travis in the shower
        Jodi drops the camera
        Travis gets angry and I would guess yells something angry from within the shower stall
        As his anger quickly builds he now gets out of the shower and yells at her as he aggressively moves towards Jodi
        At this point, she is very scared, but doesn’t realize yet that it is truly life or death
        He increases his rage and begins to assault her
        At this point, her fear turns to terror, and she KNOWS it’s life or death
        Because he’s bigger/stronger, she knows her only chance is to get to her knife and gun
        She slips free from the bigger/stronger/MMA Travis, gets the knife and the gun out from their location BEFORE Travis catches up to her and prevents her from doing so
        This location is probably not right out there on the sink in plane site, or Travis would have been able to seen them at some point during the ‘modeling’ session and entry to the bathroom
        It would be at this point, after all that I mentioned above (supposition though it may be) that she finally starts shooting and stabbing

        SCENARIO #2

        Jodi begins her assault on Travis right after taking the photo of him in the shower
        Because Travis is in shock from the attack, it takes him a moment to start defending himself
        Meanwhile, he’s already wounded and experiencing loss of blood
        And even though his adrenaline has kicked in, he’s getting stab after stab after stab, losing more blood, stab after stab after stab (27+, right?–and may already have a bullet in his head), starting to lose the full availability of his consciousness and functionality, stab after stab after stab ….

        If this murder/self-defense had to fit into a minute and a half, I’d see the second scenario as taking less time than the first.

        • The fact that there are scenarios, to be chosen from, proves that you can’t nail down any particular, one, therefore, you can title the inability to do so, as reasonable doubt…

    • My first thought is about the timeline photo stamps (the intervals between each and between first and last).

      If people have as much trouble believing everything happened in 1:38–and this is with JA & TA remaining in the bathroom/bedroom–I think they would really have trouble believing all that happened AND she went out to the car in 1:38.

      • Hi Micky,

        Per the ME’s testimony, the gunshot was last. The 1:38 time frame begins with the picture of Travis in the shower and ends with him bleeding on the floor. There’s no way of knowing if the gun was even used at that point (I lean toward no, just the knife). Your first scenario would fit into the time frame better if the knife was in close proximity due to previous “bedroom play” and the gun is not included because it wasn’t used yet.

        • MickyD and Kira–yes, the gunshot most likely came last. There’s scientific testimony to support this. That photo of Travis bleeding probably doesn’t yet include the gunshot wound, so 1:38 seconds doesn’t seem impossible. To me, the blood looks as though it’s coming directly from his neck and streaming backwards because his body is reclined. Does anyone else think that way?

          Remember how we talked about Jodi’s lies perhaps containing some truth? In her lie about the intruders, she said that her purse was “right there”–meaning, I think, right there on the bathroom floor. If the gun was in her purse, then she could grab it and use it once Travis was down. I just can’t imagine that she ran out to her car, or anywhere else in the house, to get the/a gun.

    • Sure, if, you must believe that Olive Oyl could beat up on, Bluto, without Popeye, getting there for backup. And, if you accept that she had a gun, and that you know, forensics, proves she never, fired it… but, none of it is plausable or provable, without first having the prejudged, notion that she is guilty, then, work that chess game, backwards, so the facts and moves, don’t matter, as long as it is realized that check mate, makes the game unimportant… And, as I long ago, said… the gunshot, was last, and, likely, a mercy killing…

  25. Maybe that is why the prosecution did not bring up that they found a handgun in the car awhile after she was arrested. It didn’t belong to the grandparents and that would throw the prosecution theory out of the water, From what I read of Detective Flores interrogation the roommates were not asked if they owned guns,unless I missed that part.

    • Maybe they didn’t b ring it up because it was not the type of gun that was used to shoot Travis? If so, it was beside the point–as in, another matter altogether.

      • A strange gun, proving, two guns ? And, the prosecutor, conceals that from a jury, with out the gun fired, being Jodis’ protection gun, still in her car; neither of which are identified as the stolen gun. There goes the gun theft, crime, as well as leaving the car, without, her gun, proves, she had no premeditative issues.. was she going to ask for a time out, so she could go get her gun, if, she needed it, to face down the other gun, that, like the knife, was already, there…??? How many reasonable doubts are required, there, in the twilight zone ?… Send the prosecutor, Toto, back to Kansas…

      • It wasn’t the same type. I think it was a 9mm. I think it could prove she did carry a gun to travel which is why they didn’t bring it up?

  26. All I know is that the prosecution has charged her with premeditated murder and she has pled not guilty to that. They found a gun but didn’t bring it up in court. They found ammunition at her parents home but did not bring that up in court. I would think if they were trying to prove premeditation those things would surely be brought up. They mentioned stalking but did not want to inflame the jury so did not have Lisa Andrews Diadone take the stand. She was the one that had her tires slashed while dating TA. Both tire slashings were done at her home. Yet she did not testify. There are too many things wrong here, Too many things that have so far been left out.

    • Debbie & CJ,

      I don’t know court rules, so I’m just theorizing:

      If they found another gun, and it’s obviously public knowledge–because it’s being discussed here, so certainly the defense would know about it–then could the defense make a determination to include it in their case?

      If such an inclusion would be damaging to the prosecution’s case, then the defense would most certainly bring it up, right?

      Since the discovery of the other gun is public knowledge, the prosecution would know that the defense knows it and could use it. Therefore the prosecution would want to be the ones to introduce it, so that they could control the way in which it is presented, put their own slant on it, and control the jury’s first impression of it.

      Could someone explain to me whether the defense could introduce this, and if they could, why the ‘logic’ above wouldn’t apply?

      • The gun, still in her car, is common knowlege; after four years, and, my posting of dozens of reasonable doubts, now, two guns, are revealed, and, the prosecutor, who’s taken an oath to protect the innocent, has concealed it from the process ; and, left Jodis’ fate up to an officer of organized crime at law ? Wasn’t there enough of Travis’s rope left, to string up your lizards at law ? And, Mexico, wants their Arizona, back ? Why…???…

  27. Where I am from guns are banned. However, there has been an increase of people of carrying knifes (it is illegal) on themselves for self protection, should they find themselves in a dangerous situation on the streets (I don’t do it but I do know people that do). These people can be your everyday people- students and business etc. I totally understand as a victim of child abuse and now as a young adult my father still being abusive towards my sisters and Mum, that Jodi would feel the need to carry a gun.

    I think where Jodi has taken the brunt of this, is that her haters are focusing on the amount of times she stabbed him. Do realise they it is like to be a DV victim? When you are in absolute fear of your life you fight for it. She obviously fought like hell to protect herself. If she didn’t do this, she would be dead. What was she meant to do? Take one pitiful whim with the knife and them be overpowered by Travis only to pay with her life? When a car jolts towards you, you don’t stand in front of you and let it run over you. You jump out of the way. Her ‘fight mechanism’ took over and basically saved her life. She panicked obviously and that’s why we may have these varying stories from her. Obviously she was in a state of shock. It may be possible she could have been possibly some of the incident out.

    I want to make it clear to all DV sufferers out there, just because you may not be able to stand up to your abuser you are in any way less of a person. I am not saying doing a JA (I am not being smart or sarcastic when saying this). I am not painting her as a hero either. I just don’t believe she should be convicted. Her body obviously had some reaction and hopefully an expert can testify on that. It is normal to feel overpowered, to freeze up, to feel vulnerable and manipulated. When my Dad gets violent, especially when I was young, I would just freeze up. I am much older now and can’t physically stand up to and I am very careful what I say.

    To me, Travis is your classic narcissists. He made Jodie out to be a Villian to his friends whilst to the outside world he was the ‘perfect gentlemen’. However, like all narcissist he was a street angle and home devil. He was a pathological liar, a control freak and preyed on Jodi’s vulnerabilities.

    It is obvious, Jodi is naive, immature for her age and narcissists are able to capitialise on this. Abusers have a powerful way of luring you back even when you make the decision to leave. They can do this through threats or promises that things will be better. It is obvious he just used her as a sex toy. He was obviously controlling enough to get her to convert her faith. Some victims of abuse believe they can change the behaviour of their abusers. Maybe Jodi thought this? Personally, I will always love my Dad but I will always live in fear of him. I can’t speak for Jodi but maybe she did have a true love for Travis but at the same time fear him; they way I fear my Dad. Don’t judge me, I only have one Dad. I did leave, but it is all I have known, so I came back and I am scared of leaving my Mum on her own.

    You grow up thinking it is normal so it hard when you realise things are different and could have been all your life. You think the world is so fake. When I went to friends houses for sleep overs I thought my friends Dads were all putting on an act, just like my Dad wears a Mask to the outside world. It made me so mad! This stupid fake world I thought. Everyone knows my Dad, the Church goer, the community man, who could I tell? Who could Jodi tell? The outside world (his friends) thought she was a freak. Then I realised no it was not normal what was happening in the home but I had no one to tell. Mum just put up with it and it was my fault if my sister had an argument and he went mental. Most confusing, he was violent when we did nothing. The constant denial over the years by Mum hasn’t helped. Am I just in a horrible dream? A lot of people don’t speak out because people have will think oh no that person will abuse their own kids or my kids. That is not true, in rare cases yes, but as a victim, I find abuse abhorrent.

    Another point, with Jodi saying in interviews that she loves Travis etc, I wonder if she saying this to block out the bad stuff. I wonder if this is her way of coping with the abuse by making him to be out to be a good guy? She may do what I did when I was a kid. I had bad dad and good dad and wouldn’t think about bad dad. I make ‘good Dad’ to be the best Dad in the whole wide world so at times I didn’t have to think about ‘bad Dad’. Yes, my dad did and does have his good moments and try and focus on that. May not be healthy but that is how I coped. Although now I see him as one person now and don’t refer to him as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dad. When you are kid it is a little bit different. Another thing may be and this is a theory by the way is that she feel she can’t forgive herself for what she did so must only speak nice things of him. Now does that sound like a sociopath to you? As the media are painting her. Remember sociopaths don’t have a consciousness.

    • Hayley, I am sorry to hear your story. Blv it or not, I also come from a physical n mental abusive home. Well dad was the abuser. Mom just stud by n watched. As i grew up i would wonder why shec would let it happen n it would make me so angry too. They are still together 36 years!!! She stayed becuz he washt abusive with her. In any way or form. He never called her names or laid a finger on her, he was the perfect husband. I also still keep in touch with them. I dont speak kuch to him though, our conversations have always been short too. Im guessing its becuz of the fear, just like you’ve mentioned. Anyway, so yes in someway I do know n understand it all.

      You make very good points. No one has really came up with conversation on here about how deep her abuse must have been n its so true n real, the way she was treated n the fear she must have felt. And when you put it the way you did, if eveyone in the outside world woukd see, they woulnt call her a psychopath.

        • Sorry CJ, I started on this site after trial day 7 or 8. Ill have to go back from the begining, I havent read all comments from the start.

          Harley, where are you from that guns are banned???

    • Hayley, Your post was very heartfelt and I can hear the pain and confusion. But the jury does not necessarily have your experiences and so won’t necessarily believe he was who the defense and Jodi will try to make him out as. Defense attorneys make claims. It is not evidence. Unfortunately – Thus far, there has been no evidence presented that Travis was a pathological liar let alone someone capable of physically hurting Jodi. You have made several claims about Travis, and though you may be spot on, aren’t they claims based upon your life experiences? He was deceptive yes, but to a certain extent most people are capable of that. Like I said before, there will need to be more than defense attorney statements to substantiate the self defense claim in the minds of the jury. Let’s hope they have some.

      • Daniel,

        His own friend said Jodi was a secret. While I understand that may be hearsay evidence, it counts for something doesn’t it if called to testify?

        Marie Hall said she had no idea Travis and Jodi were having sex and thought he temple worthy and a preisthood holder. That was convincing evidence to me about the double life aspect of this case.

        What are your thoughts about Marie’s testimony and how it relates to Travis being abusive.

  28. does anyone have some definite timestamps for the shower photos of travis?
    I am having discussions with someone else and they think the last image of Travis alive (but stabbed) is of him sitting in the bottom of the shower.
    I was of the understanding that was the second last photo taken of him and the last photo before the attack was the one of his face.

    • SJ’s are accurate. The haters love to say that he was bound and sitting meekly waiting for Jodi to attack him or had been attacked in that photo. Not buying it. It’s pure speculation same as what you didn’t like me doing.

  29. Has anyone really looked at the “last” accidental photo that was taken? The one where it looks like a body is being lifted up and dragged down what looks like the hall to the bathroom?

    There are no tables in the hall that the camera would be set on. There was no strap on the camera to hang from someone’s neck or shoulder.

    How could that photo be taken by the person doing the dragging? I do not think it is physically possible to lift a body up that high, which would take two hands, while carrying a camera. We already know jodi has lied since day one. i think there was someone/s else there.

    I can’t find a good public link to that photo, but it does show up in a google search a page or two down. I would like to know anyone else’s thought on this. Sorry if this has already been discussed on this site somewhere, but the comments are VERY hard to negotiate on here and I didn’t find it.

    • BeeCee,

      That photo is difficult for me to decipher. We did talk about it where other commenters shed insight under the page where the artist did the 3d rendition. Did you see that thread? Is that the pic you are speaking about?

    • The prosecutor asked during cross of Menendez (camera forensic guy) after defense tried to imply that same suspicion, “could the pic have been taken by someone accidentally kicking it or stepping on it”? Menendez stated yes.

        • Does the blob look like a body wrapped in a sheet? This is, I think, what the prosecution said it shows.

          I’m having a hard time seeing the perspective. Obviously, the blob is not floating in space. Something is holding it up high, but that something is outside of the frame. It does appear to be taken from about a waist-height, though–not the floor. Who says the camera had no strap? Is that a fact?

          I am not, by the way, suggesting that there was a third person at the crime scene. But, this picture is puzzling (the other picture, with Jodi’s foot and leg in the foreground is, at least now, easy to make out).

          • OK, sorry, the camera had no strap–there was testimony that it was still in the box, wrapped in packing plastic.

            So, yeah, BeeCee, that makes this photo even more difficult to understand. Perhaps it’s a matter of, not just perspective, but of proportion.

          • Sorry to go on and on about this … but BeeCee, and anyone else who’s interested, some are of the opinion that the dark blob is actually a shoe. That it’s shoe in an extreme close-up, with the heel towards the upper right corner and the toe towards the lower left corner, but the toe cut off by the frame.

            Not a body in a sheet.

          • huh. a shoe? I’m not sure I see that either, but hey, thanks! It’s nice to communicate with people are aren’t just bashing and assuming. 🙂

  30. The whole irritating thing about this whole trial is someone’s life is at stake and it is almost as though people are excited that she may get the death penalty. Is that just me or I am jumping to conclusions that some sick people seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought that she she may get the death penalty? I am NOT referring to people on this forum!

    I read some of the comments on news articles and they are so mean. Don’t people get it that Jodi has a family as well? I heard her family is getting death threats, this is so sick. I find the death penalty to be barbaric to be honest. To me it is just a really hard thing to grasp. Yes, maybe for the likes of Saddam Hussein, he is what I classify as evil. I don’t know how anyone can enjoy the thought of someone being put to death. What if it were their daughter? I hope with all my life that Jodi is found innocent. It just makes me so sad that she could me meet this fate.

    I am not religious fanatic, it has nothing to do with religion. I was born catholic, my parents go to Church, I have some beliefs but there are so many hypocrites that go to church- TRAVIS (no offence to anyone attends Church). However church going isn’t really my thing and plenty of good people don’t go to Church. I don’t believe you have to attend Church to practice your faith. It is how you live your life. No offence if you are of the Morman faith but Travis was living a double life.

    Where I am from we don’t have the death penalty. I wasn’t bought up with it so I guess it is harder for me to judge why some people that are so for it. Is it just the Jodi Arias case that has sparked such reaction in the US? (I am now aware of the Casey Anthony case) Can I ask, is this how it is when you have trials when someone may get the death penalty? Are people always this black and white? I mean are some people are just an eye for eye no matter what? Is there always this media frenzy?

    What do people generally think in America about the death penalty? Sorry for asking. I am not meaning to be offensive or anything. It is sad to see that some people are out to lynch her. Is every person in her position face such a bashing from the media and others in the community? Or is it something particular about the case? People are feasting on her unfortunate situation (the haters) and how is is it possible for either family to grieve.

    I am not having a go at America, but is it a cultural thing? This is someone’s life we are talking about; it is not a football match. I know journalists and the media think they are a law on their own but some of the stuff that comes out of the journalists mouths just gobsmacks me. How do they get away with continually assassinating Jodi’s character like that? The way they just snarl and call her evil, sociopath, pyscho and really horrible names.

    We have a case over here at the moment. It is really sad- a young woman named Jill Meagher was allegedly (for legal purposes) raped and murdered. The media were very careful and are still are on how they report on the case. This is because there laws etc in place, not saying the media are angles. Although there has been so many social media hate pages set up by randoms- one had 200,000 plus members from what I can remember; the crime sparked a lot of anger and grief around the country. The pages were eventually taken down by facebook (the main ones), the family and police were urging the public restraint because of the potential ramifications on the outcome of the trial.

    Over here the defence could have a strong case for a mistrial because they can claim they won’t be able to get an unbiased jury (due to the hate). So no hate comments here because we want justice for Jill (If you know about the case or have read about it)

    My point, not having a go at America but this is when the media should have legal responsibilities. Whilst the media can be great entertainment and be a positive influence and we rely on them for what is happening etc. What gives them right to play judge and jury? Oh by they way, not just American media, all media, everywhere they do this. However, I am referring to the likes of Jodi Arias. Yes fine, report on what is happening in the trial etc. Report the facts etc. When the trial is in process, no talk shows, none of these experts giving their opinions, no magazine spreads, no personal opinions from journalists, no interviewing the defence even if they want it, no nothing. I don’t know if the trial should be televised to the public either. I wonder what pressure this puts on Jodi, knowing that millions of people are watching her every move. She would be stressed out of her brains already. What do you do? Totally disconnect as a coping mechanism and get the sociopath title or get so overwhelmed and cry and get accused of crocodile tears?

    This is crazy its a murder trial it is not a circus. I believe the media is fueling a lot of the hate. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why aren’t the jury sequestered? I trust they will take their job seriously but this whole trial is all over the net so I can’t imagine what it is like to be actually living in the States.

    Do you think it is fair that the jury gets identified after the trial? Please don’t take this as my country is better than yours. Over here the jurors identities are protected. There is no such thing as knowing who they are unless you were in the court room and they are not named. They can’t be photographed etc. The media aren’t allowed to ask individual members which verdict they reached. A jury member can never discuss the case to anyone basically. Trials here are not televised except in some cases a Judges sentencing verdict maybe broadcasted. This is in very few cases and only shows the judge and sometimes the defence if they ask for clarification on the sentencing.

    Do you think knowing how many people want Jodi guilty or believe she is would play on your mind as a juror? This case has been well publicised before the jury formed so it is not as they are ignorant of how the majority of the public feels. I know that people will say they have a duty to be objective etc. However knowing millions of people will scruntinise the verdict they hand down must play on their minds. At the same time they are the ones that will basically decide if a young woman lives or dies. I am just trying to put myself in their shoes. The pressure must be overwhelming. Not Dr Phil neither Dr Oz but some Dr guy who runs a show in the US, who has made it clear he doesn’t like Jodi (like most of the media), said after the trial he be having some of the jury on his show to state why they have come up with their verdict.

    I just think this is more of a reason for the media to be censored with their reporting and possibly the jury having anonymity. This could possibly take some pressure off them? I am sure people would want to know why they reached whichever verdict but imagine if you were in their position. Would you want people knowing that you were on such a case? People get heated over this stuff, friends even family and workmates. I wouldn’t want to be pressured for information about the case. I would suspect it would be your decision to go on the shows but I am pretty sure over there your individual verdict is broadcasted? Imagined the reaction if you found Jody innocent. What about your family, your job etc. This must be playing on their minds. Some sicko is likely to give them a high five if they convict her, do you think any normal person would want that? Do you think they are going to feel elated?

    Another thing, obviously the Jodi Arias jurors would be aware of the mainly negative reaction to the Casey Anthony non guilty verdict (to the major charges). Do you think this would play on their minds in any way? I just hope CA verdict doesn’t hurt Jodi. I know they are totally separate cases but the subconscious mind is a power thing.

    I love America but for people like Jodi she would much more protected under the law here. At most she would have been convicted of defensive homicide, which is a lesser charge than murder. Here, we don’t have 1st, 2nd degree felonies (we don’t call them felonies). A felony here is called an indictable offence and a misdemeanor is called a summary offence.

    Defensive homicide was introduced in 2005 to give victims of DV who killed their partners an alternative to a murder charge. I know they broke up etc but she would still have claim to this defence.Yes, we have manslaughter, but this is a particular law designed for victims of DV. Is there any charge in the US that would be lesser to the one that she is charge of now that the jury could find her guilty of that is similar to defensive homicide? See below. Do you have a law that protects people like Jodi apart from self defence- I think people I find it hard to get their head around because of the nature of the crime.

    Here is the definition of defensive homicide .

    A person who, by his or her conduct, kills another person in circumstances
    that, but for section 9AC, would constitute murder, is guilty of an indictable
    offence (defensive homicide) and liable to level 3 imprisonment (20 years
    maximum) if he or she did not have reasonable grounds for the belief referred
    to in that section.

    That is from the crimes act. When is refers to ‘he she did not have reasonable grounds’ it basically means that the actions went beyond self defence or what was reasonable in that situation. I am not saying that her actions weren’t reasonable. I have already posted someone may just dissociate if they are in fear for their life, like Jodi was.

    In the case of Jodi the law protects DV victims, that what it is designed for as a self defence may not hold up due to what be deemed as excessive force- the amount of stab wounds. However, if convicted of defensive homicide, the victim will not face life imprisonment, nor under the law been seen as a murderer and on average will serve nine years. I know that is not a walk in the park and why should a victim ever go to jail? My law lecturer said in a lecture the victims have no rights. By the way I don’t study law, just criminology but we have to take law units so my law knowledge is no way near of that of a law student!

    There are other situations in which defensive homicide can be applied.

    Another example, outside of the family violence context, also supports the retention of defensive homicide: This example is presented by the Law Institue of Victoria in Australia. Source

    “A vulnerable young man is in an altercation with another man, who tells him that “next time I see you, I will kill you”. The experience leaves the young man in fear for his life.
    Six months passes and the young man still lives in fear. The altercation with the other man dwells on his mind. One day he sees the other man walking down the road towards his house, and the young man, believing that he is about to be killed, kills the man in self-defence.
    The provisions of s9AH are not open to the young man, as the situation does not take place in the context of family violence. So the jury will be faced with inevitable issues of immediacy and proportionality when considering the question of whether the young man’s belief was reasonable.
    In the circumstances, the jury may accept that the young man was less culpable than otherwise, and may wish to avoid a verdict of murder and instead wish to convict the young man of defensive homicide”

    Me- But summary from the article- There are changes being made to it because the law has being misused. Of the 13 people that have used this defence successfully, 12 have been men. Now I am in no way saying men are not victims of DV but the majority of these 12 men were known manipulators and had criminal records of a violent nature and in these cases were the abusers. The one woman convicted was sentenced to 13 years jail. If I were the jury, I would have had her acquitted, her husband was truly an animal, if you are interested you can read up on the Eileen Creamer case. However, it does give me some comfort that at least she will get out.

    Just a few more things. How much do you think Jodi’s defence emphasise the fact that he really wasn’t living by his Morman life? If they focus too much on the actual religion, could this work against them? I mean if they focus on the actual religion and how he used it to control her? Could they be seem as slating the religion? Or could it work in their favour? He used it as a control factor? Maybe they could work around it by highlighting the religion double life to show he wasn’t the person he portrayed himself to others?

    I hope none of you are offended by what I have written. We are pushing for much tougher laws here, many people here say in America you wouldn’t get away with that. Here we are far too soft on crime. However, in the case of Jodi I feel that she is in a horrible situation and I believe she is the victim.

    • I am also in Australia. I find it very disconcerting that people want to kill another. Charles Dickens depicted this same personality type in Madame deFarge. That was 200 years ago. It seems some Americans are stuck in the 18th century.
      Reading posts I find that people have made up their mind already and they look at evidence through those tainted eyes.

      I served on a jury. The system in Australia to choosing a jury is very different. They don’t ask the juror any questions. It is done purely on looks. They make assumptions about someone’s dress, grooming, age, sex etc.
      We had first recess and we were supposed to choose the head juror. Some of the older men were making comments such as “if it went on looks alone, I’d say he is guilty”. I spoke up and said I would be the foreperson. Some of those men were shocked as though I had stolen something from them. We did find him guilty of murder. I had to read out the verdict. I was surprised to hear my blood thudding in my ear as I read out the word guilty. Of the 12 people, there was only one who dreaded being there. She couldn’t think for herself. Before discussing the evidence we did a poll to see how we thought. I saw her character and asked her to give her opinion first and why. Her explanation for why was “for the same reasons as everyone else”. I think that some of the others were not up to the task of understanding the evidence. If you have any sort of important job you can get out of jury duty. Thus the pool of people are often moderately educated. Depending on their field of work they may be able to bring some specialized information to the jury.
      Lastly, I think that crime pages attract certain sorts of people. The blood thirsty commenters may not have a wide range of interests.

        • Technically, no. The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.

    • “What do people generally think in America about the death penalty?”

      I don’t know for sure, but much like politics in America, I would assume that views on the death penalty are probably split 50/50 or so. We have plenty of people who are all for it, but just as many who oppose it. By no means is the whole country behind it; it’s not even offered in every state.

    • Hayley. You are absolutely CORRECT. The Death Penalty is nothing short of BARBARIC. To think it exists in civilized society is to negate the “civilized” descriptor.

      • Someone said this before and I think its important to remember in terms of her defense. When you condemn Travis for being a hypocrite in terms of his Mormon faith, you must also then consider Jodi to be a hypocrite as well. She was just as sexually active as he was and knew what the Mormon faith required of a good Mormon. IMO, going in that direction is pointless.

        • Jodi when shown the image of the pant leg with the white stripe said that she had pants like that at home. They are common enough. Did the police ever go to find her pair and test for blood stains? I thought that even if she threw out the bloody ones and bought new ones the time between death and arrest the police could tell if they had been washed at all or many times.
          Also if the room was covered in blood one would assume that Jodi was also. Where did she wash off?

        • I disagree ONLY because jodi was only Mormon for a few months. You cant’ expect a person to do a turnabout when the person who ministers to them is telling them oral sex is cool. Well, maybe thats not been proven but they were engaging in oral sex. I don’t think that all of the jury will look at it like that. Travis was leader.

          • CJ,

            I can see it both ways. But my first thought when reading Daniel’s hypocrite comment was that someone who is new and eager and inspired enough to convert and has just made promises to follow what they’ve just learned would actually be even more beholden to what they’ve just ‘signed on for’. And only after time and becoming jaded and allowed the denial to creep in would it be easier to start breaking the rules.

            I can see it both ways though.

    • Not knowing who the jury members are, is, if applied against the system, conspiring, to get even with anyone who won’t bow down and worship the lizards at law, god, could be a guarantee, that ones’ peers, are, anybody off the streets, not, those whose selection is from the voters’ roster; who having put all these thieves, into authority, can be expected to be sheeple, these lizards at law, can count on to keep their dynasty at law, afloat… I’m for a jury of ones’ peers, being, anyone not, afflicted by the at law mobs,’ warp and twist of any known realities, as created by their warp and twist of the meaning of words, in their, not our, legal process… including and not limited to the simplemindedness, of an allegedly “supreme court,” who will prejudice themselves, enough, by looking into an issue, and, deciding by that, bias, that, they, get to pick and choose, who will or will not get justice, because, at that juncture, they’ll be required to aid and abet the reptillian illiterati, to do what’s in their own best interests; the actual reason, they each got chosen, to be so supreme, here in this nation, of no titles of nobility, and, lizards at law, calling themselves, illegally, enough, “your honors;” with no facts in evidence to support such a claim; “your honor;” the pompous asses, at, law…… Edgrrr…

  31. 2 shows last night, Gretta on Fox and HLN-NG had whole shows on the JA trial. HLN was more of a recap, but Gretta did have some new info. 2 of her forensic Path. experts said independently they believed he was shot first and then stabbed. Getta did say JA defense has a higher burden to show some proof of self defense and just verbal abuse would not cut it, because she had already made up 2 different alibis
    One other “expert said that MM will testify about Ja having a broken finger and bruise , and that TA did it. Believe or not I have never watched HLN-NG until this week, thanks people.

        • Sometimes I watch InSession’s feed if I’m in front of the TV folding laundry. I always leave the room when Vinnie and the others start to offer commentary!

    • Good… These forensics guys, claim that the gunshot was first; adding to the pile of Arias bias; they think; without, commenting that the States’ forensics, found no gunpowder particulates in the combined blood hand print, proving that, neither Travis, or, Jodi, fired a gun… therefore, if their opinion is to be believed, then, there were one or more others there; one, of which, fired a gun, and, did not leave a bloody handprint to prove it… You accept, one forensics, you accept both, just like all the fifty fifty, evidence / nonevidence, that, gallops, in this case / noncase…. half guilty, at worst, and, non guilt at all; at best.; ..just at the wrong place at the wrong time; the perfect alibi, for who’s getting away with murder… No more donuts, until youse guys, arrest , the persons, you are giving a pass, to… Egdrrr…

  32. For those eagerly awaiting what the defense is going to present starting next week to get JA off of death row or even released, I’ve come up with a Jose Baez worthy defense. I want to preface this with I DONT BELEIVE ONE IODA OF THIS, but based on the number 1 lesson indefense attorney 101, “never let the truth get in the way of a good defense”
    – The defense is going to put Mormonism on trial. They are going to try to establish the faith is nothing more than a cult. and within that cult a secret sect that has been established that wants to bring back the original teachings, including polygamy. And since its against the law, marriage is not a requirement , and should be even encouragedand practiced outside of marriage. TA was in this sect, and they used the Pre-paid legal to recruit members. once you were brought in the only way out was with your life. JA got caught in this. she ended up being brainwashed. Their brainwashing techniques included verbal abuse and deviant sex to shame them, and obliterate their self esteem. But JA was strong and eventually got out, but not completely. They made it clear it was only a matter of time ,if she didn’t come back in eventually she would pay with her life, and if she told anyone about it , they would kill her whole family. She was summoned to TA’s for a meeting.They finally promised they would let her go.. She was still conflicted , but scared, so she brought the gun and knife for protection. But the meeting was secret, so she must cover her tracks so not arise suspicion. When JA got there she realized she was set up, but she had to play along until she had her chance. She realized her only way out was either she dies , or TA dies.
    the defense will bring up the seeming numerous ongoing relationships to establish the polygamy,
    The seeming unexplained lapse in her timeline, and as the reason she covered it up.
    how am i doing so far?????

    • Interesting Bob. I thought the defense was going to go with Travis being abusive sexually and emotionally given the expert they have on their witness list.

      Do you believe Jodi premeditated the killing of Travis and the defense is just full of crap?

      • That’s what I think they’ll go with too, CJ. If they do mention Mormonism, I think it will be in the context of Travis presenting himself one way to his friends/church and another way in his private life. He wasn’t a member of FLDS, which is the sect of Mormonism that is known for being a cult.

      • CJ,, look, I think i am diametrically opposed to what most people who would gravitate to this website think, But,you , and many others on here have given me a whole different perspective. Too be honest, I was expecting to get a one sided pity fest when I first logged on , with the suspension of reality the common theme.. But empathy can be very contagious, and may be the only thing between JA and lethal injection. There is just nothing to support her defense. I don’t believe anything she has said. But I do believe in redemption, and JA would not get that chance if she gets the DP. I also think, based upon other murder trials where there is no exculpatory evidence present, the more outrageous the story, the more it could slant a jury into thinking, or at least one juror into thinking, “nobody would make that up, at least some part of it has to be is true. That is the reason for the prior post. I am not dismissing anyone else’s opinion. If you think so, I’m sorry. I would spare her life if I was on the jury. The story I mentioned in the prior post as fictional as it sounds, would connect a lot more of the evidence for “self defense”, than anything that’s been put forward so far, whether its true or not. You have to ask yourself , what is more important ,the truth, or her life?. They could be one in the same, we will never know. When you answer that question, your strategy on what approach they should take, brings on a whole new meaning.

        • I believe in redemption too. I know I’m not in Jodi’s head, but I see remorse and and sadness in her when watching her during this trial.

          • That’s where the road splits and gets difficult. There are an equal number of people looking into the eyes and seeing sadness and loss in TA’s family and loved ones also .

        • About your theory, I liked it by the way whether fictional or not. The only thing I wonder about it is, would the jury buy the cult and brainwashing stuff. You really think they would?

        • Her life is more important, but the truth runs a pretty close second. I’d want to put truth first, and see her punished appropriately, but for the fact that she’s eligible for the death penalty. In that sense, the spectre of execution stands in the way of the truth just as much as Arias’ own lies.

      • Premeditated or not, judges, intend to have brains; that, doesn’t mean that they do. Willie Sutton, and Jesse James, planned to rob as many banks as they could, but, their premeditations, had little yo do, once they, or in this noncase, someone else, beat them to it, at which time what you thought you would do, is supplanted to / by what, you did. Premeditation can be contingent upon, what you have predetermined to be the line, you, or, your chosen, potential subject; they, don’t cross, as imagined by every premeditated gun owner, cop, crook, or warrior… Jodi’s contingency plans, are trumped by Travis’s sodomy plans, as described, in his own words for all to see, as it is impossible to believe that without, divine intervention, she coul not overpower Travis, while pinned down, and jailhouse raped. What other unredeemable act, would make her, go nuclear, but, that, or, at least the fear of that, from, Travis’s own words, and, previous, violences ? Contingency plans, or not, Olive Oyl, could not beat up on, Bluto, fighting for his life; so, it hardly matters what she may or , may not have premeditated to do. Leaving all that gasoline, and a gun, in her car, surely, contradicts any delusion that she premeditated a plan to kill him; unless, her contingency plan, was to see if, he was going to carry out his perversions, at which time, she intended to petition the aggressor, with:” time out, I have to go get my gun, and, enough gasoline to smoke you, and, your house..”. By their doctrine [laws], and, covenants [agreements / contracts / blood oaths / ritual killings] ye shall know them., so, let’s not cut any quasireligious fanatics, any slack, for believing what two hundred year old doctrines, have brainwashed, millions and millions of sheeple to do; ostensibly, to save eternal souls….. Heart plunge, and, ear to ear throat slice; thou shall kill, dictates, by those, to whom man and Gods laws mean nothing; because the idol, they worship, is in their magical, underwear…as in emulating, the L Moron, angel…from whose revelations spawned, millions of victims, of religious laws, everywhere…and, a load of perverse false prophets….

    • I take it you are not a fan of defense attorneys, Bob?

      I think you need to come up with a better theory, since you asked. Maybe the defense could call Travis a lying slut and base their entire case around that. They could show naked pics of Travis to each witness and hope everyone is so shocked by having genitals flashed in their face repeatedly that they think “oh, he MUST be an abuser!”

    • Bob, that’s quite a pretend theory. LOL…umm…you sound like you belong on one of those crazy “fry Jodi” websites;) If you read the stories they make up it is HILARIOUS!!! They might get a kick out of that one. lol

      Somehow they manage to see, without speaking with her, that she is a sociopath, psychopath, etc etc. and they think the Jodi Is Innocent website people believe she is innocent because she is beautiful…

    • Not bad… but, the knife was Travis’s, with which, he cut pieces of the rope, off, with which to tie, Jodi, down; to facillitate, his anal sex fantasy, as described in his messages; there, for all to see…Nothing, else, explains, the humiliation, disgust, and, revilement, she must have felt… yet, even then, did not, kill, Travis. She didn’t need to, as he was, airborne off her, and, dispatched, and on his way to planet playboy, and all those virgin angels, by the devout guy, who was aghast, at, what was happening to Jodi… No need to wonder, what belief system, that, great idea, came from; with, emphasis on virgins, of course… Spell my name right, if you want to use my facts, for your, conclusions; whether or not, the truth, eludes you, still… And, do you think Jodi, should humiliate herself, by reliving, Travis’s perversions, or, should she just let the blood thirsty State, murder, her…??? ” Devout guy,” because a paramilitary guy, would not need to heart plunge, anybody, after nearly, decapitating, them…… The heart plunge, can be better explained, by your nearest, Mormon, and, or, “The God Makers…” and, their Danite, kill squads… heart plunge / ear to ear, throat slice,” eternal soul saving blood oath, ritual, suicide / killing… Edgrrr…

    • Bob, You’re doing well, enough to take responsibility, and credit, for the whole truth, except, that, the knife, was Travis’s, and, used to cut, pieces of rope, with which to tie, Jodi, up… As in, my attempt to tell Boulder police, that, despite the missing duct tape, there would be fingerprints, on the sticky side of the tape as required for a firm grip, required, to peel it off the roll, and, the chemical imprint, would be on her cheek; as it, never disappeared., and could likely be brought out, with super glue vapor, or other fumes, reactionary, to the adhesive, chemistry. No thanks, from those guys, but, under some other pretext, they exhumed, Jon Benet Ramsey, while ignoring my letter… This, slam dunk soap opera, duct tape, has not been, concealed, and, forensics, with their magical tweezers; good enough to unscramble, an omelet, as in two distinct, dna samples, surely can tweezer apart the scrunched wad duct tape, to reveal, the prints, of who put it on Travis’s wrist… so, what’s the haps; put down your donuts, and, solve this non case, by arresting the guilty, for, a change… Edgrrr… Thanks, Bob, for being astute enough to point it all out; despite apologetics; I doubt, they apologized to Travis, while, exercizing, his murder, for, some imaginary, afterlife, where thousand year old virgin angels, have been waiting for him to ascend, to their jurisdiction… Edgrrr…. damn, what a scary thought… ..

  33. Check out I found a lot of very interesting information.
    One being that before you can go on a mission you must have your endowment in the temple where you make promises to God..which can be punished by THROAT SLITTING if you break the promises. After the endowment, you receive your temple undergarments and must wear them at all times.

    Its worth the read:

    • Jessica,

      a couple of people have mentioned the blood atonement. I do not generally proscribe to these sorts of theories. However, the blood atonement ties in with the slit throat and the stab to the heart.
      It also ties in with the religious tone of the email to the other girl.
      It also ties in with some of Jodi’s comments regarding not wanting to spend life in jail. As she did take Travis life then her blood must also be spilled in order for her to get to heaven.
      The Mormon leaders had asked who would help these people who sin get to heaven and be with their loved ones. it isn’t about murder. It is about saving their eternal souls. So Jodi saying she didn’t kill him would be true in a sense because if you truly believe then she was saving his soul from damnation and this life is just temporary.

      • I used to be Mormon and I really believe it is an angle that needs to be looked at. They lie and manipulate to get people to join. You aren’t told half of these things until you join. And its almost impossible to get out.

        • I find your comment interesting considering Jodi’s ex of 4 years who said she changed after joining. She said she was saving herself for marriage but we know she and travis were busy. He lied to his friends about the relationship with Jodi. They seemed to accept it at face value. it seems like lying was par the course.

          • Lying seems to be just how it works. I knew a guy from the LDS church for many years. No one knew that he smoked, drank, did drugs and most certainly had sex. I dated him when I was 16 and he never told me any of it, I thought he was a good Mormon boy.

  34. Sam,

    I don’t know if you happened to catch my question to you earlier…I was wondering what about Det Flores’ interviewing style made you think it was ridiculously bad?

    • Sorry, Daniel. I just saw this question now.

      I found Detective Flores to be inconsistent. He was all over the place. One minute, he seemed to be almost kind and attempting to build trust with Jodi. The next, he was telling her it was all on her and that he was there to interpret what Travis (ie the crime scene) was telling him. Albeit he never outright yelled or used an aggressive tone with Jodi, I could tell he didn’t like her and wasn’t on her side. I’m sure she sensed that too.

      I’m not trying to say he should have been affectionate towards her – but that allowing her to feel safe in his presence would have gone a long way and, I believe, been more effective at getting some truth out of her. If Jodi was in denial, then him trying to confront her with the ‘truth’ would only push her further into denial. I hope that answers your question.

      • Hey Sam,

        Thanks for the answer. I was asking because I thought, as a Detective, the jury is going to be hard pressed to find much fault with Flores’ style. He was trying to get her to feel comfortable just enough so that she would mess up somewhere in her story or finally come clean.
        I just don’t think the jury will think it was his job to worry about whether there was something mentally or emotionally (like denial) going on with her that might explain the situation..But I don’t think that what was going on with Jodi was ‘denial’. I think the fact that Jodi was clearly trying to find out what the police knew, trying to lead them down a certain path in the investigation, is going to go against this idea of her being in “denial”. She was way too present I think for the jury to buy that.

        I think she has to go straight ahead, no apologies with this being self defense and her actions were justified because she was scared no one would believe her. I think she has to come across now as brutally straight forward and honest as she possibly can and she will need to testify. I just have not seen so far a defense witness strong enough that eliminates the necessity of her doing that.

        • Hi Daniel.

          I think the jury’s questions indicate they found fault with the investigation as a whole. They asked if Detective Flores had checked the roommates alibis. I thought he should have tried harder to make her feel comfortable and been less confrontational with her. Although it probably wasn’t his job to worry about whether something was going on with her emotionally, I think it should be high priority for investigators to consider psychological factors such as denial. It would be nice (in an ideal world) if investigators had better training.

          I agree totally with your second paragraph. She does need to be brutally honest from this point forward. Her life depends on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Latest News

Go to Top