“The Martinez Sideshow” gets called out

in Latest News by

Following on from “The Martinez Sideshow” — which apparently happens at the end of each trial day outside the courthouse — today’s proceedings started with Kirk Nurmi bringing this fiasco to the attention of Judge Pickles. Kirk also called Jean Casarez (lawyer & HLN pundit) to the stand to briefly testify.

I guess you could call it a well coordinated pre-emptive strike by Team Jodi against the Travis Taliban.

Here’s the video covering Kirk Nurmi’s statements and the Casarez testimony:

[hdplay id=139 width=500 height=300]

No doubt we’ll hear more about this moving forwards, as the jurors will be questioned this afternoon.

Strangely enough, Martinez played it down as irrelevant and very much a “one off” event, despite claims that jury members had witnessed these debacles.  I’m not too sure how Martinez cited it as a “one off” event.

Check out the videos below and decide for yourself if it was a one off, when he’s having pictures taken with a bunch of different people…

[hdplay id=138 width=500 height=300]

And this is Katie Wick on Dr Drew singing his praises…
Click here to see the pic from court this morning featuring Wick & JM.

[hdplay id=137 width=500 height=300]

Leave your comments below…

Team Jodi


      • Oh. if you want to either laugh or throw up again, go on one of Vladimirs sites.. you know, the one our dear Cate was on.. his name is Jeff…

        • Are you serious, Heather? I had to stop commenting over there. It wasn’t worth my effort. I like Mr. Gagic’s perspectives a lot though. But he was attracting some real nut jobs.

          • No!!!! 😀 I’ve tried to silence them with some of Pitchforks blogs.. I’ve tried but its futile.. I felt I just had to try, you know, in the hope of putting something on there that they can’t dispute but their minds are made up, they just enjoy hating.

            Yes, real nut jobs is right.

    • The lengths Jodi went to, to lie about her innocence IS THE SAME lengths Juan Martinez has gone to, to lie about her guilt. So, Let me roar for a minute. We should never allow any prosecutor to over-charge anyone…..claim they have evidence of premeditated murder and place a death sentence on Jodi’s head. I am upset that NO ONE from any of the news channels wants to challenge this over zealous case. She DID NOT PLAN THIS MURDER! Does anyone believe she planned this? She brought no gloves, no bleach, no towels and no protective clothing? This was a crime of passion – and if HE didn’t die, SHE was going to. Now, think of every close relationship you have ever had. I can assure you that HEALTHY people do not attract UNHEALTHY people. Birds of a feather….. Now, on to Juan…you are so damn lucky I am not on the jury….I would be the hold-out until I was able to chip away and convince the other 11 that if Juan says not to trust anything Jodi says because she is a liar..HOW DO WE TRUST JUAN, lying that he has proof of premeditated murder. he LIED to all of us. LET HER WALK.

      • Small correction – this is self defence, not a crime of passion.

        Jodi is completely innocent – and provably so – beyond any doubt whatsoever.

        Also… you should say “killing” not “murder”. I have done it myself, it’s an easy slip to make.

        Unless you are explaining the prosecution case, putting forward a hypothetical.

        • geebee2- your statement ….”This is self defense, not a crime of passion.” reminded me of a similar statement I read often on the boards where mostly Jodi Haters dwell and that is something to the effect of, “This was a total crime of passion!” usually followed by a method by, which, Jodi should meet her demise.

          Respectfully, I asked them the following question and then went on to explain….

          If her very existence is not reason enough to act out of passion as she fights to see another tomorrow, than what is? Self defense or crime of passion? This is ludicrous to try and differentiate because they are one and the same. Nobody fights for their life in a mediocre fashion. At least, nobody who has lived to tell about it, anyway. Besides, aren’t crimes of passion equated to irrational and/or spontaneous acts driven by emotion, whatever that emotion may be? Premeditated murder is cold and calculated. Methodical, systematic, and meticulously thought out. There is no ‘heat of the moment’, Quite the contrary, the emotionalism of an event would likely burn out or fade significantly during the process of preparation. I suggest you pick which one Jodi went with and stick to it. You cannot blur the lines like you are and expect the verdict you want because you will be disappointed.

          Which, brings me to another point; Jodi being deemed a sociopath. The reasons given from just about every single person who has labeled her as such all say lack of remorse, lack of any emotion, and all she cares about is herself.

          Thing is, if what you say is true, as a sociopath Jodi WOULD feel remorse and sadness over her actions against Travis because she LOVED HIM. Sociopaths can develop attachments to people, they can love them, while keeping an over all non empathetic aversion to the rest of the world in general. They can feel empathy towards a select few individuals closest to them. Which, means, they don’t care only about themselves. So, if you say she’s a sociopath you are, for all intents and purposes, supporting the fact that she does, indeed, feel remorse and sorrow at having hurt someone she cared about that was not herself because she loved that person.

          So, next time you decide to pollute the justice system with your reasons why Jodi should fry you may want to find something else. Otherwise, your stupid shows and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
          So, geebee2, what are your thoughts? Is self defense a crime of passion or no?

          • Stop it, You’re making too much sense. Did you see the report where Travis calls himself in an email to the Hugheses “a bit of a sociopath” – very telling if you ask me.

            • geebee2

              I wouldn’t be too quick with these summary judgements. Firstly the NJ case does not apply to Arizona law. NJ does not recognize what is often referred to as “imperfect self-defense” whereas AZ does. Remember homicide is a state charge and each state can and does have its own definitions and laws in that regard.

              Given the circumstances of this case it would not surprise me at all, if given the chance, a fair and impartial jury ends up with a verdict of manslaughter. This is how AZ defines manslaughter:

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

              The operative part of this is “heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim”. This is the famous imperfect self-defense case that leads to a verdict of a crime of passion.

              The self defense law has a section that states

              “a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.”

              And the operative clause there is “to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary”.

              So what if you are faced with a condition where a reasonable person believes that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force but then that reasonable person employs force that is greater than the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself.

              Voila, this is the problem with compound laws. That, my friend is the imperfect self-defense dilemma.

              The answer of course lies in the manslaughter definition, wherein “heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim” becomes operative.

              So while i truly believe that TA was the provocateur (and I am being super kind here) and I truly believe Jodi had no option but to defend herself, the problem that won’t go away is the darned neck wound. It’s like Lady Macbeth’s spot, all the perfumes of Arabia, etc

              • I keep thinking it was to end his suffering when it was too late to save him. I wonder where they stand on mercy killing in AZ…

                • Even if it was to end his suffering, the jury would consider that murder 1 and it’s a good thing that it wasn’t claimed in court. I think it was the result of Travis either lunging forward while Jodi held the knife in a horizontal position or Jodi being in such a fog that she snapped and went too far.

              • Al,

                What about the fact that Arizona is a Stand Your Ground state? It doesn’t matter where the attack occurred or who started it, if the defendant was in imminent danger of bodily injury or death than they have a right to use excessive deadly force to defend their life without the duty to retreat.

                According to Stand Your Ground Law, Jodi cutting Travis’ throat is neither here nor there. She did what she had to do to make sure he was dead and the threat to her life was eliminated completely. It doesn’t matter if there was a point when she could have easily retreated and ran for help, there is no law obligating her to do so.

                Your thoughts?

                • Krystal,

                  AZ law is actually somewhere between the Florida stand your ground law and your typical self defense law.

                  The thing with the Arizona Law is that it limits the amount of force you can apply. Also, even though the law des not explicitly state it certain AZ appeals and supreme court rulings interpret that limit to the amount of force you can apply as meaning that once the threat diminishes you must stop.

                  This gets reflected in the jury instruction. Now AZ’s law is actually the most liberal that I could find in terms of what factors start the act of sel defense. So an “apparent threat” is enough. But they use the reasonable person standard. So if a reasonable person feels that there is the appearance of a threat they can react with force. That’s actually more liberal than FL. But at the same time the amount of force must be just enough to stop the threat and once the threat passes you have a duty to Stop. That’s the sticky part. Also it can be argued that the AZ legislature was not confused here, or missed something, because their manslaughter law, in exact terms deals with the situation where the self-defense goes too far.

              • Al, did you see my post the other day about Jury Instructions on self defense? I think that was from Wednesday. Essentially then, if the jury believes the state has not proven it was self defense, even if they subsequently believe that the state has proven it’s murder one, they can not convict.

                • Absolutely. That’s how I read it. Or at least the most recent one I can find. Plus its a statutory instruction, meaning it MUST be given:

                  “The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with such justification. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge. ”

                  It makes me wonder, if there isn’t a requirement for some sort of vetting of a self-defense claim prior to it being presented in court. I’ll have to check. Once AZ removed the proactive defense clause from self-defense it essentially puts the state into the position of having to prove a negative. For that to even stand the test of fairness, there has to be some proffer by the defense and some decision by the judiciary that the proffer is ample to show a good faith claim of self defense. Otherwise everyone would raise that claim and the state would have a really hard time getting convictions in any homicide cases where the two parties were in close proximity.

                  I do know that in this case JM did argue that Jodi had a right to flee. I know that early on in the game there was a defense motion to stop JM from making that argument. I am assuming the defense lost, otherwise they would have jumped all over JM’s questions about why she didn’t take a left and run out the bedroom door. Now in my opinion, if the judged ruled that there was an obligation to flee, that’s a reversible error right there, because the law is very clear about that as is the Fish case.

                  I’ll check on the proffer situation and let you folks know if I find something.

                • Please let us know what you find on that, Al. I haven’t found anything from a quick search.

                  Did you see that motion by the defense? I’d be very interested in reading it.

        • Considering the fact that Arizona is a Stand Your Ground state, if Jodi was able to successfully put enough doubt in, at least, one juror’s mind that she did not premeditate to kill Alexander, rather, she reacted reasonably with the use of deadly force because imminent peril was upon her then she very well will be acquitted and apologized to for the inconvenienced. Okay, so she’ll be acquitted. Probably not apologized to.

          Had this taken place in California where the SYG law applies only if the attack happens at the victim’s home, Jodi would be lucky to get Imperfect Self Defense but no way she’d get self defense. Imperfect Self Defense is a ruling that the jury hands out and it does not offer immunity from punishment as self defense does, but, it can offer a lighter sentence. Basically, the jury is saying they don’t argue the defendant was acting in self defense, they just don’t find the force the defendant used to be reasonable force according to the threat being imposed on them. Or, in Jodi’s case, they would believe she did what she did in self defense but she was unreasonable in the force she chose to use to defend herself with 3 lethal injuries being considered as overkill.

          • Right on Krystal. And AZ does in fact have an imperfect self defense law that addresses exactly this situation. Its encompassed in their definition of manslaughter.

      • If she infact went there to kill him why would she stick around as long as she dis. Don’t you think if she went there to kill him she would have done it right away or when he was sleeping. No she had intercourse with him stayed the night took pictures not knowing when the roommates would be coming home waited until he was in the shower and awake and could fight back. Then did not even take the camera with her. The gas cans is bs she did not want to run out of gas in the middle of nowhere by herself. I myself have returned and item to a store where the policy is to mark the receipt and they did not do so. This means nothing. JM is a pompous ass and I hate him. Can’t stand him or those talking heads on hln. That’s my rant for the day.

      • Plus, these prosecutors are just trying to win. It’s all a big game. Especially the ones that are all hung ho about having someone executed.

        I bet if this little prick had to take her life himself he would think twice about being a macho asshole.

        He actually seemed slightly humbled by having it pointed out that all this attention was wrong, but he made me queasy when he was referring to himself in the third person.

        I was reading yesterday about all the people in prison in CA on the dumb third strike law. People who are serving life for stealing a slice of pizza, and one was a Mexican immigrant who was helping his cousin by filling out a drivers test because the cousin didn’t speak English. In a few cases the prosecutors had a change of heart and apologized to the people. But most of the time they are desensitized and just see this as a game, and they have to win. Cops are often the same way.

        The whole criminal justice system in the US is dysfunctional because of politics and cowboy mentality.

        • You are so right. I live in ca. Have you every heard of the Crowe case. That happend iny city. The police can get away with lying until they get a confession. I also think that the prosecution is just out to win. It is all about winning they don’t care about the proof or true justice. I think Martinez is the worst I have ever seen. I did think CA and OJ were guilty but as far as Jodi I do truly believe that she was defending herself and he showed all of the signs of an abuser. He used her over and over for what he wanted. I was also in the same situation completely in love with a man and was intimate with him hopeing it would turn into a real relationship. Lucky for me he was a good guy really the best guy I have ever known and we have now been married for 10 years. I wish the same happend for Jodi but as we all know he was not a good guy just an user and abuser. Sad really sad.

    • I wonder what the Family will do. When Juan fails to prove this case. Can’t wait to see what happens.

  1. An excellent day for her, I’m so happy.. but I’m furious with that asshole, its so OBVIOUS that he doesn’t want ANYTHING to come out to help Jodi. I’m not a violent woman but I could cheerfully hit him.

    Is there another part of the trial today? Anyone? Its almost 7.30pm here in London and I want to know if I can make dinner!

    • Yes, there were at least 5 in the video, plus the woman getting her walking cane signed, lol.

      Team Jodi

  2. I was beginning to think we crashed this site with all our postings…I had to reboot my internet to get it to unfreeze…LOL LOL

    It was a HUGE day for Jodi… 🙂

    I was thinking…the camera adds 10 or so pounds, I can only imagine how emaciated Jodi looks. It sucks having to watch the inhumane treatment. We should start to make waves to bring to light EXACTLY what this d*****bag Sheriff is doing…I know there are civil cases but apparently the squeaking wheel DOES get the oil…he’s still getting away with it…

  3. The television station was talking about this website. I did not hear the entire thing because something happened to the transmission. Last thing I heard was they were going to talk with someone on here.

  4. Interesting comment I spotted on HLN:

    Jean Medley · Top Commenter · Indiana Gun Owners (INGO)

    Juan needs to watch his step…celebrity goes up and down. It was reported he was in a restaurant speaking about the case, that has yet to be discussed. I hope he doesn’t blow it by getting all big headed…

  5. I think it is disgusting that it seems in America people keep doing this with Prosecutors like they are the GOOD ONES an the DEFENSE are the BAD ONES. Do people not understand that sometimes people are CONVICTED an did not even do it ? an later released? so that means that some Prosecutors are doing EVIL work an condemning innocents just to get a BIGGER NAME a BIGGER POSITION in LIFE an it needs to stop. Why do we not see people PRAISING THE DEFENSE in PUBLIC? I am starting to believe because it is a totally different GROUP of people that truly UNDERSTAND the LAW an how it works.

    I believe that people DESERVE a FAIR TRIAL whether they are GUILTY or not but it seems the majority feels that we should just go out an HANG PEOPLE without a trial even at all? what the hell is going on in AMERICA anymore. I believe everyone has the right to protect their-selves from harm. I believe in SELF DEFENSE this idea of we have to just shoot someone in the leg or do the least bit of harm to them when they are attacking us is ridiculous.

    When adrenaline is pumping an you are scared out of your mind NO ONE knows what they would do until they are in that situation in life. An everyone is just GUESSING about the stabbing an slashing. Even Jodi can’t remember for sure. She is just accepting the fact she must have did it because she was there an everyone says she did it.

    God Bless Jodi an her family an the Defense team an the Jury to see an hear what I do an release her on time served or the least amount of time there is in a case of Self Defense.

    • Funny.. everyone in America insists on having guns to protect themselves but they should be more scared of the law.

      America is a scary place, I’m much safer in the UK.

      • In America it really depends on what STATE you live in also. The more Liberal the STATE the worse it is for GUN LAWS. I am not afraid to DEFEND myself in ALABAMA on my property I would not just wound someone trying to harm me though.

        Arizona has some different laws from what I understand about how much force you can use against a attacker or threat. That is what bothers me most as I am not entirely convinced Jodi did all that but she is accepting she did an people are more outraged not because of the actual killing but the manner after the gun shot the stabbing an slashing is all they want to concentrate on. If that were not on the table it would not be so televised an such a big case I think.

        I most certainly would rather shoot someone though instead of stabbing an slashing as I am in a wheel chair an it would be rather hard to chase around someone with a stick or knife in hand an very easy for them to attack me.

        • I’m in full agreement with you about the stabbing and slashing, they’re looking atr the wounds rather than why she had to do it–but like you, I don’t believe she did, and the gun didn’t kill him so how can the State be right? That’s why they’re going to lose. She’s accepting it because she thinks she must have done, but how can that be proven if she can’t remember, it can’t. The haters are vile, frightening in that they refuse to look at anything other than the wounds, yes, they’re shocking but that’s not the point. I pray the jurors aren’t like the other haters online.

          Are AZ laws like Texas? That’s another place, and Oklahoma, that I’d be worried about going to.

          Yes, it would be very difficult in a wheelchair, agree, easier to just shoot them.. which makes it in this case not premeditated–I just don’t see how the haters can justify it, but they do, and it sickens me. After all, it appears he was killed with the knife not a gun.

          • I have family in Arizona my parents an my sister. We do not agree at all on this case. They all are against Jodi 100%. We are cut from the same cloth but our views are totally different? All they hear is PSYCHO STALKER SEX TAPE an the over kill of the situation.

            So I wonder what the hell is going on in Arizona? an the JURY is out every day walking around with their phones etc. I do not see how Jodi can get a fair trial at all there. All I can do is pray a few jurors are seeing an hearing what I do an everyone on this page does. An not have this true hatred in their hearts for Jodi because of the majority out there.

            IF this case ends up any other way then Self Defense proven then I am not convinced that it was a Fair Trail at all. An my parents an sister do not watch the talking head shows only the local news so this tells me a lot.

            • Oh dear..

              It HAS to be seff defense, it just HAS to, Jodi HAS to walk.

              How I wish this trial was in another State. Its stupid of the judge to ask the jurors if they have spoken to anyone about this case, totally insane, of course they have and they’ve watched media news.. HLN damn them. Nancy Disgrace and clowns should be in court, why on earth aren’t they?

              • HLN is not media..they are entertainment.

                Also, the defense doesnt have to prove self defense. the state has to prove it WAS NOT self defense. the defense simply claims that defense and then the state has to disprove it. IT NEVER work that way, but thats what the law says.

                • I thought that since Self Defense like what Jodi did, is considered an affirmative defense, that the defense actually has to prove it is possible(legally a viable alternative to what the state is claiming).

                  If that is the case, it is why they may have to prove self defense, and not just defend against the premeditation charge.

                  I still believe Jodi will at the most get manslaughter, and may be acquitted. I think they have proven self defense.

            • I live in AZ. There’s no talking to people about it here. I have yet to hear of any pro Jodi people (other than a handful I know and am close to) from my experience it’s like an in person version of a haters blog. I also don’t understand how anyone can go in person and watch the trial. I can barely stand to listen to JM from a screen, in person I don’t think I could restrain myself from yelling at him. I don’t see how her family can tolorate any of it. Also due to massive media coverage I don’t know if she could get a fair trial anywhere. AZ should have sequestered the jury, it should be mandatory in death penalty cases especially high profile cases.

      • The ironic thing is, Heather, is that many gun owners in America believe they need their guns to protect them from the government. My impression of the Travis Taliban is that many of them are gun-toting, government-phobic hand wringers that have no problem voicing concerns about THEIR rights, but then don’t mind when someone else’s rights are being eroded or taken away.

        As much as they cite the Constitution, they really don’t believe in Constitutional rights, because they pick and choose who it applies to. They don’t seem to mind that this goes counter to their own rhetoric of how Constitutional rights are supposed to apply to everyone; even if they are a woman and speak Spanish.

        • Yes, the Travis Taliban are self righteous and selfish pigs, to put in bluntly.

          Haven’t quite got the hang of how it protects them from the government, well unless they shoot them–which wouldn’t be a bad idea, come to think of it!

        • I believe these type of people are truly ignorant of the Constitution and the law. (Perhaps that’s why they hate Obama, because he was a Constitutional lawyer who upheld ALL parts, not just the parts he chose to.) They carry guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (except for the court officials I guess, which they are rooting for in this case) yet THEY are the ones who are calling to spill blood in the streets.

    • I couldn’t agree more, Rhonda. Anyone who says they would never be capable of doing something like this is in denial. I believe everyone is capable of murder when in a certain extreme situation. Especially if you’re scared for your life and not thinking properly.

    • Also, ‘burning bed’, in this case. AL brought that up on the stand. So, self-defense combined with burning bed would be a reasonable explanation for the overkill.

  6. Question: Since the Hughes email has been brought into the trial now, can the jury request to see it in it’s entirety during deliberations?? Cuz that’s the first damn thing I would ask for!!

    Good end to a long weekend!! Yay defense!! =)

      • The State is not surprised by the exhibit as this would have been given during discovery. JW did a great job, as did La Violette, when she had the witness explain what all she reviewed, etc., to come to an opinion. I was surprised Kermit didn’t object then. Once La Violette did that, IMO, everything is coming in.

      • Yeah, I’m sure Jodi forged the email way back when she was dating Travis initially…LOL. The hater sites are spinning their wheels because they NEVER thought that this email would make it to the jury.

        • That’s what really bothers me. They don’t care what the e-mail said. They care that the jury is hearing about it.

        • Arent they the same sick people that even tried to imply that this was not TA’s voice on the tape????Delusional,hello?

    • I was thinking exactly the same, they should see it, I hope they ask.. There is so much that the State has forbidden I feel, in the way of evidence and its just DISGUSTING!

    • Tanne,

      The jury can only view what was entered into the record. I don’t know if the email(s) were on it. Sometimes they use stuff to let an expert refresh their memory. But if the emails were entered in as an exhibit, then the jury can see them.

  7. WTH? Why does JM refer to himself in the third person? “The prosecuter” when speaking to the judge about his outside the courthouse “appearance”?

      • Your probably right Kira. But it just came off to me as one more way of him thinking *very highly of himself. Anyone can see he’s loving all this attention. Considering this is a death penalty case, his actions go beyond poor taste. I really hope he isn’t able to profit from this case after it’s over in any form.

        • from Wiki:
          ”….an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism. ”

            • I read a hater site theory that suggested that Kermit refers to himself as “the prosecutor” to simplify things for the court reporter. If that’s the case, then why isn’t everyone talking in third person? We don’t hear “Your Honor, Kirk Nurmi objects on the grounds that…” LOL.

              • it’s distancing language imo. Remember how Jean C also said she didn’t see “the prosecutor” signing autographs? It’s a way for him to distance himself from what he’s being accused.

                he also asked Jodi questions like, “do you have problems with the prosecutor?” In that instance, it’s a show of power, again IMO. Other times he said, “do you have problems answering my questions”. So his use of the word prosecutor isn’t consistent for court reporting purposes.

      • Yes they do..instead of saying “I” they use their name, funny forgot about that. But it doesn’t seem as though he’s outgrown much. He doesn’t know how to use his inside quiet voice, still has temper tantrums, and doesn’t play nice with others. But he’s probably just acting out becuause he’s not tall enough to go on the big boy rides.

  8. The haters apparently think it is perfectly fine for the prosecutor to be readily available for photo ops when the jury could see it.

    Even better, one of them called JW a bitch. I pointed out that that is exactly what the witness is testifying. A strong woman is a bitch. I’m beginning to question the basic intellect of the haters.

    • Intellect, you ask? I found this woman through a wrong turn on Twitter and these are the types of people on those hater sites. You’ll see what I’m talking about when you have a gander at her Twitter feed. Don’t drink anything while looking as you may spit it through your nose on accident while laughing LOL.

        • Or this little gem: “Did Samuels use the book pages to send a special code in a greeting card to tell Jodi how to answer, to the test”. That person needs medication and probably needs to get out a little more and step away from Twitter 🙂

          • Yes I saw that. These …people? They need a shrink 🙂

            Oh and apparently Nurmi is…….. jealous?!?!?!!! 😀

            They have it ALL the wrong way round, they’re talking about themselves.

            • Nope, Heavenly Father will sort them out when they finally come to Him. till then, there is no, and I repeat NO hope in changing those spotted lepers, ummmm leopards!

              • Agree! However, I think some judgemental folks change when they have to go through something difficult and experience being judged in a hateful way. I know some people who have done a turnabout when that happened.

                A woman i knew used to judge those who were divorced. Her husband ended up leaving her for another woman in the church. She said God put her through the fire to soften her heart towards others.

  9. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm so guys, Looking at the taliban site, it looks like we are all over 50 and hate men.

    LOL. I love men. My husband is amazing. And I am not over 50. Also, they wish us dead:

    Erik Jason Miller

    its ridiculous. I hope all these people die a horrible death the way Travis had to suffer through his
    Like · Reply · 9 minutes ago

    • Oh no I am 51 but I am married. But I also have had a relationship very close to what Jodi went through before I was in it for 5 years an lived with him for a time moved away moved back etc. Traveled 1000 miles before to see him. I was 34 at the time so it ended about the time I was 39 finally I gave up he was not going to change. But he would have let it go on forever I guess pulling me in an then pushing me away over an over again. Promising marriage an then saying oh no I am not ready for that an then finally saying I would never marry you I have decided that was the last straw for me. But it did take me 5 more years to actually not think about him daily.

    • Geez they will say anything but the truth. I thought we were a Pakistani guy last week.

      I am 40 and my husband is one amazing man. And just for the record I am a woman.

      Looks like they are the ones that are very hateful. I would never wish the same thing on them. I have just been praying for the truth to come out. No hate here.

      • I am a 35 yr old woman. I was in a very controlling relationship for 8 yrs when we meet I was 14 and he was 23. 8 finaling left after 2 kids. Found the man of my dreams and married for 10 years. As I said before you can’t truely see what type of relationship it was until you are completely out of it. I pray Jodi gets to come home soon and start her life. That ladies Twitter account was insane. I dis not know how many crazies were truely out their in this world.

    • Oh, Erik, aren’t you charming! Thankfully, you have no control over how and when any of us will die. Hopefully, someday you’ll move out of your mother’s basement and will finally lose your virginity.

      37 here and I love men :). I have a great father, brother, husband, and son.

      • LOL. I am a daddy’s girl (he passed last year) and I have 5 brothers. I DO hate my abusive ex, but I am currently madly in love with my current husband. He is “just a social worker”

        I am 44 and I love men— dont much care for froggies tho 😉

        • I am 58 …divorced twice and still love men……lots of men!!! Gave birth and raised two men!!! What a bunch of coconuts to think we hate men because we support justice and Jodi!!!

      • Kira and Renee’…

        Erik will surely reap the laws of Karma…”what goes around comes around”…

        Erik’s Jason Miller, “its ridiculous. I hope all these people die a horrible death the way Travis had to suffer through his” (posted from Renee above)

        “When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.” (Dr. Wayne Dyer.)

    • Oh I had someone tell me that, that I hate men!! Someone also said that its no biggie we all have to die sometime! WTF!

    • This is why I say that they are abusers. Look at the terroristic threats they resort to when things don’t go their way. They only understand intimidation and control, they have no capacity to interact with people without devolving into sexist and discriminatory commentary.

      • Oh they ARE, they called me psychopathic, they don’t seem able to help themselves. I’ve never know anything like this. It ALL points to it, the more you stand up for Jodi the more they attack you–they see Jodi as a strong woman and they Hate her!

    • I am not over 50, I am married with children and I have been through an abusive relationship (entailed similar to Jodi, not much physical but lots of sex abuse that I didn’t recognize at the time and verbal/emotional abuse and manipulation) so, after years of therapy, I recognize abuse when I see it. I do still have issues (today’s testimony prompted me to make an appointment for another session) and I think it is extremely important that abuse is called out when it is there. The haters are going to hate – that is their nature. Because of that they will never truly be happy but they will also never open their eyes to see the truth. But the rest of us have a job to do; bring abuse and hatred to light and teach our children not only how to avoid abuse, but how to not abuse.

    • I am over 50, love my guy & my pets. I feel sad for young naïve women who get pushed around by envious women and abusive men.

  10. I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall at the sugar shack Hughes live in…I’m sorry no insult intended to anyone – but her name sounds like she is a porn star……

  11. HAHA

    SJ, too bad Nurmi didn’t have your version of the Kermit/Wick photo!!!!

    THAT would have been funny…probably a good thing they had the official version.

  12. watching day 10, Interesting… that this dude told Flores he could see Travis flipping out and throwing Jodi against the wall…

        • WOW BOMBSHELL !! talking heads are interested in other things today hahaha what a web we weave when we try an deceive ! bunch of snakes they truly are for ratings or not they should have some kind of morals personally to not want to be involved with a LYNCH MOB an trying to create a true HATRED for a person on TRIAL for their LIFE. How disgusting are they ?

          Going outside for some sunshine an send some to Jodi in good thoughts an prayers for her today as always.

          • I guess they’ll have to move on to lay the groundwork for the crucifixion of the “Trayvon Martin Killer.” What will Nancy Disgrace’s “evil” name for him be?

              • I don’t know all of the facts in the Zimmerman case, but you’d better believe that I’m going to watch the trial and listen to the evidence before declarinng him guilty. The mob hysteria has got to stop.

            • Don’t you mean the Trayvon Martin “baby killer?”

              I cannot maintain my serenity when the Martin family persists in referring to a 17 year old as a “BABY.”

              That is prejudicial, inflammatory, and sensationalizing.

              They also portray Zimmerman as a “white” who was stalking and purposely racially profiling a “black.”

              Who could tell about either individual in the dark, anyway? But Zimmerman is not Caucasian. We are all just people. Cannot we get in touch with our HUMANITY? It should be our rationality that sets us apart from animals.

              • I hear you Chelion! The race huslters like Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Maxine Waters are already whipping people up for this trial too.:-((

              • Yeah how sad!!! They’ve ALREADY convicted Zimmerman with all the wrong information. And whatever happens in the future with this case, they wont change there minds either. There mindset is just that, That a white man killed a black baby boy. (How sad).

              • I live in the DC area, which is often called “The Chocolate City” as there are a larger percentage of black people that live here than in some urban areas of the country. (Luckily, this area is NOT racist at all, we have people of all colours, creeds and sexual orientations, and almost all people under the age of 50 have grown up and been exposed to this wonderful cultural diversity.) I was surprised to hear many black people become angry at the angry racial outbursts towards Zimmerman.

                I don’t like Zimmerman’s domestic violence record and can fault him for that, but I’m rational enough to say that doesn’t mean he killed this boy in cold blood … yet. I need to hear the actual evidence before making that decision.

                • I think Zimmerman’s charge is murder in the 2nd degree, so the prosecutors aren’t going for the “cold blood” angle. It will come down to whether he killed Trayvon on impulse during a fight or whether he was trying to defend himself. Should be an interesting trial.

                • I”m trying to remember some of my notes that I took on the Zimmerman case…If I incorrectly listed something wrong…please feel free to correct me or add to the list below…thanks…

                  1. There had been other robberies in the same gated community…
                  2. Zimmerman was hired as security because of current robberies happening in the gated community…
                  3. Some people had reported seeing a tall slender black male wearing a hoodie jacket during the times of some of the robberies…
                  4. Trayvon was in the gated community because his dad’s girlfriend lived there.
                  5. Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie jacket too…

                  I posted a long time ago that the father of Trayvon Martin and his girlfriend should have made sure that Trayvon did not wear his hoodie while walking around in his dad’s girlfriend’s gated community…because TM would closely match the physical description of the other person during some of the other robberies in the gated community…

                  If I had lived in a gated community that had several robberies…and any of my children matched the physical description including the hoodie jacket of someone that was seen during some of the robberies…I can promise you that my children would not be allowed to walk the sidewalks in the same gated community wearing similar clothing as the one seen during those other robberies…

          • I thought the same thing about the talking heads today…the network vibes they were putting out today was like the feeling you get when your mom catches your hand in the cookie jar…YEOW…

            • That Zimmerman trial is going to be one barn burner for sure. The Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the “Soul Patrol” will be out in force for sure.

    • No, they are colluding with sadistic bullies. I mean, look at what they allow on their facebook pages. They’ve decided they’d rather cater to the lowest common denominator of society than explore all issues of this case.

      I know, I’m kind of going off on a tangent… I am really disturbed by how this case has become a form of propaganda against women. And any woman who shows an ounce of backbone and self respect is being called a “man hater.”

  13. What horrible things to say about people you don’t even know!!! And, I am NOT over 50 – I’m 45. LOL And, I do not hate men – I don’t even hate my ex-husband…at times I don’t like him much – but I wouldn’t say I hate him…LOL LOL

      • I’m 62 raised two boys married 2x’s way back when. I do not hate men……I am friends with both my sons fathers. I also will not deal with BS. Could I tell you story’s of some of the men I have dated the last 23 years…lol But because I have been around a few I have seen just as many women abuseing men as men abuseing women. Why is it so hard for people just to be nice to one another?

        • cindy jewell,

          That is a very significant question you just asked at the end of your post – “Why is it so hard for people just to be nice to one another?”

          It sounds deceptively simple, buy actually invites a whole lot of mental effort even to begin to answer it! Thank you for challenging us 🙂

  14. I find it very interesting that AL said the Hughes told TA that he needed to get counseling for his problems from childhood. It ties in very nicely with what JA said on the stand about wanting TA to get help. She is making JA’s story sound much more believable. Everyone who became close to TA knew he needed help, but he didn’t think he did.

    • By the way, I am over 50, but have been with my husband since 1979!! Fulfilling the dream of growing old with him and I love it.

    • Yes, wasn’t it good! I loved it. Ha no wonder that beast kept objecting.. and we’ve more to come of that 🙂

  15. OMG Kira…You crack me up!!!! My 20 year old son is beyond wonderful!!!

    Hate begets hate…Karma is a B*TCH Eric…

  16. I’m getting a FLOOD of responses to my comment on HLN facebook….I asked everyone if they feel they’ve been duped, and why isn’t anyone talking about the Hughes email….lmao!!
    I’m seeing alot of possible converts here…not too many saying derogatory stuff, which is unusual…

    • Omg I looked..

      UGH, they’re not human, how can they be serious.. I mean lol Nurmi’s ”jealous because of the photo the beast had taken? WTF!

      And the word psychopath, sociopath practically in every post! My God, where DID they all come from?

      Goes to show how many insecure people there are in the US..

      • The real tragedy is those words being tossed around like that. Those of us who have dealt with real sociopaths know it’s not at all funny or trivial.

        • The thing is, they’re so cold and vindictive of Jodi, Gus Searcy, Nurmi, Wilmott, and now poor Dr. Samuels, THEY’RE the ones who seem to think like sociopaths. And the way they’re lusting after the death penalty!!! They give me the creeps.

        • Never a truer word, Also Abused..

          I had the unfortunate experience with one from NY.. charismatic, charming, witty..attractive.. but the lies, rages, threats, a marriage proposal within days, no, silly me, I was TOLD I was going to marry him! And what is called gaslighting, I think–you know, where they make you think you’re the one losing your mind–when they try and terrify you with nonsense.
          I had to get the police to deal with him in the end–he wouldn’t stop leaving threatening messages every day on my phone..

          • I’m so sorry Heather. Gaslighting is one of the most evil forms of torture which these creeps engage in regularly. I’m glad you were able to get away from him.

              • It’s a phenomenon when someone lies to you over and over again yet manages to convince you that you’re the one who’s being suspicious and irrational for no reason. The concept is named for an old movie of the same name.

                • It can take many forms from mild to severe, but essentially, it’s a method abusers use to make their victims doubt their own memory and sanity. A common trick is to completely change the victim’s recollection of something that just occurred. “That is NOT what just happened. There is something wrong with the way you remember things.” Another is to make the victim doubt themselves and fear raising any topics in case they might be considered “wrong”. Some others are described here:

                  While this is a rather extreme example, one thing my ex did to me was there was a clock that I loved and that I had bought when I bought our house and had him hang on the wall in the downstairs powder room. It was visible from the living room as the powder room was off the living room. Several years into my marriage, I had no contact with ANY other living human being than my husband. I was not allowed to answer the door and no one ever came over anyway. Nor was I allowed to go outside the house or be seen by anyone because I was “too fat” and it would embarrass him if anyone saw his “fat wife” (I had gained about 40 lbs). I didn’t drive, and lived in the back of a huge development which would have taken me 50 minutes to walk to the gate of anyway, and from there, without a car, I could not have gone anywhere. He was the only human I saw or interacted with in person for months, and sometimes, years on end. If he took me out (on rare occasions) to dinner, I was excited to be able to speak with a server at a restaurant.

                  Suddenly, one day, when I came downstairs, I noticed the clock from the powder room was no longer there. I asked him what had happened. He denied that it had ever existed. I pointed out the track on the wall where it had been. He told me I was seeing things. A few days later, the clock was back. I pointed it out to him. He denied that we had a conversation in the days before about the clock being missing. About a week after that, the clock was gone again, and had been replaced by a picture. This time, he denied that we had ANY previous conversations about the clock whatsoever. He also denied there had EVER been a clock on the wall at all.

                  Several months went by before the clock reappeared on the wall. When it did, I once again remarked on its reappearance. He told me he thought I was losing my mind because the clock had ALWAYS been on that wall and there had never been a picture there. He became extremely angry with me and threw things at my head.

                  This process continued for years back and forth and I never brought up the issue again. I sincerely doubted my sanity. This one issue had actually pushed me into a state where I doubted everything about myself, and especially everything else I did.

                  Towards the end, as I was beginning to recognize that he was abusive and making plans to try to leave, at one time when the clock was on the wall, I accidentally discovered the picture in the garage after having noticed something else he had taken from me and destroyed out of the corner of my eye. He had moved some stuff in the garage and apparently, forgotten to cover his tracks. I took a photo of the picture with a phone that he didn’t know I had as some friends he didn’t know about had sent the phone to me. I sent the photo to my friends and deleted it. A couple of weeks later, the clock was once again removed from the wall, and the picture was in its place. I took a photo of the clock, sent it to my friends, and asked them to compare with the previous photo. I literally did not trust myself. I actually expected them to tell me that there was no picture, or there was no clock, and let me know that I was indeed, insane. Instead, they confirmed what had happened. They received a photo of a picture, and a photo of a clock.

                  After I moved away from that house and set up my own apartment, there was a period of many months when I got up or came home that I checked the walls to make sure nothing “moved” or “disappeared”. I was very relieved that everything remained the same, and eventually, I stopped needing to check. It’s been such a relief.

            • Thanks AA..
              I was vulnerable, I had just lost my father and my mother 5 months before that, so I was ripe for what he wanted. He got ill in my house.. what Could I do but keep him in meals. He SAID he used to be a Sergeant in the Military and on came the pity play.. and the rages.. interspersed with calling me cutie… I later found out that he owed half of the people where I live, money, and never repaid them, either. The lies he told me were HUGE, but since it was about the US I didn’t know any better, he even showed me court papers to ‘prove’ what he was saying.
              I see him sometimes when I’m shopping locally, I heave when I see women smiling sweetly and looking in awe of him. If only they knew.

              • Aaaargh Heather, I’m soooo sorry. That’s so typical of them, and it just amazes me that they seem to be able to prey on their victims just when they’re vulnerable. It’s as if they smell it.

                Have you read Barbara Bentley’s “A Dance With The Devil”?

                You may find that interesting as her husband also pretended to be in the military (the Navy) and her story may well be quite similar to yours.

  17. I’m sure the tide will turn again, HLN only wants to talk about the JM sideshow, however, they did briefly play the tape of her testimony.
    I really feel that some of the people over there are so completely brainwashed, that they wouldn’t change their opinions even if Travis stood in front of them and said, ” I abused her, I attacked her, she was protecting herself”
    How sad that so many people can be so easily lead….but we shall continue to be the pied pipers leading them to the truth!! Great day for Jodi and her defense!!

  18. Well, I finally broke down and went to the Facebook site of the haters… WOW is all I can say. Thanks to all of you for showing decorum and class. I know we show our frustration at times but those folks are vicious and nasty. Some of those things…well…not worth repeating. Have a great weekend and continue to be classy as we wait for more truth to be unveiled.

  19. OMG…

    Have you guys read this?

    “…Questions have arisen as to whether Arias is getting adequate nutrition in jail. A representative with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office tells HLN that inmates are not to go more than 14 hours without being given food. They are given two meals a day, for a total of 2,600 calories — but Judge Sherry Stephens has mandated that Arias get three meals a day…”

    • I know we had talked about this a few weeks back when they discovered that she hadn’t been getting a lunch, but I was not aware that they were going from 3am till NOON with nothing. I couldn’t do that, I’d been faint. They need to test her blood sugar.

    • She still only gets 2 meals..they cut her breakfast in half..she gets half for breakfast and the other half for lunch. The problem was that she had been going all day 12 to 14 hrs with having any food until 6-8 p..m Her lawyers can request an extra 500 calories for her and the judge can inforce it.

      • You know, I’m a runner & I don’t usually consume 2,600 calories per day. JA really shouldn’t need that many calories & certainly not more as long as she’s allowed to break them up into 3 or 4 meals per day. It’s hard for me to believe that she’s getting that many calories per day and doing nothing physical to speak of but staying as small as she is.

    • I’d like to see a calorie breakdown of each meal. I watched the video of Nancy Grace touring the jail and it didn’t seem like the food that they served totalled anywhere near 2,600 calories, unless the dinner casserole contained the majority of the calories.

      I eat about 1,250 a day and it seems like I consume a lot more than the Estrella Jail inmates do.

  20. OMG is all I can say.

    When my kids were kids…if I were to NOT feed them for 14 hours I would have been arrested for child abuse!!!!!!

    Am I the one insane here?????

  21. missed the whole thing today, catching up on videos….. Looks like a GREAT DAY from your comments.
    Jancasaurus on the stand!
    Nurmi FANTASTIC and speaking faster, FORCEFULLY!

              • I didn’t think a sleeveless short dress was really appropriate for court. But I wouldn’t say she looks like a hooker. She’s a very pretty woman with a great figure.

                • I don’t know if Jean knew that she was going to be put on the stand…

                  Ed, I think your hooker statement frankly is very offensive and sexist. Would you want your wife or girlfriend or daughter’s attire commented on the same way you commented about Jean?

                • Whoa Also Abused – Pretty?!

                  She reminded me of Kathleen Harris, the Florida Secretary of State during the Bush/Gore election.

                • You know what, Ed … everyone gets old, unless they die young. And friends of mine who have died young from various diseases only wished they could grow old.

                  She’s 52, which is 5 years older than me, so I guess I’m old too. Therefore, I guess I have some perspective on that. But my fiance is 10 years younger than me, and he refuses to let me say I’m old.

                  And personally, while I may not particularly care for her reporting, I’d love to look as good as she does now, never mind in 5 years from now, and that’s me being honest. She’s obviously had some work done because she looked older a few years ago. And she wasn’t always as thin as she is now, which means she’s worked hard on that too.

                  She was a very accomplished journalist before she sold out, and also, an accomplished attorney before that, and she’s also had a very successful musical career. She may be on the wrong track right now in her reporting in our opinion, but you never exactly know why someone chose that route unless you walk in their shoes for a while. Maybe someone told her she was getting too old for network TV and touring behind her albums. And maybe it hurt her self esteem really badly. Maybe she just needs the money. Maybe her husband abuses her and she resents this trial because she doesn’t have the courage to leave. Maybe her father told her she was fat and ugly when she was a kid and she feels the need to try to be beautiful now.

                  I have a lot of education, and ran a very successful and very financially profitable business, a great figure, owned a beautiful house, and bought fancy cars and gadgets for my ex-husband who was incredibly abusive. He took it all from me when I had him arrested and left. Today, I barely have a pot to pee in, I need to lose some weight, I have a ton of wrinkles and grey hair, and I’m working as a secretary/general dogsbody at a law firm. But I’m free. And as I said, you just never know what someone has gone through.

                  Let’s not be so judgmental as to slam someone for their looks. That’s like the haters slamming Dr. Samuels or Ms. LaViolette for their non-Wall-Street looks.

    • haha an her body language on the stand WOW LIAR !! blinking an blinking an holding her lips tight ya that is a LYING that is what they said before about other people on the stand so it was good for them it goes with Jane C too LIAR ! holding back information I seen it ……….lol

      • No, me neither, Kira.. it surprised me when she said she was a lawyer, she looked as if she could have been a member of the jury. Had I been her I would have looked more of the part.

        • It was a cute oufit for a night out with friends, and she has a nice figure, but I thought she’d look more professional in the courtroom.

    • She is 52…and a birthday coming up soon…

      Jean Casarez (born April 20, 1960) is a Mexican-born American lawyer and news correspondent for truTV

          • Go to the Gravatar site and create an account using the same email that you use here. Then do a google search for domestic violence ribbons, choose the one you like, and make that your Gravatar symbol. It will show up here and on any other site that uses Gravatar :). It may take a little while to show up…I thought I had done it wrong yesterday at first LOL.

            • Isn’t the Gravatar site confusing, Kira? Nothing I clicked on seemed to apply and it said my name had to change as it was already in use.. after 3 attempts I can’t see the option of the ribbon avatar.. aaaargh!!

              Seems all I can do is hope they give me the right one! 🙂 shall be pretty sick if they don’t!

            • I didn’t see the option to google for one.. hope I can change it if they give me one I don’t want.

              I’m afraid me and computers aren’t always on the same page lol!!!!

          • Too worried about getting an avatar for the other side so thought I’d play safe–that’s of course if I’ve managed to put any avatar up at all! LOL!!!

  22. I was looking through the pictures of TA and JA, the one at the waterfall where she’s wearing the blue bikini top, and I noticed that there is a horrible bruise on her left shoulder. My eyes may be playing tricks on me, but I am certain it’s a bruise…..Anyone???

    • I’ve mentioned this previously in the Jodi arias pics comments. The site of a bright red shoulder jumped out at me on the 48 hours when watching in high def. Sure, I guess it could be sunburn, but no other parts of her body appear particularly sun-tanned/burned.


    • And about Ashley…my attorney friend said that her autopsy report read that her hair is 2 inches long from the scalp…he said that didn’t sound right…considering that she wore shoulder length hair…
      Why was her hair cut so short?…and who cut it that short?…2 inches is like a spike look…kinda like the lady-Alyce LaViolette’s hair on the witness stand…

      And my attorney friend said that it was very rare that a woman would shoot herself with a gun in the head…very rare…

      • Rarer, but it happens: Bee Cee posted some AZ stats for 1999-2009 the other day, in which 35-40% of AZ female suicides were from firearms, and 30-40% from poisoning (AZ male suicides 60-70% from firearms, 10% poisoning.)
        The rate of female suicides in AZ is climbing faster than the rate of male suicides…
        What is even more suspicious in Ashley’s death is that she supposedly shot herself DOWNWARDS front to back entering right temple and exiting behind-below left ear. She was a short plump woman, probably with short arms and short fingers. She had to hold the gun up front pointing down, lift her arm up and twist her wrist; in which position she may not have been physically able to press the trigger at all, depending on the size of the gun. The only way I could see it happen is it was a small gun and she was lying down sideways with arm propped against a pillow. If she had used two hands and thumb she would not have done it at the right temple, but in the middle of the forehead.

        • I know this is late – but when I see the stats on female suicides by firearms I simply do not believe it. Because of the way this trial is being conducted, Sheriff Joe’s record of not investigating sex crimes and the reaction of the public to the Arias trial I do believe there is a lot of abuse towards women in that state.

          As I have posted before, a friend of ours was shot in the head by her boyfriend who said it was a suicide attempt. It was only luck that a detective happened to hear her say he did it, during a moment of lucidity in her hospital bed.

          Before that, she had reported him for abuse and tried to get away numerous times. The police never believed her – even after she had been locked in a closet for three days. She tried getting away and he would come after her. Once shot, the police believed it was suicide at first; even though it was a rifle wound to the face. The angle and type of firearm would have made it impossible for any person with normal length arms to shoot themselves in the head with. But, apparently, AZ doesn’t like to ‘waste money’ investigating crimes.

  24. I would love it if Nurmi asked Jean this question.

    Nurmi: Have you ever had penal vaginal intercourse with Mr. Martinez?

    Martinez: Objection! Relevance.

    Judge: overruled you may proceed Mr. Nurmi.

    Karas: Could you repeat the question?

    Nurmi: Do you have a memory problem?

    Karas: No!

    Nurmi: Did you have penal vaginal intercourse with Mr. Martinez.

    Karas: . . . .

    Nurmi: Judge will you instruct Ms. Karas to answer my question?

    Judge: Ms. Karas you may answer the question.

    Karas:. . . . ah it was all foggy.

    • Judge: Ms. Karas you may answer the question.

      Karas:. . . . ah it was all foggy. um I mean Froggy…

      Ill repent for that one later, but for now! bahawahhahahahahahahahahahah! I just laughed my self senseless!

        • I’m a bit of a brat today. It’s been a long week and I’m a bit fed up with the whole mess of all the shenanigans.

          Totally off topic and my little rant: Don’t read if you are in the same funk and grumpy place as I am…if you are well misery loves company; read away.

          I don’t need smoothing/handheld/petted/babying (as my husband says, but I’ll take it from him as he reads all my comments and knows me well)). I just want to snivel and whine!

          I can’t understand it all. Maybe I’m too feeble minded, or simple, or I am just plain stupid but I just don’t see what everyone (anyone) else sees/doesn’t see in Jodi. I watch the trial, I read everything, on here, on Facebook, Twitter. I listen to all the pundits, talking heads, media and see/hear/snoop through almost every shred of news and spin and still cannot fathom where any of these people come from. I cannot understand it, any of it.

          • Bella I think about that all the time. We can only hope and pray this may be happening because the days of hate are coming to an end. I once heard it’s the last of the hate-filled mob mentality rearing its ugly head because it (hatred personified) knows people are becoming more enlightened. It makes me feel worried for my children when I think this is the world I brought them into. I actually spoke to my 15 year old about it and she reminded me, “mom remember you are raising us to be soldiers for good and light.” That is my only solace.

          • and Bella…in a sense it does makes sense…God did make some beauty in all of it…he made all of us…he brought us all together in one area of the world…this website…and now we know where we are with him…Like Minds and Kind Hearts…

          • I feel the same way, Bella. I just don’t get it. I don’t watch or read that crap very often, but whenever I do, I’m just shocked.

            I’ve said it before, but she reminds me a LOT of me at that age. So, when they say that stuff about her, I keep wondering if I’m what they are describing.

          • Me neither, Bella, I’ve been shocked ever since I stumbled on this case. How can anyone NOT see what’s been going on?

  25. I am going on a cruise on Saturday, what am I going to do, missing trial all next week???? It’s going to be so important once Kermit starts his acting like a fool. Wait did I say start? Continues. Thank God for you all, I’ll just come here everyday, at least I’ll have wifi, though I hear its really slow on the boat, I don’t think I’ll be able to view the streaming trial, but I can see the message board. Keep me updated!


  27. Okay, I need to get some clarification here. The donations on this site are allegedly going to Jodi’s commissary account. So why should she be hungry? Shouldn’t she be able to buy as much from food vending machines, provided they have them, as she wants and needs?

    That said, I, and some others, would like to know exactly how these donations work. Are 100% of the donations going to Jodi’s account—- famosamos? I’m aware of PayPal fees, and such. And how much has been raised to date?

    It is understood a website needs money to provide the platform it does to all of us, and I, for one, appreciate it. However, a little further clarification will go a long way in keeping the good being done here going.

    And please don’t say that they family doesn’t wish to give this information. Thank you.

    • I am not sure, but until somebody else answers; I do not know if vending machines and such are “common” in prisons or jails. On the other hand, if they are then I am sure Jodi will not have that at her disposal considering sheriff joe’s determination to make anyone in jail suffer (innocent or not). It was stated in another post that Jodi’s breakfast was split into breakfast and lunch so she would not get more than other inmates… therefore I can’t see that she can have any other ‘goodies’ if she desires. I thought the money was for appeal attorney fees (if needed), helping family stay in AZ for the trial, and things of that nature.

    • There is no “allegedly” about it. 100% of the money donated goes to Jodi and is handled by the Arias family. More importantly, they receive the funds directly via PayPal, or directly via check. They also posted a statement to that effect in the *Support Jodi* page. We do not see or even handle the donations. Also note that none of the donations go towards the operational costs of this site or the 3 of us that help administer & run it. I cover all those costs personally. Please get your facts right before you jump on the BS wagon again.

      Team Jodi

      • ” I cover all those costs personally. ”

        I know you do SJ!!! Love you!

        you don’t even have any ads on here to generate any money 🙂

      • Thanks, SJ.
        Your site is priceless, and if you need separate donations to keep it going, please do set up another fund to donate to the site upkeep and management. I would not want to lose you.

      • SJ
        Thank you for running this site and paying out of your own pocket. I hope you are independently wealthy, but if not, I would be happy to give a donation to help keep it going. Let us know if you set sotmething up for that purpose (In Pakistan perhaps 🙂 )

          • Uuhhhh thanks TR, but Im really just a STONG supporter and i stand (not just behind) but right by SJ, JC, MB and all the truthful supporters on this site, including the Pakistan guy ; ))

          • Thanks TR! I am not an admin, though, but I do my best to help out in any way possible to further Jodi’s cause, and support her and her family through this tough time.

            I am very glad that we have our family of Team Jodi here, growing bigger by the day, supporting and uplifting one another. 🙂

      • My understanding was that the money raised would be used primarily for Jodi to have food and snacks. That the family would be given the money and they would put it into Jodi’s commissary account at the jail. Any left over would be used for the family’s expenses in travelling to Arizona for the trial. I guess the question is does Jodi have money in her commissary account and when and how often can she use those funds? What food is available for her at the commissary? Is it only junk food? Is the commissary open before she goes to the courthouse in the morning and when she gets back at night? I read a report somewhere that when someone in the jail has money in their commissary account, the cost of the jail’s two meals a day are subtracted and they can use what’s left over for snacks. I don’t know if that’s true of the jail Jodi is in.

        • You are right about the subtraction at that JAIL I read that an heard that Jail woman explain that on NG one night. It is hardly any money at all the cost though can’t remember the exact cost but I remember it was so cheap no one on the outside could eat for that cheap even at McDonald’s. But peanut butter an bread an ginger snaps an a piece of fruit was all it was I think. An ginger snaps only if they were donated she said? I bet they can google it an find out exactly though on the cost.

      • Bless you for doing that, SJ. I know it’s NOT cheap to run a site like this. Please feel free to set up something for donations to help in running this site at any time. You are giving us all a home, after all!

      • Thank you,this is only site that is giving the actual facts in this case.Intelligence,grace and kindness is what you all possess in your responses.I do not share much on here, but I hover often, relate to much of what is shared.A confirming of my feelings thoughts and questions about this case. This all has touched me deeply.It keeps me sane, coming here,
        away from the ignorance and mob mentality.

        “Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace”> Dalai Lama

    • My understanding on the food is that ARIZONA only gives 2 meals per day…………so for her to have a LUNCH really one meal is SPLIT for the day she does not get a additional meal period.

      Not sure how Arizona does the snacks but I do not think they can hoard any type of foods they have to be eaten. This I only know for a person that was in a Texas prison for a time. He said that was so people could not be trading this for that ?

      Truly wish they would get the rules changed for anyone on TRIAL though as the time an the energy being burnt up would be highly stressful an would make sense you need food an liquids to maintain through the day. I am sure those lawyers eat an drink more during a trial like that.

      I do agree with this Sheriff though for repeat offenders I would think it would be the thing to do or in a Prison even but in a JAIL? you do have people that are not even proven GUILTY yet waiting on a trial?

      The guy I know that was in a Texas prison told me he would never do anything bad in Arizona as he heard of this JAIL ? an this is a bad guy I am talking about here. He also felt pity for the ones in PRISON that were in TEXAS now as Texas also only has 2 meals a day in Prison there. An no last meal any longer for the ones that go to the DEATH row as the last person that did it ordered a bunch of food an then did not eat any of it in spite the governor cut that last meal off now from what I have read.

      • I think lack of sleep may be more of a problem for Jodi than lack of food. Still, I wish we could have pizza delivered to her at lunchtime. Pizza and BEER! She could use that!

        • Uuuuhhh that sounds so nice!!! I bet she’d love that but she probably cant drink beer (Mormon). Shecan have the pizza ill take the beer!!! Haaaaa ; ))

          • I so want to fly out there just to take her a large cheesy pizza with extra sauce! She looks like she needs a good pizza. This makes me want to cry. Whenever I hear stuff Travis told her that was degrading, whenever I hear the horrible things the media says, I want to cry.

            • I want to pull her through the screen of my laptop. I’d love to go into the courtroom, stick 2 fingers up at Martinez and the judge, say ”OBJECTION” and rush her out of there and onto a plane back to my home in London where I would cook her the best meal ever and give her total peace and relaxation.

      • There was a programme on TV here about the prisoners, called, ”Death Row”.. It was on weekly for a few weeks.. talk about insight.. Trevor Macdonald went there and spoke to some of them. They’re kept in CAGES!

    • Jodi still wouldn’t be able to access those commissary snacks during the 14 hours between breakfast and the end of the court day.

    • Inmates going to court have to leave the jail very early. Consider that they travel by bus, searched by Officers at the jail, by the transportation Officers, courthouse Officers, Bailiffs, then the reverse processes at the end of the day. Consider a busload of inmates, if all goes well, but at times inmates get angry for different reasons and fighting, arguing holds up the process, and screws up the schedule. Inmates that wear civilian attire have to be allowed time to get dressed, have the clothes searched, secure their jailhouse attire, usually this happens at the courthouse because, obviously we don’t want a bus load of inmates in civilian attire for escape risks. Courthouse doesn’t have a cafeteria so they get a sa ck lunch nicknamed a Sack Nasty. On a typical court day an inmate usually departs before breakfast and arrives after dinner so they have to resort to unhealthy snacks or sack nastys. Commissary is limited in how much the inmates can purchase weekly, due to the fact that commissary items are used like money in jail. The Sheriff is responsible for the jail and has no authority over the courthouse schedule, and for security reasons cannot deviate from the kitchen schedule. In addition consider those inmates that are on medications and the meds have to follow them on their days journey to the courthouse and then that requires the Medical staff to be added to the equation. Inmates in the U.S are healthier than some of the children in the U.S. Sheriffs do their best with what they have for the most part, but I’m sure there is the exception.

  28. So I’m getting personal messages again from haters (including but not limited to; crawl back in your hole, your a retard, and other intelligent funnies) – interesting timing considering i have not posted in a few days on those sites… I do believe the angry mob is rumbling. I guess it hurts to realize you’re on the wrong side.

    • Lol yup, they are so mad right now! !! Oh well, if they would’ve thought for themselves instead of listening to HLN, they’d be on the right side a long time ago, right.

  29. I just posted criticism on HLN and am waiting for an onslaught but so far none. Ok here is how I want the next reenactment to go. Give Jane and Nancy a gun with live rounds in it and lock them in a room where they have nothing to do but babble at each other and see what happens. Let Dr Drew have a go at Vinnie or Ryan on the anal sex thing because he looks like he’s wanted to try it all his life. Put a knife in the one hand and a mic in the other of Beth K and Jean K, stand them in the streets in the path of some lame celebrity, say like Juan M, and tell them the first one to get an exclusive gets to put the barrette in Nancy’s hair. lol Carnage.

  30. Really. For tomorrow’s HLN broadcast, they are going to have re-runs of Jodi on the stand. I guess it isn’t in the best interest of any testimony that could calm the masses, such as La Violette’s testimony, from wanting blood.

    • I don’t think there will be an entire acquittal in this case, but if there is, HLN will be screaming their heads off. Just like with the CA case, THEY AREN’T LISTENING.

      • I didn’t think the jury would acquit her entirely either. I thought they’d really want a lesser charge. But the more of this I’m watching, especially after today’s testimony about the Hughes’ emails, I think there could well be an acquittal. Either that or a hung jury!

  31. I watched the video that was posted about the jail she is in, they did have food in the video..snacks etc.. the main girl they interviewed showed how she traded things to get other snacks. I dont like calling them snacks really, as they are really the “food” they get, besides the 2 meals. I know there are people in prison and jail that never eat the jails food. they servive on the comisary items they buy. they make “jail house” burritos, etc…

    I know when i was in the clinck after a DUI several years ago…raman noodles were my friend 🙂

      • I did a little quick reading about the prison and jail system and it seems that Arizona is one of the states that uses some kind of “for profit” system that not all of them use. It appears that this helps them make money from the inmates. Food, I guess, is a big thing in the prisons because there is not that much of it available, one of the reasons that there is so much fighting and food-related riots, stealing of food, etc. among prisoners.

        The prison and conditions, overall, are not uncommonly deplorable in a number of jails and prisons and human rights are being violated, sometimes blatantly. Inmates have died before their release dates and been refused proper medical care and other basic human needs. I understand that we shouldn’t want criminals treated to nice living arrangements and we tolerate abuses and taking advantage of them, whenever possible because, to the public mind, they deserve punishment and can literally “rot” in prison. However, there needs to be some basic level of humanity that makes us different from animals, and we should continue to look for ways that criminals can pay back their debts in positive ways that benefit society, something that is difficult to do when you are suffering seriously from lack of nutrition, sleep deprivation, and other challenges that affect work performance and productivity.

        The Arizona prison system where Jodi is, and the sheriff over it, have had a number of lawsuits filed against them. However, the politics there seem to favor them just as their justice system seems to really know how to conduct a fair trial as well as pick prosecutors who are role models in how to win cases and project professional conduct. (obvious sarcasm)

        While the trial has been covered so heavily and public opinion shaped by a very biased media, on the positive side, this may ultimately help to bring needed reforms in Arizona. Along with the reforms, it seems that there should be a challenge to the treatment of individuals held as accused before and during their trials. To the public mind that believes that criminals should be denied basic rights and rot in jail for what they’ve done, one also has to keep in mind that some of these people in the prison system are actually innocent. Also, someone like Jodi, who has been held in jail for several years now, is being punished but her case has only gone to trial within the last few months with a verdict yet to come. Hopefully, if the verdict allows her to leave prison life at some time sooner or later, she will not be in poor physical and/or mental health or worse like others before her, thanks to Arizona’s terribly flawed handling of this case.

        • Arizona is a barbaric State, its deplorable, shocking. To my mind the people who run this shambolic place should be jailed and get a loooong taste of what it feels like.

          I’d do it with Pleasure! 🙂

      • I saw that.. and I can’t bear the though of Jodi being in there, its awful 🙁

        What stunned me was that they aren’t allowed a hug from their visitors. This is VERY WRONG.

        What’s also very wrong is that some of them are in there.. while awaiting trial???

        That is downright disgusting.

  32. With that kind of testimony even throwing a shadow into the courtroom the judge should have sequestered the jury taking all chances away for ANY influence from the media.

  33. Have you noticed HLN hasn’t made a peep about Alyce LaViolette’s testimony that she gave Jodi four books and a magazine subscription???? More than that, she said that in her field, it is not unethical in the slightest bit to do so. Are they proud that they did such damage to Dr. Samuel? These people on HLN are sociopaths.

    • “These people on HLN are sociopaths.”

      I have seriously considered this. They seem to lack the capacity for basic human decency, and respect for the rights of others. And how ironic is it then, that they go on their show going “blah blah blah THIS person is a psychopath blah blah blah blah THAT person is a sociopath blah blah blah blah.”

      Have they looked at themselves lately? More important, have they looked at the people they bring on their show claiming Jodi doesn’t have a soul? Right, as if there’s something not disturbing about that!

  34. Hah! If you google “Jodi Arias Prosecution Misconduct”

    my page is now above HLN TV in 4th place.

    It’s important for Jodi that by the time she is declared innocent, the real story is widely known.

    I want anyone googling Jodi Arias to find the true story on that day.

    Have a good Easter!

    • Note: please do actually do this, click on the link, and view the page.

      We can fight HLN and win, we just have to be smart about it.

      Don’t visit HLN or CBS websites at all – that actually hurts Jodi.

      • Geebee, iv gone through your website, you’ve done a great job. Congratulations! !!
        But I didnt click on the like, missed it. Can you post it again, so that we can go back???

        • It’s best if you actually do the google search ( or any search engine, whichever one you use ), and then click the correct (wikispaces) link.

          That’s because search engines note which links people are clicking and up the rating of the clicked page,

          Don’t overdo it, if each supporter does it once, that should be plenty.

      • Thanks, GeeBee, you have a Good Easter too!

        To be honest I never remembered it was Easter, this case is far too important. Also, how on earth does snow resemble Easter? More like Winter!!

  35. I wonder if JM was objecting like crazy at the beginning of the day to just set the stage for when he really wanted to object, once the Hughes’ emails started being discussed.

    • I think that his objections were actually a tactical error. It just served to highlight the testimony if you ask me.

  36. So, I just watched the HLN JM “Rock Star” clip. Wow. That’s the first time I’ve seen anything from that network regarding this trial. How do you folks watch that all the time? I think I have fewer brain cells now than I did 2 minutes ago….

    “Doing the people’s work, putting the bad guys away.” What a crock of shit.

    • LOL

      I am just DAMN grateful I have more brain cells than the bimbo Kermit worshiper you just quoted!!!!


      It was pretty sad wasn’t it? I only watch what is posted here….can’t stand to otherwise.

            • I know what you mean. I started reading Jose Baez’s book the other night, and it saddens me to realize that instead of getting better, in two years things have gotten much, much worse.

              But then I started to imagine that Ted Baxter from the Mary Tyler Moore show had gotten a job at HLN. He would be the most dignified anchor they have! I feel a little better. 🙂

        • Oh…for some reason I thought it was said by the blonde gal sitting to the left of the two women…shows how GREAT my memory is, NOT!

          Now I will subject myself to watch it again…

    • I’ve been reading comments tonight wanting to see if anyone could actually describe the pitiful morons that were falling over the prosecutor wanting autographs and photos. So a handful of idiot sounding dirtbags are grinning and chuckling and this is reported that of course he’s a rock star? Hateful lowlife devious prosecutor gets a few sorry people to praise him and it’s big news. Couldn’t be more dishonest about that just like everything else.

      I hope their 2 million dollar trial ends up a fiasco cause of his stupidity. Then the people of AZ can line up to pay for another 2-3 million dollar trial.

  37. hey guys, so NICE to find this site – oh my lord the haters out there are sickening!!! thank goodness there’s you and people here who can see how much of a fraud that monster travis was!

  38. Just stumbled across this almost by accident. An effort to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Seems you have to be a resident to do this – if any on this site live in the area, you can actually help do something to ease the plight of people like Jodi.

    • Nah, she’d have to spit occasionally if that were the case. My husband used to chew but thankfully gave it up…I hated those spit bottles!

  39. It is true…Sheriff Joe makes prisoners pay $1.00 per meal. If you don’t have any money in your commissary account, then you don’t have to pay.

    Here is a commissary list from Maricopa County Jail…it may be a bit out of date and hard to read but you can get an idea of what is offered….no healthy food items IMO.

    You can also put money directly into inmates commissary account including using the phone or internet.

    • Yuck.

      If they don’t allow her to take food with her to court…then having more money doesn’t help….

      does anyone know if she takes food with her?


        • i hope i have not done anything wrong to be awaiting moderation. i want jodi to get a fair trial and worry about her health. i pointed out that the flores report had something wrong there and your staff did a break down and you did a really good job i was up for two days trying to figure it out and you did it in one day.

          • when i left my abusive ex and could not eat remember sitting at my parents house at the dinner table with my family and food in front of me and my dad saying you must eat something i was at 98 lbs for a 5’1” woman and i told my dad i can’t eat he went out and bought me a book and asked me to read it .. it was called l. ron hubbard dianetics and it helped me. i’m crying now because my dad is not here with us or my mom and my sister who hung herself they are with god now and my heart goes out to jodi i want to help her

    • Also, there may be more fees taken out through the touchpay system than the paypal set up here….

      Someone may want to do both and compare to see.

      • one more thing, without Jodi’s inmate number I would be highly suspicious it would get to her properly. Look at what they have done with her MAIL!!

  40. Alright folks, I finally figured it out. Here’s how JW and KN got in the Hughes stuff even though it would be declared inadmissible without the Hughes testifying.

    They are relying on Federal Law, basically Rule 703 of the Federal rules of evidence.

    “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.”

    The last sentence basically says that the judge must rule on whether the facts being introduced are more probative (tending to prove) to the truth of the matter or more prejudicial to one side or the other. This is why JM keeps referring to this rule, because he claims that these discussions are more prejudicial to his case than probative to the truth of the matter at hand.

    Judge Sherry over-ruled him every single time he raised that issue today. Good for her. I think she’s starting to get a view of what happened and where the defense is going. And somehow she’s decided she’s going to let the defense tell their story. Finally.

    Maybe Ms LaViolette got to the judge.

    • Al,

      it’s my understanding that Sky and Chris are witnesses for the defense (hostile). So, they could be called to discuss the emails. However, Chris feels he was put on the defense witness list to silence him from talking to the media, which we all know didn’t do squat. Strategically though, I think it would be a bad move to put them on because of the way cross would go with Juan. Thoughts?

      • JC,

        I agree completely. I don’t think the defense would want a hostile witness unless they absolutely had to have him for some reason. They may have been able to get the emails in, but who knows what sort of mischief JM would create.

        I think this is much better. And if JM wants to contradict ALV’s testimony he must either get deeper into those emails or put the Hughes on the stand during his rebuttal, in which case he would go first and the defense would cross examine, which is better to allow for debunking their testimony.

  41. I do hope that Juan Martinez get in deep,deep, deep trouble. I don’t like him!!! I think Jean Casarez is hiding something when she was testifing. I am assuming with no information that Nurmi has shown a picture of Kate Wick to Jean Casarez when she was on the stand. She claim that she doesn’t know her?????? They both work for HLN????

        • Ironic, isn’t it that he should speak, well yell at poor Jodi for telling lies? UGH.. he’s total SH*T . I would LOVE to see him get his cumuppance, I’d pay to see that.

        • JC-ADMIN i was over on the site that were you can leave jodi a message and sent her a note there i also read a woman named susan remember that name because i have a sister named susan and she say that what jm did is very wrong and could have his lic removed etc and also mention if jodi could get to her att. to contact her and her staff.

  42. So, like a dumbass I turned on Drew just to see what they were saying. That lasted about a minute after I heard him say that she slashed his tires and was constantly sneaking into his house, plus she kicked a dog! Nada about how maybe, just maybe, AL is making sense here and of course nothing about the damning Hughes email. Back to a rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond for me 🙂

  43. I’m just watching the whole day without interruption, so pardon the late commentary.

    JM’s objecting to the word “said”.

    So Jennifer got in everything she needed to. Here’s the great thing about this. If JM needs to cross examine on any of this he will have to get more of what is in the emails out in the open. If he comes anywhere close to this area, she’s just going to say I based by opinion on what’s in those e-mails, and here’s what was in those emails, which he will have to shut down really fast or she’ll just spew the whole thing out. Also I think she’s smart enough that she’s quickly comprehended what’s going on and is now responding in a manner that stops JM dead in his tracks.

    We now know that even TA’s friends knew he was abusing Jodi. Also this was not the first incident, but that he was abusive to a ast girl friend. We also know that Jodi was trying to figure out what was going on and was basically a one-guy type off girl, while TA was a player. We also know that he didn’t want to acknowledge her publicly, which would probably crimp his style.

    So who does the term Skank really apply to.

    This is some powerful stuff.

    • Absolutely. These emails may very well turn out to be the “smoking gun” of this case. And it can’t be lost on the jury that Martinez was doing back flips trying to get this information withheld on a legal technicality.

      Wilmott was a genius to leave this for the last thing before a 4-day weekend. She paced ALV perfectly.

      • I was doing my taxes during that testimony. I saw most of it but I didnt catch whether there was one email or two or more? Were any written by Chris or all by Sky?

        • It was very confusing. It sounded like AL had seen an email that was 3 or 4 pages long but JW gave her 3 or 4 copies of only the first page of an email to review today.

          • It was referred to as a “string of emails” … I would call that an email chain. In other words, a lengthy discussion in email, several pages long, with many back and forth emails from both Sky and Chris to Travis. Interesting!

            And there was reference to him abusing women and a former girlfriend, in particular. Deanna?

    • Sorry, I posted my comment before seeing this (my comp is whack) anyway, I had a question about this email. For one, it must be in evidencem correct? Are witnesses allowed to testify to something that isn’t?
      Also, how is AL allowed to testify to it if CH hasnt? It was written from him to TA, correct? I
      Isn’t that, like, triple hearsay??
      I’m just confused by it is all…..very damaging to the prosecution, absolutely. If there is outside evidence of abuse to coorabarate her testimony, it would be the “smoking gun.”
      I just assume that CH would have had to testify to it before….is that not correct?

    • AI-thanks, I love your post!
      Im guessing the other girl was Deanna. They dated for 4-5 yrs I heard. Remember Jodi testified that Travis told her Deanna was stalking him, and they also had to downplay their romance in front of her. Remember she stormed into the house one day when Jodi was baking cookies in Travis’ kitchen and went upstairs for a while then left. Did she take a book with her? I cannot recall.
      Dont forget that the title of the email that Travis sent to the Hughes was YOU CROSSED THE LINE. He was LIVID that the Hughes told Jodi not to continue to see Travis. I wonder what made them turn on Jodi? They seemed to like her at first. Was it something to do with PPL & money, or did Travis start in on his lies about her being a stalker doggy door climber inner. MY GAWD what a bunch of fuckers. They all knew what he was and are trying to downplay it. Too little too late.

      • Man that just makes me so mad. All those people getting on tv though an saying WE KNEW THE FIRST TIME WE MET JODI she was strange she was obsessed she had DEAD EYES bla bla bla………….all LIARS !

        You are right I think they did like her but then Travis started this LYING about JODI crap to get them off his back about dumping her so he could date other Mormon women. That is what I think though?

        This way he could still have Jodi on the side an under cover an date others still an his little click would not be upset with him then.

        If people would just go look at both MY SPACE PAGES. Travis has JODI as his number 1 spot. Jodi has her sister only which tells me she was not the obsessed one. Everyone knows people in that age group first thing you do after a break up is REMOVE the bf or gf on those sites an most certainly not keep a STALKER or PHYSCO in the FIRST SPOT ? or as a friend even ? WTH

        An on Jodi’s 2nd account on my space she has 2 one is for art it seems but Travis is number 10 on that account. A truly obsessed nut case like they all keep preaching would have TRAVIS plastered in that FIRST SPOT.

  44. Just a Thought why don’t many of us I already did, post on Greta on FOX NEWS since HLN is a competitor and ask that Greta comment on this Trial more, I think the haters were furious since one of the Lawyers she has on her show believes JODI was overcharged and the Jury will have to come back with a Not Guilty, Since he believes it should have been Man Slaughter, I haven’t seen her be as hateful as the rest of the Media.

    • Pitchfork-
      Excellent blog post. I too think Jean is the last hold out for any type of non biased commentary on that Non- reality network.

    • Great Post!! I too think Jean C is the last hold on that channel. She has tried in the past to as far as I could see to be unbiased and tell both sides of the case.I am glad she said she had concerns that the grandstanding in front of the courhouse could affect the jury if they did see it. I do miss the days of CourtTV. They showed cases with less bias imo. Of course this is the same beast that created NG.

  45. Hey all….I am sorry if this was mentioned or brought up earlier….or if my past comments about the gas cans that turned out to be NOTHING may have angered a few people, but I am starting to see a bunch of holes in the whole premed thing…

    Anyway, with that being said, I have a question about the email AL brought into testimony today. One, that is in evidence, correct?
    Two, how is she allowed to testify to it, if CH hasn’t? It is an email from CH to TA, correct? Isn’t that ,like, triple hearsay? Just wondering….

    Any info would be great, as always, thatnks for allowing me to discuss this with you.

  46. Dear moderator:

    My last post was deleted. Why was that?

    I pointed out that Sheriff Joe charges $1.00 per meal and I posted a link that showed an old Maricopa commissary list and another link that showed how to put money directly into a inmates account….

    It took me about an hour to find that information and links and now it is gone…my effort for naught….

    Please tell me why…if not here, then at my email account.

        • Whew…I was really feeling a little paranoid there. I sometimes practically live on these pages because I need to get my optimism up after debating this trial with my friends. Jodiariasisinnocent is where I get my best info about this trial so I can argue intelligently with those who refuse to see….

    • I thought he was now charging 3 bucks a day! I posted a media link about that a few weeks ago. Did his rate go up or was the article incorrect?

  47. oh please dear lord let that hln video show the jury walking outside that courthouse during the “rock stars” autograph session. I hope its the one who asked all those condescending questions to Jodi and they boot their asses off the case.
    I noticed Dr. Drews twit was not so chiper tonight. stupid bit#& I hope shes banned from the courtroom

  48. oh JC, I said i waz hoping that one of the people walking by JM while he is outside was a juror. In the background of the video that is posted above, you see a bunch of people walking by looking at JM and his fan club. The defense, I hope is examining that video closely to see if indeed there are any on there.
    I wish I did see one, but as you said, we don’t know what they look like.
    If i did, you bet I’d be emailing SJ post haste 🙂

    • Oh darn it! I thought you knew something I didn’t. Oh well. I think that after today, the jury knows they are being watched though and will be very careful. Atleast I’m hoping that’s the case. Another poster mentioned a judge seizing a jurors laptop. Jurors can get in a lot of trouble for misconduct. I read that if jurors talk with one another about the case, that it usually isn’t grounds for a mistrial, but if jurors are caught talking to anyone else, it is grounds.

  49. This is a comment to the droves of hate comments and questions we are getting about Juan Martinez.

    The comments are in the form of questions such as – how do we expect a prosecutor to act? Do we expect them to act all warm and fuzzy? Comments saying we need to grow up already and quit whining about the prosecutor.

    My comment to these people – I expect a prosecutor to behave like a minister of justice as that is what the role of prosecutor is. I do not expect a prosecutor to throw things, drop evidence, and abuse experts by insinuating the expert “has feelings” for a defendant! And if a prosecutor does assert that, he/she should offer proof of such claims because without it, he is crossing ethical lines.

    I do not expect a civil servant to be signing autographs but rather, taking the high road.

    I expect a prosecutor care about the truth. And lastly, not all prosecutors behave like Juan so maybe it’s you who needs to research the role of prosecutor. Afterall, Dr. Samuels looks a grandfather so whether or not you approve of such antics, your hero just may be turning off a few jurors. Human emotion does a play a role in verdicts whether you like or not. So while you engage in hero worship and sing Juan’s praises, when the verdict is rendered you may find out that it was he, your hero, who helped lose his own case by behaving like an abusive bully.

    And remember this – for every comment you see that expresses outrage at the prosecutor, you can be rest assured, that the comment represents the hundreds of people who read here, agree but don’t comment.

    • Wonderfully put JC….bravo!! And Vladimir mirrored that opinion yesterday on King Jordon blog radio, as well.
      In my humble opinion, if what he is doing isn’t prosecutorial misconduct, I don’t know what is. And if Judge S doesn’t put her foot down this time, it will be very apparent that she is pro-prosecution, lets hope that doesn’t happen.
      And yes, I wish I did know for sure that I saw a juror on there, if I could afford it, I would be in Arizona at this trial every day just to watch for things like this. Unfortunately, I’m clear up here in Pacific Northwest, a little to far to drive. I hope that there are some Jodi supporters in there watching this, and will alert the defense if they see anything. I want to say that Pitchforks did a good job on their blog discussing the Casarus thing, probably spelled wrong, sorry. But I would question if she would really tell the court if she saw someone…just saying….I hope she would, but I doubt that.

    • I agree completely! Well said! No other prosecutor is as aggressive as Juan Martinez. He’s way over the top!

    • Beautifully said, JC. I must ask, have these people EVER watched a trial in their life? They are making excuse for Juan just like they do Travis, knowing full damn well and sure that both their behavior is reprehensible. It won’t fly for anyone with boundaries and standards, though.

      They are forgetting that Juan is an appointed representative of the state of AZ. His behavior is a reflection on the State. He is paid by taxpayer dollars, and I don’t think anyone with an ounce of integrity sits well with the idea that he is being paid by the public to abuse other people. Whether it’s nationally televised or not, it reflects badly on the entire country.

        • Yes exactly! That is why they put Travis on such a pedestal. They veiw his behavior as something to be admired and emulated, not thought of critically or how the consequences can impact impact women; and further society as a whole.

    • I just read this and was going to put this link up, and also I have a photo that was taken outside of the court, just don’t know how to post it. At this point in time I feel if there is a conviction it is a hollow victory, because there is no way it will not be overturned. And the photo is shocking that someone can sit outside of that court like this and say it will not taint the jury. Can I email the photo to a mod and they can post it?

  50. HLN seems to have bought into The Secret. The Law of Attraction. They think if they don’t talk about the Chris and Sky Hughes e-mails, they won’t be true.

  51. I got into a discussion with the cult over on HLN facebook, and now they tell me Jodi wrote that email after hacking into Travis’s computer. Then not 15 min later, some idiot, I think on Dr. Drew, said the same thing. I wonder if it was her that responded to my post.
    Anyway, they have already made up their minds to ignore the law, ignore the truth, and erase any creditably that the Arizona court system may have had, and turned into a reality TV show. How sad for Jodi…that one media station could engage in such a horrendous act as to taint the trial and the jury who is deciding the fate of this young woman.
    They should all be ashamed of themselves!

    • So exactly how did JA hack into the Hughes as well and then make up a conversation with TA? And about his childhood which she probably didn’t know about at the time? Do they really listen to the logic of the stuff they are coming up with?

      • Oh, of course she did!!!!!

        Remember Jodi is the cunning, sneaky, stalker who probably slithered into the Hughes’ cat door, hid in the closet until she watched Sky log on to their computer, thus obtaining their password.

        When the delightful Hughs’ were asleep Jodi jumps out of the closet and signs on to their laptop. She would be hungry so she fixes some microwave popcorn to snack on, pops open a soda, then sits down in their office to send emails to TA. Very common stalker behaviour! 😉

        Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr Hughes had a thing for Jodi – Jodi is a knock out vs the worn out looking Mrs H. For all we know Hughes was sneaking Jodi into the house while Mrs Hughes slept.

        I think I remember stupid accusing Dr Samuels of falling victim to Jodi’s siren song. No doubt Mr Hughes fell victim to it also … maybe Mrs Hughes was also sucked into Jodi’s web! 😉

        HLN has lost their minds. I wish they’d all get fired and never be seen or heard from again.

    • we have went nowhere besides better technology to spread ignorant mind diseases. Humans arent meant to be brutal hateful monsters. but today we read what we see and we take what we want from it and in the end, an individual favors the majority, I don’t believe some evil kid woke up one day and shot up a school. i believe many majority followers caused an individual to react against a mass bullying society. Is it right? no. Should it be expected? yes. You keep fucking with someones head and soon enough your gonna own what you dealt. Don’t take a blow torch to a tipping ice berg and then act surprised when it smashes down the titanic.

    • Yes absolutely. And to think the Travis Taliban have taken to television to say verbatim what they used to say about “witches” during the Inquisition – that the accused is “too pretty,” “has no soul,” uses “the evil eye,” “seduces men,” ect. The reasons for the witch hunt are the same – petty jealousy, money, revenge, and general hatred and fear of women and female sexuality.

      We are supposed to be more evolved than this. We are supposed to be the greatest nation on earth with the fairest justice system. We are supposed to be the country where women around the world can look to as a model for equal rights. We are supposed to be more progressive than fundamentalist countries that punish adultery by stoning, or require four male witnesses to a rape before the victim can be believed.

      Yet here we are, in a nightmare of backwards thinking backpedaling to one of the darkest times of English speaking history.

      • Hear o hear MB! So true.
        The social disease is hard to cure.
        What is so heartbreaking to me is to see and read all these young women cheering along, as if by helping to kill THAT witch they won’t be the next victim.

  52. I sincerely hope that the media’s lack of professional conduct and tendency to stir up public anger and worse gets a serious challenge after this trial. Notice that other heinous murders, even involving numerous victims, are reported on but not over-the-top or biased like Jodi’s case. As a result, people are not whipped into a hatred and revenge like we’re seeing here.

    Witnesses and jurors could not only be threatened by “nut cases” but can fear for their family members, their businesses, etc. if they are not on the same side as the media. If anything happens to Jodi. her lawyers, witnesses, family, etc. in weeks and months ahead, the media will be responsible for causing or at least contributing to this by broadcasting much too much information, much of which is sensationalism and biased opinion, rather than fact, which, in turn, raises peoples’ hatred and anger. Furthermore, people look for ways to express revenge, dissatisfaction and anger with issues of their own life and Jodi becomes a convenient subconscious scapegoat to unleash all their anger, etc. that actually go beyond issues of what she is even on trial for.

    The media can do much unjustifiable harm. They have made Jodi a household name with celebrity notoriety. They have also helped Juan Martinez achieve star status in the eyes of many people who never even knew he existed before the trial and helped promote his bullying type of unprofessional conduct.

  53. … short of vigillante type justice… how do we change this? This has to be stopped! For victims, and the defendants in these cases. Jodi’s family did not kill Travis – but they are subjected to ABUSe by the media. Is there no grounds for them to sue Turner broadcasting… or what ever that pile of crap is called?

    Also… wondering if Nasty Gross had to sell her stupid handcuff necklace in order to find an attorney to retain because she gets sued so often?

  54. My husband and I were talking earlier and he said that all court cases that make it on Nancy Grace’s show are automatically deemed as the defendant being guilty without any evidence ever being presented whatsoever and then it just all snowballs from there and her followers latch on to it and then it’s death to all who dare challenge her. They need to set up CourtTV like it used to be in the old days without all the commentary from the likes of Vinnie Politan and gang and put HLN back on the boring political news beat LOL.

  55. And there are people on Twitter like that crazy nut I posted about earlier that said that JA’s family shouldn’t be allowed to wear those ribbons that they’re wearing. But, of course, these are the same people that are saying that her family shouldn’t even be allowed to breathe the same air as the Alexander family, which is appalling and disgusting!

    • That is disgusting. Jodi’s Mom and Aunt have been there everyday to support her and I cannot imagine the hate that is coming their way. Why do people put the families on trial as well.

        • Hehe that is my baby cat. She is a Korat :). A breed from Thailand and they are known for the good fortune they bring you. Hoping that she can bring Jodi some of that. Everything helps in this case 😉

            • Oh cool I had a Russian Blue a few years ago before she passed away 🙁 They do look very similar though. In certain pics that I have they almost look like twins.

            • Hehe Nice. I call her that too. They are very cool cats indeed. She literally knock on my door begging for me and my husband to take her in. Her owners just left her behind when they moved.

  56. Have you guys read this Settlement Conference Memorandum?

    Hmm so HLN is releasing portions of the Flores interrogation, but not his unedited interview with CBS where he admitted there was anger involved. Ms. LaViolette testified today that she had watched the ENTIRE unedited interview. Could that be another little smoking gun?

    Also, Nurmi talks in there about the evidence supporting that the judge will have to give instructions regarding lesser included offenses — probably manslaughter!

    I’d also really like to see those emails (mentioned today) and also those 10 letters and I wonder if there’s any way to get them into evidence yet. Probably not, but a girl can hope.

    I’m actually NOT hoping for a mistrial at this time. I think this will keep getting better, and I’m almost inclined to think there’s now a good chance of acquittal.

    • Also A,
      I heard that too, Ms LaViolette said something about watching the entire 8hrs of un-aired 48 hrs footage? I have to listen again…

    • I agree with you Also, I was hoping for a mistrial before but now it seems Jodi has a even better shot of walking out of that courtroom due to these letters plus with more testimony to share with us all. I hope Jodi does not go through this again.

      I so hope those letters could be admitted. Like you said a girl can hope. I know I will be keep praying about allowing evidence like this that shows cut and dry evidence of her abuse from TA from the his “best friends”. My own father last night told me at dinner that he believes it was self defense now. This is huge coming from him. So it seems the tides may be turning.

  57. I’ve always been rather indifferent towards Jean Casarez. Having said that, I did think that she was one of the more “professional” (for lack of a better term) personalities on HLN. That all changed today when she told an outright boldfaced lie on the stand about not knowing whether or not Katie Wick worked for HLN. I find that amusing. Would she actually have us believe that she has NEVER tuned in to Dr. Drew’s show? Not once in the past 2 months? Katie has been on his show virtually EVERY NIGHT for Christ’s sake! She MUST know that she doesn’t work for the network. Once again trying to insult our intelligence. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, and I’m truly not surprised by anything that is said or done by anyone involved with that shitty network. I cannot bring myself to watch HLN anymore for any reason because there’s really nothing to be learned from those morons, if anything I felt dumber after watching. Maybe when the trial is over and all is said and done some of those bastards will get what they ultimately deserve…their walking papers.

    • Hi jeff.. have you ever watched Reba? Katie Wick reminds me of the ditzy second wife right down to the stupid smile on her face LOL. I can’t remember what her name was now but she was a total airhead on the show.

    • I did turn into parts of HLN from time to time before they started airing this trial. After hearing Dr. Drew’s airhead talk yesterday made me feel dumber. I never could understand why he had her in there to begin. Of couse logic and intelligence do not seem to mix with HLN’s programming. She was whining on his show last night as I watched a clip on you tube. Her smug look in court yesterday made me sick and showed her true lack of respect for the justice system and a courtroom where Jodi is fightig for her life. I just hope Jodi can get some rest thís weekend and hopefully get some nutrition. She is wasting away before our eyes.

    • Has anyone else noticed that when NG is “absent” from the show, and Jean C is on without “mommie” watching, Jean is much less biased and a lot more professional in her presentation. When NG is on board, Jean acts like she is compelled to “mirror” NG’s loud, mouth-contorting, body-bobbing style?

      • Yes I have noticed that fact myself. I liked Jean C at one time but lately she has been so very on the HLN side but then every once in awhile she slips up like on this last thing they caught.

        She must really need the money to stay there. There is no way I could follow all the sheep on this case. It would bother me to be laughing an carrying on like JODI’S life means nothing. It shows lack of morals. An I do believe Jean C is bothered by it but is sucked in there for a job. Sad very Sad ;(

  58. I’m a firm believer in Karma.I think “THE REAL JUAN MARTINEZ” is starting to show,and eventually the public will see that he is nothing but a fame-seeking liittle punk.I wish the judge would stop showing him favoritism.She treats Jodi’s team like crap. 🙁

    • I am fully Team Jodi…. dont get me wrong. But .”IF” i was a sibling of TA I would be so upset with Juan Martinez for gaining fame from the death of my brother…But just let Martinez continue screwing up cause it is heading to a mistrial…. someone needs to contact the Bar Review Board about Martinez and get him stripped of his license….for prosecutorial misconduct and any other charges you may notice from the link below…because it is against the code of conduct of an attorney. ….

      I am so frustrated with Martinez repeating his questions and then saying “right” which is a form of leading a witness.. plus the way he treated the defense witness Mr. Samuels !

      Because the Judge isnt being neutral ,,,, file a notice with the Bar Association to have her removed or have her removed for Misconduct as well… .

      Not to mention the sherriff that controls the jail where Jodi is should be investigated as well… My husband and I are so concerned with Jodi’s Health… and treatment in the Jail.

        • hello susan i was wondering if you are the same susan that left a message for jodi on the leave a message site. about wanting jodi to contact her att. about JM anticks in front of the cort house and sorry for the spelling and typing error

      • Indeed Susan if I were the family of TA I would be very unhappy with JM and his actions. I would also voice my disgust with HLN for making so much money off the death of a family member. Of course they might like the lynch mob HLN is creating.

        I am 100% Team Jodi and she is innocent but I will always pray for both of the families in this case or others. Families should never be put on trial.

        I also grow tired of hearing how much this case is costing. Jodi did try to make a plea deal but that JM wanted her head. People should complain about him imo because he or that office are overzealous.

        I am also concerned about her health too. She is wasting away in front of our eyes.

    • im back and read your comment geebee on video LV Hughes and noticed that in the comment below will type it out unedited interrogation vidio have been loaded here look up david lohr if you are interested

      ATTENTION STAFF FOR THIS SITE have not been there but it may be something good dont know

  59. I’m re watching day 10 with that barrel head Chris Hughes on the stand. He thinks he’s such a hot shot.
    Chris and Skye Hughes can go straight down to the hot spot for all I care. They know and have known that Travis was abusive but refuse to say so because that would be helping Jodi.

    • I just watched that again. Thanks for the link. He is smug and is trying his best to keep things covered up. I am sure there is so much more than we will ever know. JM is trying his best to keep those emails out but thanks to the wonderful brillant AL he will be shut down. As someone said yesterday if I were a Juror I would want to see those emails and it cannot be lost on them that JM is trying so hard to keep them out.

    • Remember, Gus Searcy said that he knows there are other people who would come forward but they’re afraid?? Now I feel SURE he’s right!!

    • I watched that so half-assed last time. I was just getting interested in this case a couple of days into Jodi’s testimony, and went back to kinda watch the previous days, but wasn’t really following everything. I’m so glad you posted that and that I re-watched it now.

      They not only knew he was abusive, but they also knew he was a pedophile, apparently, or that he had leanings that way. It came as NO surprise to them. In fact, I think Sky was worried about the fact that he was around her kids after reading that letter. But apparently, she’s not allowed to think for herself. Chris decides for her.

      I just cried looking at Jodi watching this guy as he weaseled his way out of everything. Can you even imagine being her, knowing this guy could save your life and he’s just lying.

  60. Earlier on this page there was a lot of discussions about the role of the prosecution. So I thought I’d propound a bit.

    US law, for all intents and purposes descends from English Common Law, after all that was what was in effect at the time of our Independence. But, we made a number of substantial changes to how the law is applied and practiced in this country. One of those changes had to do with the way criminal cases are tried in this country. In old England, and in fact in the UK and the US today all law suits involve a plaintiff and a defendant. In criminal cases the plaintiff in the UK is the Crown (hence their cases would all be R v John Doe). The R being Rex for a king and Regina for a queen. Each side actually has two types of lawyers – a solicitor who does all the leg work and a barrister who presents the case in court. In the UK each side hires their own lawyers and they go for it. This means that even in the case of a criminal case the Government goes to a law firm and gets a barrister (they call them barristers chambers over there). Now here’s the big difference. In the UK a private citizen can in fact bring a criminal case against another private citizen, albeit under the aegis of the crown. To get very technical about it this is called “qui tam pro domino rege ” often shortened to “qui tam” which means “suing on behalf of the king”. In the US qui tam cases are allowed for “whistle blower” suits but even there the person who has the info must turn it over to the Department of Justice which will then fight the case using their own prosecutors.

    Now the difference between the role of prosecutor between the two systems arises due to a fundamental reason. In the UK the prosecutions are on behalf of the Crown. In the US the prosecutions are on behalf of the people. So a prosecutor in the US has a inherent responsibility to the people, which our constitution endows with the sole ownership of this country. Remember it is “We the people” and this government of “the people” is by the people and for the people. These, may sound as cliches we have heard all our lives, but they are the basic tenets of our being. So the prosecutor in the US has a responsibility to the people of the jurisdiction he represents. Hence instead of being an advocate for a particular client the prosecutor in the US is supposed to be an advocate for justice. Hence when in the US rules of conducts for lawyers are laid out, they are substantially different for prosecutors. US lawyers are governed by the ABA (Which by the way is why you see JM’s bar number on all his pleadings).

    Of note in the rules for prosecutors are the following (which I think geebee2 should add to his list of prosecutorial misconduct charges):

    The rules say a prosecutor shall:

    refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

    make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; (JM knew those emails existed and tend to prove the defense’s case. He should not be fighting them)

    except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making (All these interview tapes that are leaking right now should be stopped by JM and he should take all of those folks to task for them)

    So we are in fact correct in assuming that JM is gauged by a different standard and his aim should actually be to get justice for the People of Maricopa County and no one else.

    Pardon my french but JM is a douche in that respect.

      • Thanks again Al for another informative post. You are so rich with Knowledge and I have learned quite a bit in your master classes :). I am an Accountant so my legal knowledge is lacking.
        I did work for a huge Law firm for many years so I am sure that must make me an expert. LOL

        Sorry my snarky comment is in regards to a few people on other sites (not this one) that claim they know it all. Quite like the ad campaign that they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

    • Having grown up in that part of the world, I must admit that when I first came to the US in 1985, I was a little disgusted by the fact that lawyers played both roles here — as in, having direct contact with the client AND going to court. The big difference with the legal system over there (as it was then anyway) was that the solicitor played the role of interacting with the client (including getting paid) and collecting information from the client. He/she then engaged the barrister, who had no direct contact with the client, but was the only one who actually appeared in court. In this way, the barrister was not influenced by the client and presented evidence, only evidence, and did not get involved in the all the other irrelevant issues that arise in any legal case. Court was very formal over there and barristers wear wigs and robes and they refer to each other as “my learned friend” even if they’ve never met before, out of respect.

      I thought the UK system was much more refined and balanced in that the barristers were not even allowed to have personal feelings regarding a case or a client, as long as they were capable, competent and experienced in that particular type of law. This is called the “cab rank rule”, which evolved from a similar rule for cab drivers requiring them to accept the first passenger in line for their services. For barristers, it prevented discrimination and ensured that they practiced the law fairly as true advocates, and without public criticism for representing someone like Jodi or Casey, for example.

      Also, since the barrister didn’t have to worry about “soliciting” clients, intake of client details, calls from clients, apprising clients, or even billing issues, they were free to truly specialize on the actual elements of the case that should be brought forward to the court. They were also not concerned about the publicity they might receive from their court appearances (or theatrics, as so frequently occurs in the US) because clients would not be engaging them directly anyway. This kept the practice of barristers — and therefore, what was presented to the court — far more impartial and refined than that which occurs in the US system — in my opinion anyway.

      As I understand it, over the last few years, some of the above has now been modernized (or is it eroded?) for some county hearings, and it’s not required for barristers to wear wigs and robes to them anymore. Also, clients can now actually engage a barrister without going through a solicitor first (at least for some, but not all types of cases). Sometimes, I really wonder if everything needs to be so Americanized. Things often are best left well enough alone.

      • Oh, are you British, AA?

        Yes, that’s just how it is but in the High Court ALL the barristers wear wigs, lol!
        And NO, everything doesn’t need to be Americanised.. our wonderful Tory/Liberal government (I say that tongue in cheek), have just passed a new Law.. now no one can get Legal Aid for Medical Negligence–unless the case is about a baby who’s been brain damaged.. law comes in on the 1st April–Monday. Isn’t that a pleasant thought?

        They have also a law called ”Bedroom Tax” if you please.. coming in on Monday too..

        Everyone except pensioners, if they have a bedroom they’re not using, has to pay £80 a week for it!

        This means that everyone is looking to downsize.. well, there just aren’t enough smaller properties to go round, also, how is this going to work for those who need carers who have to stay the night?

        There has been outrage here, people are furious. I think, although I’m not 100% sure, that they are looking into this.. but the problem with that is, where do they draw the line?

        • OH they limit medical malpractice suits in certain states here too. My state has a 250,000 cap which isn’t even enough to properly prepare and try a malpractice case. A lawyer told me the law was a way to ensure a doctor is not sueable.

        • Yes, Heather, I am British, born in London of Irish parents (sort of). That’s always a tough question for me to answer because I tend to be quite literal (like I said before, I’m a LOT like Jodi). So, my “sort of” means … well, the man I called Dad and who will always be my Dad to me, wasn’t my biological sperm donor (as in mother’s affair) … if that matters, and also, although my Mum was born in Ireland, she was of German descent. That never really mattered in England or Ireland, but heritage is a big deal here in the US, it seems, so perhaps that has rubbed off on me. Anyway, I lived in London until I was 11, and my parents then returned to Ireland. I attended secondary school (high school to Americans) in Ireland and university in Ireland also. When I graduated from university at 20, I moved to the US and have been here ever since. I’m not sure if that allows me to consider myself a Brit on an ongoing basis — even though I’m a British citizen and not an American one — since I’ve lived in the US now for 27 years.

          If you notice, I still continue to spell many words in the British format (colour, neighbour, for example), but after so many years here, I’ve resorted to spelling “Americanized” with a “z” and I do admit that I pronounce it as “zee” after this long here. At work, I always have to spell things the American way, and that’s partially responsible. I still say Bah-nan-nah and Tom-ah-toe to the chagrin of most Americans I know. LOL I also do many very fast translations in my brain from things like “polo jumper” to “turtleneck sweater” to before I speak. Most Americans think I sound incredibly British still. Whereas, I always thought that most English people I spoke to thought I had almost completely lost my accent. That was, until I moved to the DC area. I speak to a great deal of ex-pat Brits here who immediately relate when they hear my accent and ask me “Are you British?” I suppose it must be my “Good Ah-tah-noon” that gives it away. They’re always incredibly excited to speak to another ex-pat and discover what I miss most terribly about life away from England. Luckily, in DC, even the most basic supermarket chain carries a great deal of British products, so we’re actually not missing a lot. However, those Marks & Sparks Roasted Chicken Crisps seem to be a regular topic of discussion. I’m not sure they even make them anymore, since I’ve begged for them from several tourists.

          I’m quite happy to say that living here, I’ve been able to stock my kitchen full of Knorr bouillon and various seasoning packets, Heinz Baked Beans, After Eights and fruit gums, and also, that my fiance considers them all normal — along with my insistence that the thing you cook on is called “the cooker” not “the stove.”

          That bedroom tax is horrific, in my opinion. I must have missed that one being passed.

      • Yes, I think it is, Tony.

        What I do know, is that the people in Scotland don’t have to pay for their prescriptions and we have to pay almost £8.00 for each item. How disgusting is that? Grr

          • I didn’t know that. I am not sure if the same is true in Ireland, actually. I will have to ask my old boyfriend who is a very well known criminal QC in Ireland. I know there are also some differences in Ireland from British Common Law. Then again, everything is based from British Common Law, which has its roots in the Roman Empire, so …

    • Yes, thank you from me too Al.

      Its just appalling that both the State and JM know Jodi isn’t guilty of the charge, yet instead of saying so, they just want to play Russian Roulette with her life.

      Boy I am so mad about this!

      • Heather, AA and all the other Brits on this board.

        I am not a lawyer, but the law has always intrigued me. By training I’m a physicist/engineer (graduate degrees in both field). As a scientist we deal with things that follow fairly stringent laws. The law itself has intrigued me because of a certain parallelism in that human society also follows a set of strict laws, albeit imposed on ourselves and the behavior of man is often judged through a logical imposition of those laws, just as the universe operates within the bounds of physical laws.

        The study of laws, and their implementation is a hobby. Given that I have made a fairly extensive study of the law and English law and it’s practice is a natural study for us since so much of our legal system has descended from the British.

        So I read your comments with great interest, but I must beg to differ. In any law suit (Civil or Criminal) a basic tenet of the practice of law lies in the fact that the defendant must be able to assist in his or her own defense. The defendant may not be versed in the law, but the defendant is in the best position to describe his own actions. This becomes particularly important in criminal cases where intent is a major part of the issue. In contested cases, for a jury to make a valid decision they must be able to view the evidence from both sides. To be able to present your case adequately, your advocate must not only know the facts of the case, but also the circumstances of the case, the mindset and worldview of the defendant and the conditions that may have made a defendant act in a particular manner. A multi-tiered scheme where the evidence is collected and witnesses are interviewed by one party and the advocacy rests in the hands of a second party does not allow the lawyer to get the best feel for the case. So when the solicitor interacts with the client and witnesses and the barrister makes the court call, you essentially have a situation where a mouthpiece is presenting you case. This person doesn’t know you, doesn’t know what your circumstances are or were and has absolutely no empathy with the client. (BTW this is why, if God forbid I’m ever in court, I will never hire an attorney where all the leg work is done by associates and some mouthpiece goes to court).

        So in the British system you have a barrister who may or may not have had extensive interactions with the client, has had no interactions with the witnesses and is relying on the evidence as presented to him by the solicitor. The chances of missing something are too high.

        Now comes the issue of the “hack driver” barrister. The next in line who will take you wherever you want to go as long as you have the fare. The problem here is a question of an attorneys subjectivity. No matter what the training, at the end of the day the attorneys are people. A person who believes in his clients case will always do a better job, than some detached person. If I am innocent, I want my attorney to be passionate about my defense, and if he has any doubts about that defense I don’t want him representing me. So if there is an attorney who feels that he can’t represent a client, not on the basis of the legalistics, but due to some personal issue, then I feel that he should not take the case and tell a prospective client to move on and find another lawyer.

        Lastly on the issue of theatrics. I think those are imposed on us by the jury system, which is a hopeless and severely flawed system, except for the fact that all other systems are worse. At the end of the day in the current US system the jury is the trier of fact and the judge is the trier of law. There is no cross over, which is why a American judge never does a summing up prior to handing the case over to the jury. It is not up to the judge to present the facts to the jury, or to summarize the facts of the case in any way. It is also not up to the judge to summarize the arguments to the jury. If there is a jury trial, the jury, and only the jury, is the judge of all facts. This naturally means that each side must emphasize, and in fact sell their side of the case to the jury. And so the theatrics. They’ll be there whether you have cameras or not.

        Of course the gaping hole in this system is that the jury must not just judge the veracity of the claims put forth by the attorneys, but must do them within the bounds of the law. The law is a very technical issue, and we rely on the judge to be able to instruct a jury of laypersons on the law in an extremely dry and mechanical recitation. While it is true that the jurors can ask for explanations, there is no check or even expectation of whether do in fact understand the nuances of the law. And on an appeal rarely is there a way to gauge whether or not the jury applied the law correctly, when determining the validity of a piece of evidence. But the alternative is either a bench trial or the british system where the judge in fact summarizes for the jury. The problem with the alternative is that the opinions of one person carry too much weight. I would rather risk my well being to the collective wisdom of 12 than the proclivity of one, especially since most judges make it to the bench via the prosecution side.

        • Al,

          I’m trying to think of how Martinez can spin the emails so I can be prepared and would like your opinion. I suspect, that on cross with AL, he will ask her whether people who are emotionally abusive always cross over into violence to which she will have to say no. ( I think she has already stated that anyhow.)

          If the rumors are true that Chris and Sky are rebut witnesses, then Martinez will ask whether they knew of Travis being physically violent with any of the women they knew and of course, knowing them, they will say no.

          That’s the only strategy I think can think of that would remotely effective although many of the jurors will already have their minds made up from AL testimony about the emails and the words themselves.

          Thoughts? (I’m not engineer smart so don’t laugh) LOL

          • JC,

            I think you nailed it. That is the only way he can go, unless there is some evidence somewhere of physical abuse, he will have to take the path that verbal, sexual and psychological abuse does not necessarily lead up to physical abuse.

            However I think the defense has two things going for it. The first one is that ALV has already testified, and I’m sure JW is going to bring this out further, that the cross-over from the non-physical to the physical abuse is a natural progression and so not something one would find a surprise.

            The second thing the defense has going for it is that they do not have to prove the physical abuse. In fact as tonysam always reminds us, very forcefully, the defense doesn’t have to prove anything. What the defense must do is point out to the jury that there are alternatives to JM’s theory and that Jodi’s claim of self defense has merit (probable cause). It is up to JM to prove that:

            1. There was no physical violence, even once. He can’t just claim I have seen no proof of physical violence. He has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was none. And given ALV’s testimony there is a distinct and real probability of such violence.

            2. Furthermore JM must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that given the circumstances that existed in that bathroom, on that day, at that very instance, Jodi as a reasonable person had no reason to believe that TA was not either assaulting her, intending to assault her, or threatening to assault her. The law and the jury instruction on this count is very clear. It is actually worded in a very pro-defendant manner. Here it is again

            “You must decide whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe that:
            physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another’s use, attempted use,
            threatened use, apparent attempted use, apparent threatened use, of unlawful physical

            “The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
            act with such justification. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the
            defendant not guilty of the charge”

            The key is in the “apparent attempted use, apparent threatened use” section. That apparent makes it such that TAs actions would seem to a reasonable person that he would ………

            I think they now have enough for that. Plus how the heck does JM disprove Jodi’s claim. There is no evidence. He would have to rely on she lied to you before, so she’s lying now.

            So his arguments all boil down to

            1. It is not necessary that TA had devolved to physical abuse, and
            2. Don’t believe her because she lied in the past.

            That still does not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he’s going to ask for DP on this?

        • Hi Al,

          I really really respect all of your study of law, and the magnitude of which you’ve been able to grasp certain concepts, given that you’re from an entirely different realm of thinking. Engineering, to me (and I could be wrong) always seems to be precision-based. Law is completely the opposite in many ways, and is really about interpreting statutes and applying opinions to the current situation. No precision involved but plenty of interpretation. There are not many people who can do both and think both ways, but you impress me as someone who really can.

          I totally agree with you about the importance of a criminal defendant assisting in his/her own defense. I also agree entirely that the jury must be able to consider all sides of the case in order to reach a fair balanced verdict. However, I do not agree that a layperson can represent themselves as well as someone skilled an practiced in the law can.

          Occasionally, one of the lawyers I’ve worked for would feel obliged to do a “favour” for a family member/friend in another area of the law, e.g., divorce, real estate, etc. It became readily apparent to me that one lawyer who specialized and was magnificent in one area of the law knew almost NOTHING about another area of the law. During my own divorce recently, I was painfully reminded of this fact. A divorce attorney is somewhat of a generalist in many areas. But, when it comes to business law involved in a divorce, you need a business lawyer. And when it comes to tax laws, you need a tax lawyer. I’ve learned this lesson again precariously through others I’ve met. For example, a dear friend who agreed to a divorce settlement almost two years ago now, is still awaiting resolution of the pension plan distribution because she expected her divorce attorney to complete her QDROs, instead of retaining an independent tax attorney, or even an accountant.

          That’s beside the point of the discussion. However, under the old British system, the barrister WAS the truest advocate for the client. The solicitor filtered out the unnecessary information provided by the client. Then, passed that along to the solicitor, who thereby, had an unbiased view, but reviewed the actual evidence. It was the barrister’s job and ethical responsibility then to present their best case.

          In my divorce, for example, while I was capable of researching basic Florida laws that pertained to divorce, I did not know the local court rules. Some were available online and I was able to avail of them. But even me, someone who went to law school and knew the jargon, was not able to discern everything I needed. Only a lawyer experienced in practicing in the local court truly knows all the nuances of that particular court.

          This becomes apparent in Jodi’s case in many instances where lay people speculate on what should or should not be entered into evidence, but without understanding rules of evidence and local rules in AZ, it’s not easy to understand why certain items can NOT be entered.

          The law in any case involves so much research of precedents and, prior to trial, there are often so many witnesses to interview, that, as you call it, a “multi-tiered scheme” of investigation is absolutely necessary. There is no way one person could possibly do it all. While I’m not sure about engineering, this occurs in many specialties. For example, in medicine, a specialist often reviews and interprets tests without any interaction with the patient, and passes that information along to the treating physician. It could easily be argued that the specialist has no empathy for the patient’s symptoms. That actually allows impartiality.

          You said: “BTW this is why, if God forbid I’m ever in court, I will never hire an attorney where all the leg work is done by associates and some mouthpiece goes to court”.

          I wish you luck with that one. Under our current legal system in the US, it would be virtually impossible for an attorney to continue to interact with his/her other clients and focus solely and exclusively on your case and all its many element, and solicit for new business at the same time. Actually, it would be impossible for one person to do the leg work for one case on his/her own. It is always a team effort and it requires a team.

          Under the former British system, the barrister specializes SOLELY in work presented to the court. He/she does not have to worry about soliciting new business. He/she does not have to worry about billing issues. He/she does not have to worry about taking calls from the client relating to the minutia of the client’s life. He/she does not have to receive a call from the client saying “I spoke with my aunt’s best friend and she wondered why we’re not focusing on blah blah blah because it seems relevant to this case and she saw it on Judge Judy,” when “blah blah blah” has absolutely NOTHING to do with this type of legal case whatsoever. (And you would NOT believe how often this occurs today, especially with trials being televised, Judge Judy and her ilk, and internet access.)

          The barrister is ethically bound NOT to miss something in a case and since he/she is not distracted by all the minutia, and knows he/she will be paid by the solicitor, and receive new cases from the solicitor, the barrister is able to focus entirely on the issues.

          Before witnesses testify, of course, the barrister will interview them. However, by that point, the barrister will have a very clear focus about the case. In addition, the barrister serves as a second set of eyes. Often, in the US system, an attorney experiences tunnel vision in that he/she has a certain strategy in mind and has difficulty seeing beyond that established strategy. The barrister looks at the case from all facets.

          I have a very good friend in Ireland who I’ve known since college when we dated. He is one of the most highly revered criminal defense barristers in Ireland. We have had long discussions about the differences between law in the US (which he’s fascinated with) and law in Ireland (which I’m somewhat fascinated with). After many discussions with him, I’m convinced their system far exceeds ours.

          You said “If I am innocent, I want my attorney to be passionate about my defense, and if he has any doubts about that defense I don’t want him representing me.” You may be surprised to learn (since I’m sure you have not been accused of a crime) that criminal defense lawyers generally do not ask their clients whether they are innocent or not. Back in the mid-80s when I first came to the US, I worked for a criminal defense lawyer. He was an older gentleman by then who had previously worked as a prosecutor for many many years. I was surprised that he had chosen his path in criminal defense subsequent to leaving the state’s attorney’s office. He had been a highly respected prosecutor, who many believed had risen to the level of being the successor to the state’s attorney, and that he should have run for office.

          When I learned his history, I was shocked, most especially because he mostly represented gang bangers accused of heinous crimes such as murder and rape. To be honest, his clientele scared me when they arrived with suitcases full of cash to pay their bills.

          In my 20 year old naivete I asked him “How on earth can you provide a good defense to these people when you previously prosecuted them?” He answered that, as a lawyer, it was his core belief that everyone was entitled to a fair trial. He said that the prosecutor’s office made mistakes, and perhaps his client was not guilty of that which they were accused. Alarmed, I asked if he knew. He said that he did not ever ask his clients about their guilt, and that most attorneys did not. Instead, he was passionate about ensuring a fair trial for everyone.

          You said “So if there is an attorney who feels that he can’t represent a client, not on the basis of the legalistics, but due to some personal issue, then I feel that he should not take the case and tell a prospective client to move on and find another lawyer.”

          There are always methods to do this, unless the attorney works for the public defender or the prosecutor. However, even an attorney who passionately believes in a case may later discover something that changes his/her perspective.

          In regards to judges, in both American and British law, judges play an enormous role in shaping and moderating the law. Our system is adversarial, with two opposing parties, an allegedly impartial moderator (the judge) and a jury of every day people who possess no legal training to decide the facts. I suspect the reason that more former prosecutors become judges than former defense attorneys because, in general, defense attorneys make more money and do not wish to give that up in order to assume a position on the bench. There was actually an old law school adage that A students went on to become law professors, while B students went on to become prosecutors and then judges. However, C students were the most likely to become millionaires. After all, if you graduate law school and pass the bar, you’re still a lawyer.

    • Al, this whole experience of feeling helpless, watching our officials run over our expected protections with impunity has had me very depressed.

      What you have just done in your post, is to name the injustice, and validate that our expectations to be governed fairly under our constitution are legitimate. This has given me a lift, whether it actually changes anything or not.

      Alyce LaViolette accomplished the equivalent vis a vis naming and validating the horrendous consequences that domestic violence causes to the human soul.

      I feel two inches taller, and am about to go outside and work in my yard. I have not been able to make myself get out of bed for a while, now!

      Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please continue your posts of rational enlightenment.

      I love your example of shedding light on our frustrations by naming and explaining, while eliminating any hint of “name-calling.”

      If we were not so darn frustrated by lack of validation for our legitimate outrage, I think we could let go of the name-calling and course language in our own posts.

      One small step up the ladder of “culture” on our forum of Jodi supporters 🙂

  61. I still do not understand how they can recall Chris Hughs to the stand after he has been talking his fool head off all this time. I think he lost alot of $$$ when Travis died. I do not really think he was a true friend, Travis was just a meal ticket. Let’s face it Travis was very good at his job. Chris wanted him to be happy but also had to keep him in check… anyone else find it very strange that Sky would loan a dress to JA? She didn’t even know her. I find it rather odd.

    As for Sky….I do not think she would tell the truth if her life depended on it. I hope I’m wrong.

    I hope you all have a wonderful weekend….Bless our little family and may God Bless Jodi….

    • I have wondered the same thing Cindy. I know Chris Hughes said he watches the trial everyday saying in his words not mine that “Jodi is killing TA all over again”. When I asked here before someone said he was not under subpoena anymore.

      I watched the 48 hours episode again last night with my Husband and they act so smug. Sky seems like a woman controlled by her husband. It appears they have been trying to cover up quite a bit. My Husband who cannot watch much of the trial and just hears my ranting, stated that the evidence just does not add up and there is just so much more to this story. As I said earlier my own father believes now that it was self defense. For the record my MoM and Dad have to watch the trial on HLN because they are void of all other technology. They now both believe it was self defense.

      • Their comments on 48 Hours, and indeed the comments by all of Travis’s friends, should be taken with a giant grain of salt. Unfortunately for Jodi, the prosecution and the police took their b.s. at face value, and here we are. The media have mostly been peddling the garbage all of these people have been pushing, and as a result they have little bearing on the truth.

        The fact the Hugheses had to authenticate those emails pretty gives the lie to their social media and general media comments. They both need to shut up about the case.

    • Did he lose money? Or, did he actually gain money? I don’t know anything about the structure of PPL, but I’m assuming it’s like most of these MLM companies. I tried Amway a long time ago. I was young and single and most of the people I knew were also young and single, and mostly guys. I was terribly unsuccessful, as the goal was to recruit families who would exclusively use Amway products for everything, not single guys with minimal needs. We each had to use a lot of Amway products in order for the people above us to make money. But that’s beside the point.

      The friend who convinced me to join was pretty new, so he enlisted the help of his upline (the guy who recruited him) to recruit me, Doug. Doug was amazing, very charismatic, could sell ice to the eskimos, and he and his wife were really supportive of my efforts, and of the 10 people I recruited. Unfortunately, only 2 of the people I recruited were good candidates who stuck with it.

      When I realized I wasn’t making any money and wasn’t likely to because I’d tapped out the vast majority of people I could potentially recruit, I felt really bad quitting because of all Doug’s help. I assumed me quitting would cost him money. He told me not to worry at all. Since I was in his downline, he got to decide what happened with the folks I recruited. He could take them over himself or put them under one of his other budding recruit stars as a “gift”. Either way, he continued to make money of them so none of his efforts helping me had been wasted.

      I talked to him a few months later, and one of the people under me had brought in a whole bunch of other people, so he’d ended up really profiting from it. Essentially, he’d only lost me (and apparently, the guy who initially recruited me), but he still gained from anyone either of us had recruited, and all the people they recruited, etc., etc. Losing me, therefore, was just a minor hit to his numbers, but because of the one person I recruited who was a star who recruited a lot of other people, it was a net gain for him. It put him on track to become a “Diamond” in Amway which gave him a higher percentage of his downline’s money. This is the way most MLMs work from everything I know.

      If PPL works the same way, then Chris Hughes got to do something similar with Travis’s recruits and all of their recruits, etc., etc. The only thing he lost was Travis’s ability to recruit folks to PPL. If Travis was struggling financially at the time of his death, maybe his recruiting ability had kind of tapped out anyway.

      • Good post!

        i do think they relied on Travis’ “motivational” speaking order to get more recruits. Travis may not have been making much, but if he gave talks and then the Hughes recruited based on that then losing Travis may have hurt.

        Cause, lets face it, Chris H. looks like a lying asshole and I wouldn’t trust him!

        • Hahaha BeeCee. I haven’t studied the guy that much but then, I didn’t think Travis was all that charismatic.

          Getting people to do speeches is not easy. After all, it’s one of the biggest challenges for most people. That’s probably why most MLMs hire *real* motivational speakers for that. Travis saved them money on that, I’m sure.

      • Yes my husband briefly worked at a Multi Layer Marketing company aka Pyramind Scheme or Triangle lol. I will not mention the name but it was such a fraud and took advantage of people. They have been closed down several times in the city I live in but they keep popping up with a new name.

  62. for all you hater stalkers here, you know who you are:

    The reason the full Travis/Hughes emails have not been entered into evidence is more likely due to the fact that asshole Kermit doesn’t want them in because they HELP Jodi’s defense case.

    Y’all are too stupid too recognize this. The defense would GLADLY have them in, they have had to fight for every shred of something that helps Jodi against that asswipe of a prosecutor.

    • And if I was on the jury and heard about these emails I would certainly question why the prosecution didn’t want me to see them. They are hearing facts confirming what Jodi stated, and the prosecutor won’t let them read these emails and calls them irrelevant …. hmmmm

      • exactly sz I posted something similar above. Since JM is trying so hard to keep those emails out the Jury must know someting is not right. That would be my jury question.

        • Exactly – well put. Why is the prosecutor afraid of the truth when the job of the prosecution is to show the truth and let the jury decide

          • Well, this is actually a very tricky and somewhat sticky subject. For one thing, emails are still considered relatively new in terms of legal decisions and precedents. There are certain evidentiary rules (based on federal evidentiary rules) which require authenticating an email. Travis isn’t alive to testify that he did, indeed send and receive the chain of emails in question. Some legal precedents have required that each and every email in a chain must be authenticated and subjected to admissibility rules before being admitted. While I’m not certain how many emails are in the chain in question, judging by Ms. LaViolette’s statements about there being several pages, I can assume there were several emails.

            Emails tend to be informal, not including a signature (except in corporate environments), and that makes authenticity difficult. How can you prove that Travis was sitting at his computer writing that email at that exact moment?

            • But the Hugheses apparently did authenticate them; otherwise, they would not be introduced at trial.

              Please note the post by Al regarding rule 703, I think it is, the one JM kept referring to in his objections yesterday.

              • Right, the Hughes couple can authenticate THEIR emails, but there is no one to authenticate Travis’s because he’s dead, and he’s the only one who could do so. Does that make sense?

                The 703 rule Al mentioned has to do with the fact that the expert witness was allowed to refer to the emails as something she considered while forming her opinion. However, that doesn’t make the emails themselves admissible in evidence. Since she was not allowed to quote from them — and I’m not even sure she should really have paraphrased as much as she did — I’m assuming that the defense previously tried to have those emails admitted into evidence and the judge did not find cause to do so.

                When I say I’m not sure she should have paraphrased as she did, I’m speaking from perhaps a more legal perspective (I’m not a lawyer, but, since I went to law school, I may tend to think like one at times, I’m told) and JM was objecting to the quoting and paraphrasing, which I understand was probably appropriate — albeit annoying (at the risk of someone getting mad at me for this). JW was careful to say that Ms. LaViolette should not quote and I think what she was trying to do was persuade her to be more generalized about the nature of the emails (the general subjects discussed). I was a bit surprised that Ms. LaViolette didn’t have more experience in doing this (albeit it’s probably an unusual situation) or that she wasn’t better prepared by JW as to how to refer to those emails. I think this opens up a line of cross where JM can allude to the fact that Jodi wasn’t always truthful and the Hughes could have relied upon Jodi’s statements when writing those emails.

                By the way, the 703 rule states: “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field
                in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be
                admissible in evidence.”

                So what the defense is doing is finding a sort of “backdoor” method of getting the information regarding the emails to the jury, even though the emails themselves are not admitted into evidence.

                Yes, this will cause the jury to wonder why, but they will be given specific instructions on this, I would imagine.

                • AA, What do they call it..there’s some words.. thinking… you know, when the court has already heard what TA said to Jodi on tape, the threats.. a law on the balance of probability.. something like that?

                • Because its highly probable that these emails WERE written by Travis and it would to my mind, be very unfair if they weren’t allowed to be used as evidence, despite what the State and that beast JM wants–and the judge.