site
stats
Menu

Trial Day 51 – April 23rd, 2013 [REPLAY]

in Latest News by

.
Today’s 2013 replay rolls into Day 51 with a veritable feast of clueless witnesses, including:

Jacob Mefford, Amanda Webb (Walmart), Chelsea Young (Tesoro) & Deanna Reed… plus the direct, cross, redirect & juror questions from the Mesa PD camera guy & rebuttal witness, Michael Melendez.

Click the links to read my original posts & comments submitted from Trial Day 51: Morning session.
Afternoon session.

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

Trial Day 51 – April 23rd, 2013:

Part 1/3:

Jacob Mefford – rebuttal witness – direct/cross/redirect
Amanda Webb (Walmart) – rebuttal witness – direct + juror question
Chelsea Young (Tesoro) – rebuttal witness – direct/cross/redirect
Deanna Reed  – rebuttal witness – direct (to noon recess)

Part 2/3:

Deanna Reed  – cross/redirect + juror questions + pros/defense follow-up
Michael Melendez (Mesa PD) – rebuttal witness – direct/cross

Part 3/3:

Michael Melendez cross/redirect + juror questions

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

Remember: WE ARE TEAM JODI – AND WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS in our quest for JUSTICE FOR JODI!

Leave your thoughts and comments below…

SJ
Team Jodi

If you would like to help Jodi by way of a financial donation to the official JAA APPELLATE FUND, click the Team Jodi link below for further details. All donations go directly to the fund for assisting with the legal fees associated with appealing Jodi’s wrongful conviction. Thank you for your support!

We Are Team Jodi ---- And We Will Be Victorious!

.

110 Comments

      • Sorry all I can think of are those u tube video’s…We away the people from Wal-Mart!! Lmao! U have to look it up. ! LOL ! There is a mysterious man going around Wal-Mart having women believe he is some foot doctor. He then get s these women to take their shoes off, and sucks on their toes!!! He is wanted by 2 Wal-Mart stores!
        Do u think it may be possible for a Wal-Mart employee to not give back proper receipts? Considering that they have had lawsuits, especially back in the first years of operations. WAL-MART OR WE CALL WALLY WORLD was hiring under age children. They were also working these young employees, beyond the hours the state department of Labor allows. So I do believe JA as far as they didn’t know how or didn’t care to write out the correct paperwork. This was in 2008 too, so not so advanced and professional as there services are now. Hehehe!! Plus ,I guess the store moved so that YOUNG MANAGER from Wal-Mart waisted all that time ,looking at the wrong register.
        It’s not funny , but there is a reason for Tom Cruise teaching his younger brother …..WAL-MART SUX !
        ” definitely definitely definitely sux” – Rainman.
        Madeline ..is .smiling SUN IS OUT AND I HEAR BIRDS,COULD THIS BE SPRING???

        Some of my Buddha wisdom daily reading s , a gift from a special friend. Today’s says..

        If you have faith and live a proper life,
        then people will be drawn to you.
        For those who are good shine like a mountain peak,
        while those who are bad disappear into the darkest valley.
        – Buddha Wisdom verses 303 ,& 304
        SHINE ON JODI ! Haters gonna Hate ..and disappear!
        So keep shining !
        Love ,your supporter in it ,for the long haul XXOO
        =) »»»»Madeline«««««««

        • <<<< ANGRY WITH T A?
          What did you think he was doing with Jodi? Did you know at all they were taking trips together,while you watched his pug? Napster?
          Why wouldn’t he tell you the truth about his trips?
          How did he feel about you dating ? –
          Where you dating at all?
          What were your true feelings for a man you spent 5-8 yrs of your life with?
          Where were you on JUNE 4,2008??
          Did.u call TA at all bf he was supposed to leave for CANCUN? Where you supposed to watch NAPSTER during that trip?
          Or did u ask TA who was watching him?
          Did you ever talk with your bishop about TA ever again after the 1st time?
          Did TA buy you any gifts? If so what were they ?
          ……….. oh I could go on… When a friend called you about TA around the time his body was found..can you explain what happened? Who called ,and what did they say?
          Was TA close to his family members besides his grandmother,?
          How often in the years u knew him ,How many visits were there ? (With his sister’s and brothers?)
          What do you think of Jodi? And what gave you that impression of her?
          When was the sexual encounter you had with TRAVIS? Or romantic moment shared u shared with him? A kiss ,a nap ??
          What do you think of about PPL?
          Have you met Eddie Snell?
          ——– NURMI COME ON !!! Darn u !! She is a well of information on TA!! With more motive ,then JA!
          IMO –
          Madeline

        • Thank you ((Mad)) or Madeline for bringing up the subject of the Wal Mart register receipts & the third gas can, that I say ((she returned)) and Jodi did not lie !! …Here is an excerpt from my blog comment on another site through disqus.com/WLOPEZ4JAA listed under …A Perry Mason Moment by Tricks & Misdirection?? ..& was the jury snookered by the prosecution inferring.. gas purchases ..third gas can ..6/06/2008 .. etc???
          …..Short excerpt/paraphrasing:
          …And the prosecution would argue that she lied when she said she returned the third gas can. .. But, he could not get his Perry Mason Moment so I believe he had to misdirect the jury. ..I suggest he did this by getting the business clerk from Wal Mart to say that there is ((NO RECORD of ANY)) gas can returned to that store, that day. ..BUT SHE QUALIFIED IT by saying UNLESS THERE WAS HUMAN ERROR. …So, the clerk inferred it was not impossible ((that means that it was possible)) that a gas can was returned & there might not be a register record. ..So, the prosecutor figured a way to sneak in the third gas can later in his closing questions to MAKE IT APPEAR that Jodi did have that third gas can from Wal Mart. .. …He did this by getting the business clerk from the oil company to show the three charge receipts & etc of 6/06/2008, & (snookering) the jury into thinking Jodi was not telling the truth on the third gas can, ..etc..etc. …Jodi is absolutely innocent of premeditation & innocent by her perception of her need of self defense from his multistage attacks. …(In my opinion).

          • …In my above comment when I referred to the Walmart witness saying: ‘ UNLESS THERE WAS HUMAN ERROR…” ….it is on Trial Day 51 4/23/2013 Part 1/3 Amanda Webb at point 23:35 of 1:30:33 video where, …when asked by prosecution …was anything refunded involving this …?? …She said: …..I WOULD SAY NO, (((THERE IS HUMAN ERROR))) BUT I WOULD SAY NO….. To me & to any reasonable juror this should mean that she is (((dismissing her entire testimony))) because she is inferring that: **IT IS POSSIBLE that the item (kerosene can) could have been returned for a refund, because there is human error** …The prosecutor is trying to make the jury believe that the defense has to prove the Walmart witness wrong such that there is not, & can not be any human error in this case. …And in regards to another comment I read yesterday by ((Journee)) about possibility of no record on the kerosene can return: …ring the item once, then void it twice…. …This makes perfect sense as to what could have happened to show ((NO RECORD of the kerosene can being returned)) by Jodi, so she IS TELLING THE TRUTH. ….. And, I think back about all the times I go to the grocery store, the cashiers are always, always, scanning an item & then voiding it & scanning it again. Usually they put the ‘light on’ for a manager to come & authorize the void but they do it all the time. …It is just looks like Jodi never did return the kerosene can because they probably rang it up once & voided it twice, & refunded her cash, how the hell would she know what they did, they just took the can & gave her money back. ..(((She did not lie)))….. (((Prosecutor accusation busted))).

          • I’m not Mad (or mad either, lol) — but it’s kind of a fact of life that when employers refuse to pay even a living wage, a certain percentage of their employees are likely to do as little as they can get away with.

            There are ways to process returned merchandise and give cash back without throwing the cash drawer out of balance – AND without actually performing the action labeled on the register as “return”.

            • So what you are saying Journee is that you think there is a good possiblity that the individual working at the cash register simply didn’t take a record of this kerosene can return? Just put the kerosene can back where it was an hour ago or so and returned Jodi her money. There was an individual telling me that the employee at Walmart would have to cross out the item on Jodi’s reciept because it was necesary so that she doesn’t return a kerosene can to another store. However, Walmart allows people to return things without a reciept so long as the purchase was $25 or less. However, the person I was debating this with said that Jodi would have to show a reciept because the entire reciept costed Jodi more than $25. I thought that this was just crap, but I was wondering if that is what Mad was referring to. It does not seem logical that you would have to have the entire reciept if you are only returning one item on it. I do remember when I worked at Wendy’s that there were employees who would ring up customer’s purchases at the drive thru and then delete the purchases and take the money.

              • “So what you are saying Journee is that you think there is a good possiblity that the individual working at the cash register simply didn’t take a record of this kerosene can return?”

                Yes. It’s easy: ring the item once, then void it twice. And the REASON many cashiers are just as glad to do it that way is because it spares all the annoying paper the register spits out for an actual ‘return’, where there’s usually not just one but two slips the customer has to fill out with name/address/phone#/reason for return.

                And yes, you’re right, it’s ‘crap’ that they wouldn’t take an $7 item back without a receipt because the whole purchase was more than $25 – hello? how would the cashier know that if there is no receipt? 😀

                • And also when I worked at Soft touch Car Wash, there were employees that would take the money from customres who wanted a works wash (more expensive than a regular car wash) and press regular wash into the computer and keep the difference.

                • The “kero” can was $12.96 at Walmart Store # 2458. She paid cash for it (and four other items).

                  JM never referred to it as a “kerosene” can in court, AFAIK. I think he called it a “fuel can”.

                • I now remember that it was only the $1 items that employees at Wendy’s could erase and profit off of themselves. I’d like to say that was all anyways.

          • Hi, Journee!

            I just wanted to tell you that I just love your posts!!! You make me laugh and I love it!!!
            I love your sense of humor! You made my day with your above comment!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

            I’m still laughing, Journee – OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            I know this happened once before & it always happens just when I need it! Thank you!

            (((((JOURNEE)))))

  1. whichtrial, I do not see a “calendar” function anywhere. Can you explain what you mean? Suppose I want to find old comments from, say, 5/6/13. How can I do that?

      • Thanks! I could swear it wasn’t there last time I looked. Omg, can I really be as dumb as that? Well, maybe, since this morning I looked all over for my reading glasses, which were on my nose at the time.

        • Well, if it makes you feel any better:

          a) I didn’t know about it until whichtrial mentioned it and I went looking for it, and

          b) “all the way at the bottom” might be in different places in regards to where on the page you are reading or writing – as I am writing now if I make an arrow like whichtrial made —–> I am pointing at the justice for jodi/appellate fund banner that is just above the calendar. But it the arrow won’t be pointing there at all once this posts, and won’t come anywhere near it if more posts come before and after this one. LOL, that made sense didn’t it?

          • Thanks Journee & whichtrial? & chris, …I never did know that function existed till chris inquired about it. I always wondered if older posts & comments just disappeared. … I did go to the picture of the calendar bottom right & had to ratchet back through the months to 2013 to May, & select May 6, ….sure enough, there is the 5/6/13 that chris was asking about, with 1,142 comments. ….OMG, I am on this site near 14 months & just learned how to search in that way. …Thank you-all………

            • WLOPEZ4JAA, There were days when comments totaled several thousand, under two or three different posts, or “headings” a day.

              • Thanks, & I see that the calendar is not all the way on bottom but just under picture of Jodi. And that only the dates of the month (in blue) are able to be searched, now I understand more than I did an hour ago. …..

  2. Thanks. But if I were really as smart as I thought I am, I would have asked: what did whichtrial’s arrow point at *when whichtrial wrote it*? So I guess I’m not in, say, Jack Reacher’s class.

        • Yes, he’s the equally brawny and brainy protagonist of Lee Child’s long series of thrillers. And played in one movie by Tom Cruise, who is about a full foot shorter. On the whole, I guess my favorite fictional detective/action hero.

          • Glad to know Reacher’s not an over-zealous prosecutor. With a name like that, I can imagine him grilling Jason Bourne about his identity.

  3. SJ, ADMIN. and TEAM JODI!

    I just want to tell you all that it is a sad day when you make a statement in support of someone (our JODI, of course) who has been unfairly treated and convicted, to, hopefully, make it known to as many people as possible, on a social site for everyone, of the injustice that has been done to this person, and like out of nowhere come swarms of (I don’t even know how to describe them) on some kind of a rampage, on the attack, using vulgar language and calling you all kinds of degrading names because you made this statement!!! These ? post their words of hate and death for Jodi! Then some of (them) even believe this is “normal” behavior as they say they are so thankful that they are “normal” ? What kind of people are they???

    I experienced the above when I posted on Twitter this weekend! I posted, “FREE JODI ANN ARIAS!!! NO EVIDENCE! NO PROOF! FALSELY ACCUSED (of premeditated/M1), UNJUSTLY IMPRISIONED” and out they came in droves!

    Like I responded to a few, if it makes them feel better by resorting to calling me names, etc., that won’t stop me from supporting Jodi!

    I just wanted to share this with all you who, like me stand in support and justice for Jodi! I am proud to voice my support of our sweet, Jodi, at any opportunity that I have and I always will but…

    I just can’t tell you enough, SJ, how thankful that I am for you providing this place, where we all who love, support, and want justice for Jodi, can come and be among decent, loving, caring, “NORMAL” – LOL!), intelligent, wonderful people, who know how unjust Jodi’s trial and convictions are!!!

    Thank you, SJ, ADMIN. and all TEAM JODI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (((((JODI) (((((FREE JODI))))) (((((SJ & ADMIN.) (((((TEAM JODI)))))

    WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS!!!

    Hope everyone had a great weekend!!! Love you all!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • My sweet Mary,

      I am really sad to hear that you were attacked. This is a little advice I’d like to share with you:

      When my laptop broke down and I was away for a while, I then realized what I missed mostly from internet: my chatting, e-mailing and sharing things with loved ones. I really missed this site, all Jodi support pages at fb and of course all the wonderful people that associate with supporting Jodi: as I like to call all you guys: ‘My cyber family’.

      What I didn’t miss AT ALL was the hatred, the bullying and the abuse of people that didn’t agree with us. I realized that I had spent way toooooo much of my precious time reading at the haters’ pages about how they despise us, how they pity us, how they hate Jodi, how they wish for her death and all that crap and bullshit.

      Since I fixed my laptop, I never once went back to reading about what they were saying, who they were accusing for what or whatever else they might be writing. It was crystal clear that they don’t know us, we don’t know them. It shouldn’t affect us at all.

      If their life is slightly more interesting because they choose to spend their waking hours in spewing hate, bullying and mocking Jodi, her family, her friends and all that support her, then so be it… We cannot fight what they think. I personally chose to remove them from my life. They are not important to me. I am indifferent to their existence.

      We focus on what is important: Jodi’s justice, our love and positive energy.

      I hope this helped a bit.

    • Yeah, sounds familiar
      I get such scathing responses all the time when I say something in support of Jodi on Youtube or on Twitter,
      I just pay no mind to them.
      Some nutjobs will even disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing (trolls), not because they really disagree with your message.

      • Alexey,

        Yeah, you’re right about all you said! I guess the best thing to do, like you and Pandora said is to basically just pay them no mind and just focus on what is important: Jodi’s justice, our love and positive energy!

        Thank you!

    • Hi Mary,

      Beautiful post BTW. I know exactly how you feel. I just got back from a vacation visiting family and friends and I avoided the Internet at all costs. While I was away, I had an epiphany not unlike Pandora’s. I realized how small these haters really are and where I used to feel a lot of anger and bemusement towards them, I now feel sorry for them. It frankly makes me sad to see how pathetic they really are.

      These people are parents of children and I bet that their kids have more sense than most of them do. They probably want nothing to do with them which is why Mom and Dad have so much time to spend online attacking you, me, Jodi and anyone else who supports her. I would actually have some respect for them if they established a legitimate website that presented their side with facts and ethics instead of the lies and tomfoolery that goes on there. Some of them seriously need psychological help if they don’t have it already, but I personally think that a few of them are beyond help.

      It hasn’t always been easy for me, but I have learned that I need to focus and concentrate on the people that love and care about me instead of the ones who don’t mean a damn thing to me or my life.

      On a positive note, I came back from vacation and was greeted with a new letter from Jodi. I won’t reveal what she wrote out of respect for her privacy and wishes, but let me reassure you that she’s positive, confident and not afraid. And I tell you what, I’m proud to call Jodi a friend.

      I have great faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ, but I’m not a religious hypocrite. I am humbled by the sacrifices that Jesus made for all of us while He was here. And, even if you don’t believe that Christ was the son of God, I think that even most non-believers can find some inspiration with the message. Jesus said “Love thy neighbor” and that includes those who wish to destroy us. We truly are a family amongst a circle of friends and while I wish that the circumstances surrounding that were different, I truly am grateful to all of you and for Team Jodi.

      Keep your chin up and stay positive even when things look bleak. Tomorrow is another day and I believe the best is yet to come. As Ronald Reagan once said, “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted; it belongs to the brave.” So continue to be brave, be strong and don’t let a small group of individuals whose domains will be rendered obsolete within a year or two get you down. They may have won yesterday and they may have a slim lead over us today, but they won’t win tomorrow. Have faith in the justice system. Have faith in your fellow man and woman. Have faith in Jodi, your friends, family and yourselves. This race is far from over.

      • Hi, Jeff!

        Thank you so much for the beautiful words of encouragement!!! That was just awesome!

        I especially like your last paragraph where you stated, THE RACE IS FAR FROM OVER!!! Yes, it is!

        Yeah, you’re right in the statement of not letting a small group of people get me down and I’m not going to anymore! I really don’t have time to waste on that childish pettiness! As in the song on here “Survivor” – “my Mama taught me better than that”!!! I seriously was going to ask this one hater if they were old enough to be on Twitter and I was serious! They sounded like they were in grade school and I didn’t know if I should be carrying on any conversation with them! I didn’t ask though, I just left it alone and quit responding!

        I do have to tell you a comment that I said back to this one hater because I think it is funny and it got favored by another supporter also! When I was stooping to the hater’s level for a little while, this hater put that she was so thankful that she was her & normal. My response was, I am VERY thankful that I am me and normal! Who said you’re normal? LOL!

        Yes, we don’t have time for that kind of back and forth petty nonsense, for sure! We have much more important business to attend to, like you said!!!! Jodi, our friends, family and ourselves!

        (((((JODI))))) (((((JEFF))))) (((((TEAM JODI))))) (((((SJ & ADMIN.)))))

        Thanks, again, Jeff!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • I can understand ((Mary Williams)) that there are a multitude of bullies out there who feel a need to do exactly what Jodi said: something to the effect that a psychologist once told her that society has a need to persecute people. And with the internet it is so easy for them to do, in secret. …I bet that even in this country when there were public hangings that people came from all around with their families just to watch & be entertained. …But the table is turning, …as there are many, many, many, innocent people or overcharged persons in prisons in many states unjustly convicted by bobble-head judges permitting prosecution teams to snooker the juries by misdirection of the evidence and any other tactic. …Judges should not be on the side of the State, the prosecution & the police. …That is my opinion. …Please google Jeffrey MacDonald, the Green Beret doctor convicted & sentenced to 3 life terms for killing his family in 1970. … He is awaiting a new trial or the sentence to be vacated very soon. … I just noticed that the person who wrote ‘Fatal Vision’ the book that was supposed to help MacDonald, did just the opposite of that. …..That author just died Mar 11, 2014. … Let’s pray to St Joan of Arc to guide Dr MacDonald to set the wheels in motion for his sentence to be vacate & in the near future for Jodi’s conviction to be vacated …. …I pray………

  4. Question: Does anyone remember, was it the autopsy photo of that gaping neck wound that Martinez left up on display for the jurors to gaze at while he was at sidebar? Was the sidebar in relation to an objection by the defense regarding the photo? Also, did Martinez (or anyone) make it clear to the jurors that that gaping wound was a result of the medical examiner’s handiwork and not what Jodi did?

    • The neck wound photo was taken 5 days after travis had been dead, thus he was already at the stage of decomposition. If someone researches ‘knife wound decomposition’ they will find out that a knife wound (or any other wound for that matter) in a corpse results in discoloration, swelling and softening of external tissues and internal organs.

      That photo was gruesome – no doubt about it – BUT it’s not how travis’s neck wound looked when it was done. It’s 5 days after… that photo was another one of kermit’s ‘blow below the belt’/ ‘special effects’ attempt to freak out the jury and everyone else, for that matter.

      • I agree.
        Even more, all autopsy photos are gruesome.
        I would prohibit prosecutors from showing autopsy photos in a courtroom because they have no probative value, they only prejudice the jury against the defendant. The jury sees a couple of such photos and immediately condemns the defendant in their minds, without paying much attention to the rest of the trial. Such photos poison the minds of the jurors.

    • PS, if I’m not mistaken, before that stunt (memorable because Alexanders left the courtroom in hysterics) he did the same thing to Leslie Uday and one of the explicit photos of Jodi, then left the photo up while he went to sidebar. (I think it was Uday – might have been a different witness/photo, but he did it with a sexually explicit photo as well)

      • That is just lower than low!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We know ALL his shameful stunts and he thinks he got away with all of them!!! Uh aw! Nope, he sure DIDN’T get away with anything!!! For the time being maybe, but like Jeff said, this race is FAR FROM OVER!!! All his nauseating stunts will backfire on him in the end!!!

    • Nothing but a pathetic stunt!
      It was during Lisa Andrews Didone’s cross examination and the dialogue went like this:

      MARTINEZ: -” And ma’am with regard to everything that he did to you, in how you feel and how you know of the circumastances and situation you were in, with regard to exhibit 205. do you think in YOUR mind, because you were the one that’s experiencing, do you think…”
      WILMOTT: – ”Objection, you Honor”
      MARTINEZ: -”..what do you, what is it, do you..”
      WILMOTT- ”Objection to that being shown, Judge. That is completely irrelevant. And it’s quite frankly extremely(inaudible)”
      JUGDE:- ”Counsel approach”

      At this point, Lisa is of course shocked and disgusted (and who can blame her?) there are gasps being heard from the Alexanders (again, who can blame them?),Tanisha lowers her head so as not to have to look at the photo and Samantha exits in a rather flamboyant (for my taste at least) way.

      That was the lowest of the low. WHERE oh where are Kermit’s strong arguments, where is his irrefutable proof of premeditation? Has anyone kept count of the many many such theatrical stunts he pulled during the 5 months of the trial? Would he need them IF he had solid proof to convict Jodi of M1?
      Hope I helped refresh your memory 🙂

      • JM left up the photographic line-up that showed Jodi smiling in the fifth position (created by Nathan Mendes so the car rental man might I.D. her) during the introduction of an entirely new set evidence. But that photo line-up wasn’t presented in court as merely a set of routine mug shots, nor does it appear that the prosecution intended for them to be taken as such.

        That photographic image of Jodi was freighted with the implied caption, “Liar”. It had been viewed in direct association with testimony from Mendes that had suggested Jodi had been duplicitous when renting the car, and now that photo was being seen in connection with her travel record.

        I don’t know why evidence would be permitted to be presented in that juxtaposed manner, or if only a push-over judge like Stephens would allow it, but the photo line-up displaying Jodi’s nervous smile was still in view during the entire receipt presentation as JM and Mendes introduced each item into evidence.

        During Mendes’ explanation for the court as to how the photo line-up would be shown to an eye witness and what the admonitions are with respect to that process, the photos of the six women had been up. They stayed up during questioning by JM of Mendes as to what the car rental man had told Mendes after he I.D’d Jodi. Over KN’s objections, Mendes quoted the man as having said, “except that she had blond hair”.

        It was evident that Jodi’s hair was a rich brown in the photo the jury was seeing now – the same color Jodi’s hair was while she sat before them, accused. This testimony from the rental man took place before Jodi was to say on direct that she had dyed her hair back to brown before leaving Mesa for Yreka, (and had to do it twice because the first time it didn’t “take”).

        The stark mugshots of Jodi and five other dark-haired women, taken together with the implication that she had disguised herself for the trip to Mesa, would have “colored” the jury’s perceptions as they viewed the new exhibits. It likely had the net effect of distracting them from taking a hard, unvarnished look at Jodi’s paperwork.

        From the time Jodi left Salinas (Daryl said her hair was brown that day) to the time she arrived in Mesa, there was zero time to color-treat her hair from blond to brown. If she had done that, she would have needed a bathroom in a motel, and she would have arrived in Mesa at 6:00AM, at the very earliest. And, as we all know, motels require I.D. and keep records.

        Nurmi maintained his usual quizzical expression as the road trip receipts were entered into evidence against that prejudicial backdrop. He was to call for a mistrial later that day, Day Five of the trial, January 10, 2013.

        • One witness the jury supposedly heard from, though there doesn’t seem to be any video or audio recording of the testimony, was the Yreka police officer who responded to the grandparent’s house after the burglary. That officer’s police report, however, IS in evidence. On that report, Jodi is described as having brown hair and brown eyes.

      • The sidebar lasted just over five minutes, during which time everyone in the courtroom struggled to find a place to look where they wouldn’t see that photo. When he was told he could continue, he took the picture down and spent another thirty seconds stumbling over a question of whether or not any of the awful things Travis did to Lisa would warrant someone taking a knife and slashing his throat – and another objection and another sidebar.

        Day 11, part 2/3

      • I think the Objection was sustained because (though in the clip I just re-watched it is inaudible what Pickles says after the sidebar) when Martinez comes back he looks at his notes and his next question is:
        ” One of the things you were asked about was Mr Alexander’s virginity. Do you rememebr that?”

  5. Haters kept saying that Jodi’s expert witnesses were opportunists,
    So I looked up Martnez’s salary and in 2009 he made a whopping $130,000 !
    Not too shabby for a loudmouth like Martinez!
    Now who’s the real opportunist here? (hint: his initials are JM)

    • Opportunists? Haters wanna talk about opporrtunists? LMAOOOOO!
      I have ONE name for them: D-E M-A-R-T-E.
      Enough said… 🙄

    • $130,000 isn’t such a whopper of a salary. Martinez is paid a yearly salary, by the state. It doesn’t matter if he does 1 trial or 20 trials in a year. On the other hand, isn’t Nurmi getting around $200 per hour for this ONE trial? Then in his private practice, doesn’t he defend sex offenders? I’m sure he’s not doing it for free. I have no real feelings for anyone involved in this trial, but I think to call someone an opportunist over their salary doesn’t really make sense.

    • Maria,

      Thank you so much! The first time I held it down too long, & then I backed up and took off the last letter – lol! I feel SO STUPID & embarrassed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Journee, I had no idea what or where or how to do menu but thanks for telling me!

      Man, I’m a mess this morning! I think I need to go to bed, I have been up all night!!!!!!!!!!!!

      🙂 🙂 🙂

  6. HA! ((((((Mary))))) Thanks for missing me but I’m here, trying to read and catch up with all of you! I’ve got out of town guests (ugh but 🙂 ) so I’m reading your posts. Thanks Team Jodi for keeping on top of everything for JODI ! Love to Everyone of You! (((((((Jodi)))))))) ((((((Team Jodi))))))

  7. Here’s something else I’ve been cogitating on – the theft of the gun at grandpa’s house. I know that dissenters would say the theft is circumstantial evidence proving her guilt but isn’t even circumstantial evidence required to be proven if it’s going to be used as evidence? There is no proof (of course) that Jodi stole the gun so how was it possible for Martinez to introduce it in as evidence? How can the State use one unproven crime to prove a different crime?

    • I’ve wondered the same thing, especially since her grandfather’s gun theft occurred in a different state.

      But that’s one of the main reasons JM wanted the “knife first”. It was to give weight to the “unwelcome in the house” version of the burglary scenario. There were several problems that the state had to overcome with the gunshot itself vis a vis Jod’s self-defense claim:

      1) There was only one shot fired; hence it could have been seen as accidental, (so where is premeditation or intent to inflict bodily harm?)
      2) The gun might have been knocked out of her hand, and if that is the case, why didn’t either one of them retrieve it and fire it again? If the shot came first and was incapacitating, he wouldn’t have made it down the hallway, obviously. But there is evidence in that autopsy report that it was not incapacitating.
      2) It is evident that she didn’t fire straight ahead at his chest as he approached her. The bullet went in at an “awkward” angle, again suggesting chaos and a lack of premeditation.
      3) If the shot had been accidental, it would have been likely to give rise to a pause in the fight. There was aspirated blood spatter in the sink, suggesting that for some moments, such a pause had occurred.

      A lull in the fight is a tremendous problem for the state; it supports Jodi’s claim of an accidental gunshot, as well as her claim of self-defense, since it is a fact that she did not continue to fire that weapon, even when he was coughing up blood from his sinuses into the sink. It is PROBABLE that she did not feel the need to retrieve the weapon from the floor to brandish again in a protective stance in the moments after they collected themselves from the floor. So what would have re-ignited the fight? TA’s awareness that he had been hit by the shot is a likely impetus. So that is why JM offered an alternative, supposititious argument that she “stabbed” him in the back while he was at the sink, – notwithstanding the fact that when he put forth that argument, the state’s case was already re-tooled to assert that the gunshot was last, a scenario that, according to their own argument, gives TA no reason to examine himself or turn his back on Jodi at the sink and mirror with a knife fight underway.

      Nor could JM fully embrace a claim of second degree burglary that would assert that Jodi had an intention to steal his gun when she entered the premises, and only killed Travis in furtherance of a gun burglary, (another supposititious argument) a theft which he couldn’t conclusively prove either because the gun was not found in her possession. But bear in mind, there is no logic at all to the notion that the homicide only occurred in furtherance of a burglary of any item. That was another problem for the state, because most importantly, as per the jury instructions, “The state must prove each element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.”

      JM muddied the waters of the Felony Murder Charge, which included burglary, with statements about BOTH missing guns, but when he discusses the Felony Murder Charge at the end of Day Nine of the trial before the judge, he says that the main issue being addressed by that charge is that she was no longer welcome in the house once the fight was underway. Therefore, a “burglary” occurred, he says, because once she began stabbing him, it was “not a situation” where she stopped. He knows a fight without a pause must be one in which that gunshot was last.

      There is one more crucial reason that it is to the state’s advantage to claim that the gunshot was last. Such a scenario removes that shot from the timeline implied by the camera time stamps. I do not believe that there is expert proof or a statement in court that TA was dead in the “dragging” 05:32:16 photo. Jodi only said that she supposed he was in that photo under intense questioning by JM (in spite of KN’s overruled objections). Jodi had already said that she couldn’t remember what had happened at that point in time, so she was only agreeing with the probability of it, not saying that she could actually remember. But later, JM accuses her of lying when he says that in her version, there isn’t enough time for everything to have occurred, given those time stamps.

    • I have an idea of how to argue to a new jury that Jodi did not take her grandpa’s gun:
      …. by using an alternate substitute weapon as an EXAMPLE to argue that there were TWO GUNS & it is a COINCIDENCE that they were of the same caliber. ..What if a hypothetical argument be introduced in COURT, that instead of a gun, that a baseball bat was the weapon taken from grandpa’s house (by unknown persons) & he reported to police that his favorite autographed baseball bat & other things were taken. ..Then assume everything happened exactly the same way as described in court except that when Travis attacked Jodi, she ran into the closet & remembered Travis ALSO had a baseball bat (of his own) in the closet. ..Assume she grabbed HIS BASEBALL BAT & ran & he chased & cursed her & she threatened him with the bat (like many, many, women do in domestic violent situations) & he began to attack her again. ..Assume she hit him real hard in the head & he fell down bleeding, now he is exponentially angry & cursing something like I’ll kill you bitch…. Assume the entire thing became a knock down drag out fight but with his head injury he was mostly just hanging onto her clothing & cursing her & threatening to kill her just like she said happened in the real case. ….Now isn’t it the same probability that if grandpa had a baseball bat & Travis had a baseball bat, …that it is just the same probability of COINCIDENCE, as is the coincidence that both had the same caliber gun????? (assume she took HIS baseball bat & threw it into the desert)!!!!!

      • I only meant by my hypothetical comparison was to suggest that it is just an innocent coincidence that there were two similar guns, not in any way connected except maybe her recognizing it as a coincidence. Perhaps my comparison to a hypothetical baseball bat does not work. Thanks whichtrial? for your observation.

    • Justus, although that’s a question about criminal procedure (as opposed to substantive law), about which I know very little, I imagine the answer is this. Although the state must prove every element of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt (RD) — e.g., the element of premeditation — that does not mean that every piece of relevant evidence must individually suffice to prove it, or even itself meet the RD standard. I didn’t watch the early part of the trial, but I assume the state did “prove,” via Yreka police report or testimony, that the Yreka burglary occurred and a .25 gun was stolen. If that piece of circumstantial evidence plus 6 or 7 more, as a body, convinces a jury of premeditation beyond reasonable doubt, that suffices. It doesn’t have to be proved beyond RD that Jodi was the burglar, or moved the license plate, etc. And since she wasn’t charged in any way with that burglary, it also doesn’t matter that, like other pieces of circumstantial evidence, it was out of state.

      • Chris, You implied that the gun theft in Yreka may have put the thought that TA also had a gun to the forefront of her thinking. I have thought the same thing.

        You point out that in DV situations women frequently grab what is at hand, and that striking a blow in self-defense can often escalate the situation. Jodi says, though, that she did not fire the gun intentionally, and testified that she didn’t even know he had been hit. The blood evidence does suggest, however, that he knew and retaliated.

        After he got to his feet and saw the blood and the injury in the mirror, he may have assumed that she pulled that trigger intentionally. Likewise, he may not have originally had an intention to do any more than beat her up with body slams. But neither was she able to read his mind. Escalation arising from misread intentions would seem to be consistent with the dynamics of intimate partner violence. Sometime after they got up from the floor after the gun had gone off she heard the threat to her life, she testified. But she had remembered the earlier choking incident when he stepped out of the shower and slammed her to the floor after she dropped the camera.

        The glaring fact that only one shot was fired is strong evidence that Jodi likely lacked premeditation; it had to be overcome by the state, because the burden was on them to prove otherwise. This is the main reason JM switched the sequencing, (although, as you know, he had several more) in pursuing the Felony Murder Charge, which requires only intent. [It is a complicated charge which includes second degree burglary, with “prongs”, and each element of it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.] The evidence at the scene strongly suggests that he knew he’d been shot and retaliated, while, on Jodi’s side of the scale, only one gunshot could be seen as evidence of an accidental discharge of a firearm; the absence of any further gunshots create doubt of an intention to harm him, much less to premeditate his killing.

        People wonder why Jodi didn’t run out of the house after he’d been shot. The very likely answer is: No intention to inflict bodily harm. She probably had the mistaken idea that the noise and shock of the gun going off had shaken the aggression out of him. The fact that she stayed suggests that she didn’t need to defend herself while he was at the sink (she doesn’t remember this part but the blood evidence on the sink and mirror would take some time to accumulate) and if she is not in fear of her life in those moments because the fight has stopped, she cannot be considered the initiator.

        The Felony Murder Charge was a back-up charge because the state knew they had a very weak case in charging premeditation, even with circumstantial evidence legally given as much weight as direct evidence. And consider that JM had to ditch his whole “gunshot last” scenario in order to explain the knife slashes to TA’s back. He said they occurred when TA was at the sink and had his back to her – this was to say that the fight was ongoing. In arguing for the Felony Murder Charge, however, together with the “knife first” (see Trial Day Nine, end of day) he had to ignore the aspirated blood spatter in the sink, after having said earlier that spatter was from coughs after the gunshot – in arguments before Judge Duncan (this earlier Duncan statement was read aloud by JSS in the same discussion).

        During that discussion at the end of Day Nine, KN tells the judge that the Felony Murder Charge represents nothing more than circular reasoning. Jodi was not trespassing, he tells her, because the photographs prove that she was invited.

        From the online legal dictionary:

        BURGLARY
        1. English criminal law the crime of either entering a building as a trespasser with the intention of committing theft, rape, grievous bodily harm, or damage, or having entered as a trespasser, of committing one or more of these offences

        The jury instructions on this charge require close reading and take some time to digest, but the problem I have with it is the same one KN has.

        And re: the theft itself, JM couldn’t prove that Jodi had conducted the Yreka burglary; she hadn’t even been charged with it. He could not charge her with it in the state of AZ, so alternatively he suggested she wanted TA’s gun after insisting that TA didn’t have one?

        My take-away after reading the jury instructions on the Felony Murder Charge is that, while statements about a burglary could be used as circumstantial evidence in the charge of premeditation, a second-degree burglary had to meet a greater test as part of the Felony Murder Charge.

        • Sorry, I should have addressed WLOPEZ4JAA in the first part of my comments about the gun theft in Yreka jogging Jodi’s memory about TA’s gun, and also next part about the gunshot being unintentional (v.s. a baseball bat swing being intentional).

          So, WLOP, your comparison to a basebat bat in a DV scenario does work for me, but only up to a point..

          Tried to respond to both posts at the same time, forgetting they weren’t both from Chris. I even went back looking for a second post from Chris and wondered why I couldn’t find it! D’oh!

          • Thanks whichtrial? for your observation. ..I added a note to my above comment & agree that my hypothetical to a baseball bat does not work very well as I tried to suggest.

  8. I’d just like to give a shout-out to George Barwood who appeared on HLN last week to debate with Vinnie “Follow Me On Twitter” Politan. I didn’t see the broadcast when it actually aired as I was on holiday, but I saw the video last night and I say “Kudos to George!” George has been one of Jodi’s biggest and most loyal supporters and he’s one of the few people online who uses his real name on newspaper comments. He backs up his claims with facts and it was a real hoot watching him spar one-on-one with Vinnie Politan. I heard that HLN had a psychic come on last week who predicted (incorrectly) the fate of the passengers on the Malaysian airplane. How pathetic is that? What’s next? John Edward communicating to Travis Alexander’s family? “I’m getting a T&A connection.” “T&A? What kind of show is this?” “No, I mean the initials. Trevor? Travis?” “Travis!” “Yes! He’s here right now!”

  9. Hi all,

    I’ve been working on a wikispaces site which I’ve titled “Jodi Arias: An Argument for Reasonable Doubt.” I am hoping you will all take a look at it and give me suggestions, corrections and/or feedback. I’m not yet ready to release it for full public consumption so please provide your comments here rather than commenting on the site itself. Thanks.

    http://justice4jodi.wikispaces.com

    • Excellent work Justus! Truly, bravo!

      Just a few little thoughts –

      On the Law page, I’d hit a little harder with *innocent* until *proven*guilty* beyond a reasonable doubt… sort of ties into your explanation of confirmation bias. If jurors act according to law and presume innocence, it raises the bar for the state, makes it incumbent upon the state to TRULY prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

      And, on that note about confirmation bias – the page documenting Travis’ abusive behavior, low on the page where you talk about the name calling and mention the people who say ‘this is not abusive’ or ‘she deserved it’ – refer (or link) them back to the definition of confirmation bias. 😀

      And, um, IMO Flores’ perjury/contradiction of HIS written report should be included in the list of judicial injustices.

      Other than that, only a few typos and one technical slip:

      Page about Gunshot Wound, you say the state “had to changed it”

      On the page about Gun – in the quotes about the .25 you say ‘gun chambered’ where I presume you mean bullet chambered

      On Jodi the Liar – “sorted details” would be sordid details…. and a phrase about the state saying we shouldn’t believe her even if her story “makes sense than” – makes MORE sense than?

      The technical slip – the page about the knife wounds isn’t included in your bulleted contents list.

      Really GOOD JOB Justus!

      • Thanks for all of that, Journee! That’s why I needed other eyes looking at it. I will look at all these issues and correct or expound on them.

        I’ve yet to watch all of the Lifetime Movie (haven’t even gotten out of Las Vegas because I became so enraged) but I want to make a very long list of everything they got wrong. Besides your suggestions and corrections, that’s my next step.

        • Justus, one trick I’ve learned for proof-reading my own writing (not that I typically do it here, lol) is to read it out loud. Kind of keeps you from skimming as you’re inclined to do when you’re reading something you’re already familiar with.

          • Journee, I do that here and still make mistakes, lol. But it does help to proofread aloud because it naturally has you reading more slowly so you catch more.

    • WOW Justus I’m sooooo proud of you! I had to read pretty fast but in the Crime scene did you mention the Bloody Boot Print? I will continue to read and reread tomorrow but so far it looks really good. You’ve got the best of the best in Journee’s and whichtrial’s ideas. Very Impressive!!!!!!
      Great Job! 🙂

      • Thanks, R. I did mention the boot print, but in the section about the bullet situated on top of the coagulated blood. I didn’t want to bring it into the crime scene in particular because I wanted to stay with Jodi’s version of events. If someone came in afterwards (and we don’t know when), I feel it is incidental to Jodi’s truthfulness about what happened to her.

        Again, as always, thank you for your support.

  10. Justus,

    I only comment on this site.

    I did respond to Chris ^, as he was responding to your query about the burglary. (If you are in a big hurry right now just skip to the bottom of it.) Hope it helps.

    • Justus, Just visited the wiki page. Wow, it’s quite nicely laid out, and the theme is very appropriate.
      Good use of color and bullet points. I believe I read it all, but did so very quickly. So here are my first notes:

      Under the Law heading, (under Arizona Law) it reads:
      • In Jodi’s case, it was required to prove it WAS self-defense.

      It almost sounds true (!) written that way, that she was legally required to. Is there a better way to word that? I’d offer something, but am in need of a good meal first….lol.

      Also, good job at clarifying how BPD and PTSD can be confused, but since PTSD is what Samuels and Geffner believed, how about a stand alone heading for PTSD?

      In the past few weeks I’ve read twice about another type of PTSD diagnosis, one that did not make it into the DSM IV or the new one:
      “Complex PTSD”. I found it in Wikipedia. A few people have written extensively about it. It is also mentioned on the OutoftheFog website, but in reading that, one has to remember what the DSM criteria is for PTSD. Otherwise, that list of behaviors associated with it could be confusing. The DSM focuses more on how a person actually experiences it internally. For instance, that is where one would see mention of the “blunted affect” that Dr. Samuels has referred to many times. The blunted affect of PTSD helps to explain some of Jodi’s somewhat flat delivery when on the stand (when she is not in tears).

      Speaking of Dr. Geffner, he must be included in the list of experts. IMO, he did an excellent job of analyzing the written test results, i.e. how they were scored, and explained the validity scales, etc. I believe he helped to create the TSI (Trauma Symptom Inventory Test). He had some very interesting things to say about the gunshot and BPD, as well. For instance, re: BPD, that one cannot go through a person’s life and cobble together behaviors at various times and say that a person has BPD.

      Re: Jodi the Great Liar heading: She had no memory of the killing itself, so that would have made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for her to confess to it.

      Your heading and what you wrote about Pathological Lying…great!

      Re: Stalker heading. He had plans to see her after the Cancun trip. Also, apart from TA’s words to his friends, where is the hard evidence that he tried to avoid contact with her? Didn’t block her calls, or get a restraining order, or anything of that nature.

      A different heading for “Circumstantial Evidence” might be appropriate for that great page about love attachment, hormones, and the addiction to a relationship gone wrong.

      Another page called “Circumstantial Evidence” could cover the hair dye BS, etc. The police report from the Yreka burglary does have a note that her hair was brown, as Journee says. I remember seeing the actual report at some point, but now don’t know where.

      I suggest a page about the charges against Jodi that would include mention of Jodi’s M2 plea offer some years back. They love to say on HLN that that never happened.

      Great work! ( Maybe a lawyer can help with the charges page.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Go to Top