The Photos Tell The Story (by Jade)

349 Comments

1. Best cover EVER of Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.” Is it about addiction, satanism or sex?
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbD0B3dzxDM

   • Jodi Arias: An Argument for Reasonable Doubt

     http://justice4jodi.wikispaces.com

   • I think you need to photo copy the email from sky again. there must have been something on the copier that made it look like a comma after the date and before the year. I have me.com and they do not have that comma. Check it again, I am POSITIVE that there must have been lent or something

     • I think you need to photo copy the email from sky again. there must have been something on the copier that made it look like a comma after the date and before the year. I have me.com and they do not have that comma. Check it again, I am POSITIVE that there must have been lent or something. Me.com also puts the “seconds” on the time it was sent.

2. Al, Jade et al : This is a continuance of the debate from the previous page but it is important that no one is confused on the topic.

   I took the time to read the Hanrahan case cited by Al for the proposition that “Jodi’s prior testimony from the 2013 guilt phase will be admitted into evidence at any [God willing] re-trial.” I now understand your confusion and want to help you both, Al and Jade.

   In Hanrahan, the defendant was convicted under 18 US Code 922 – possession of a firearm by a felon. By way of quick (and yet very important) background, the defendant in Hanrahan testified on his own behalf in his first trial. That first trial was locked (the jury could not come to an agreement with respect to guilt) and a mistrial was declared. The government retried the defendant and after that second trial, the defendant was found guilty/convicted.

   The legal question in Hanrahan was whether prior testimony from a mistrial constitutes a violation of the defendant’s fifth amendment right against self incrimination. The Hanrahan court correctly decided that it did not. But that ruling is irrelevant for purposes of analyzing the Arias case because a mistrial is very different from a reversal.

   It seems your confusion is that both a mistrial and a reversal can yield a retrial. The distinction comes down to whether there was merely a procedural error (like a hung jury) in which case a mistrial or the trial was so flawed that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial (like ineffective assistance of counsel, improper evidence being admitted or excluded) in which case a reversal.

   Again, a retrial in the context of a mistrial takes place when (among other reasons) the jury is hung. In this context, there was never an appellate review of the hung jury (as in Hanrahan) and the only procedural error was the jury’s failure to reach a unanimous decision.

   In contrast, a retrial in the context of a vacate, reversal and remand takes place after an appellate court examines the record of the trial proceedings and determines that a very serious error took place (such as ineffective assistance of counsel or allowing evidence in improperly). In that context, the appellate court holds that the error was so serious that the defendant was denied a fair trial. AND in that situation there is no prior testimony because the entire trial court proceedings were deemed to have violated the defendant’s rights.

   Here is a useful hypothetical: Suppose the defendant in Hanrahan was convicted after the first trial and appealed that conviction to the appellate court for a serious reason (like ineffective assistance of counsel). And suppose that the appellate court agreed that the defendant was denied a right to a fair trial because of the ineffective assistance of counsel. Suppose the appellate court vacated, reversed and remanded. Now we are talking about the (hopeful) Arias situation. IN THAT SITUATION, the government could not use the prior testimony from the first trial because the higher court vacated (threw out) the entire trial proceedings.

   I hope that helps you all understand better.

   • Thanks for clarifying that for me Carol.

     Everyday I Pray that Jodi obtains the best appellate lawyer and that her conviction will be overturned!

     Jesus died for all of our sins.

     • I’m glad it helped Patty. My daughter, who lives here and is a lawyer, keeps me straight and focused.

   • That’s exactly how that trial went and it should be completely sherded!!!!!

   • Carol,

     I’m not a lawyer, but I did the next best thing – I called a person I know who is a seasoned criminal attorney. He was a senior AUSA, and is now a high faluting criminal trial attorney who also does appeals at both the state and federal levels. Here’s how he explained it to me.

     It doesn’t matter whether the first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, or whether it was overturned on appeal. What follows hold true in both cases.

     The first assumption is that the defendant was not coerced into testifying,and was competent to stand trial. Of course if the attorneys can prove that the testimony was elicited under coercion, or the defendant was incompetent then all bets are off. Once they determine that the testimony was not coerced, and the defendant is competent that hurdle is removed and the testimony is now considered to be prior statements made freely by the defendant. That now moves any objections to a different set of tests.

     So there are two grounds on which an attorney will try and keep out testimony from a prior trial (and by the way this happens both on the defense and sometimes the prosecution). The first ground is that the testimony itself contains elements that should never have been allowed in the first trial. For instance one of the attorneys asked an improper question, and either the other side didn’t object or the judge overruled the objection improperly, or some such thing. In such a case the judge in the new trial will determine the admissibility of the part of the testimony in question. If that judge now determines that some part of the first trial testimony was arrived at improperly, the judge will rule that portion of the testimony inadmissible, and it will be redacted. But the rest of the testimony will be allowed in.

     So the second tack the attorneys will try is that the testimony is hearsay. Hearsay testimony is not allowed with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions is that the person who made the statement is no longer available for testifying or cross examination. This may happen if the person has died, or gone insane, or can no longer be found. And that is the argument that is used to overrule the introduction of the defendants prior testimony. So here’s what happens – the Fifth Amendment makes it such that the state cannot force the defendant to testify in the trial That means that the defendant is now technically no longer available to testify or be cross examined. Under those circumstances the hearsay objection is overruled and the testimony is allowed in, as a prior statement. In fact this statement typically has more weight because it was under oath, and if the defendant claims they lied it can open them to a perjury charge – so they’re sort of caught between a rock and a hard spot.

     So what my buddy told me was – this attempt to keep prior testimony out has been made in courts in every state in this country and in federal court. They have been appealed in every state and in federal court. People have tried to keep them out in all sorts of ways. In certain cases they have been able to get certain parts redacted due to the inadmissible nature of the question. But the bulk of the testimony has been allowed 100% of the time, regardless of whether the case was overturned on appeal or resulted in a mistrial. He offered to have his associates dig up case law if I really needed it, but I didn’t want to impose.

     What he said was, and this part I quote, “Once you’ve rung that bell, you can never ever unring it.”

     Not being a lawyer, I don’t know from legalistics, but I’m sure someone like StillOutThere who is an attorney might be able to comment.

     • The testimony will also be allowed in as statements of admission against interest. Excepting that which attorneys can argue to the new judge for suppression. And there is a LOT here that will be suppressed with the proper argument and showing of false proffers to a judge.

       Just as the GD letters should have been allowed in and argued through each sides experts with the jury deciding if they were forged or not. They were Alexanders admission against interest that he was not this goody two-shoes and not hearsay if he wrote them. Exactly as the tape that was played with his voice on it.

       At least one of those letters was purportedly to say that he was admitting that he was physically violent with her. That’s sure as hell more probative as a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial when they are claiming self defense than it is prejudicial to a decedent.

       • You know jade that’s a question that’s always bothered me. So the jury is supposed to be the trier of fact. Barring propriety (for instance if it was the result of proper search and seizure, or probative vs. prejudicial value type things) of admissibility, the judge, when there is a question of credibility, should let it in.

         Isn’t this the very argument JSS made about Horn, and Melendez and others. Yes they may have lied, but you either questioned or had the chance to question them, and then its up to the jury to determine credibility. So in essence she is allowing the state to introduce questionable evidence and says leave it to the jury to determine credibility. But when it comes to the defense the court may have ruled on the admissibility of the letters on some credibility argument the court decided on its own.

         Seems a little inconsistent to me, but what do I know.

     • I have soooo little time to comment much on this right now (tax season, 14+ hour work days) … and please note, although yes, I went to law school, I am not a practicing lawyer and never have been (not trying to lie about anything). But, I have been trying to read when I can, and Al, I totally agree with you and your lawyer friend, and sorry, Carol, but I disagree with you. While sure, certain parts of testimony will not be “allowed” the second time around (assuming there ever is one), testimony is testimony, sworn under oath. Barring new evidence or Jodi not testifying the second time around (again, assuming there is one — hoping), she can be impeached based upon prior testimony. That’s essentially a basic principle of law.

       • Still Out There –

         The support for Jodi Arias in this group (or anywhere else) is not a contest and I am competing with anyone. You need not apologize to me. Your disagreement with me in no way effects my opinion and my read of the law. Like Al, you are just confused Still. I always appreciate the opportunity to discuss an issue with my friends here in this group. But it seems that you are not really interested in discussing the case law. And so, we will agree to disagree.

         We should all remember that the case is waning down and that those of us who will remain to give Jodi Arias support, comfort and a reprieve from her loneliness will also invariably wane. We should strive to be respectful to one another and look for opportunities to discuss issues instead of merely lecture and criticize.

         We all have one commonality – what is best for Jodi Arias.

         • for clarity’s sake it should read ‘I am NOT competing with anyone!

         • Wow, Carol, I don’t believe I’ve EVER been disrespectful of you in ANY way. And yes, I did apologize for disagreeing with you on the point Al raised. Isn’t that respectful? Sorry if it isn’t. I don’t know what else to do in writing. I respect your opinion, but that doesn’t mean I believe you are right. Is that really disrespectful?

           I’ve been here since almost the beginning of the trial. I stopped posting for a long time because of threats and fear — and what was going on in my personal life where the threats here intertwined and put my life in serious jeopardy. But I’ve been here, reading all I can, when I can. It took a change in all of that, and a lot of guts for me to post here again. SJ can, I’m sure, attest to that as he knows my IP address and when I logged in or didn’t. He knows exactly who I am and he and I spoke to one another, so he also knows I’m a real person. And, as I’ve previously admitted here, I’m no longer afraid to say that I used to post under the name “Also Abused” here (check the history). I no longer wish to be associated with that name because I’m no longer being abused and will never accept it again. I have the guts to post again, because my personal legal case is over, and my life, while always in jeopardy from my ex, is no longer something scrutinized by his attorney based on what I do or don’t post online.

           I went to law school, worked for law firms in litigation for many many years of my life, and one of my primary interests in this case has ALWAYS been discussing the case law. Al and I have had infamous debates about it here, in fact. And we haven’t always agreed.

           I’m far from a person who worships Jodi or a “fan” of hers. I’m also not her “friend.” I don’t know the woman. I have never spoken or written to her. But yes, I feel for her plight. I could see myself having ended up in a similar situation if I’d known the man she met. And, in fact, I’ve met men like him, and even married one of them. Luckily, no one died, so I’m (relatively) free today (although I will always have to live with the threat of my ex over my shoulder). I see many many commonalities between her and I and can relate to many many facets of her life up to her age of 27. I think we would get along should we ever have the opportunity to meet — which is very unlikely. But I don’t know that for sure. And after all these years, I STILL don’t know all the facts of this case. Every day I read here, I learn something I didn’t know before. Or, I consider something else I didn’t think of (Jade’s post, on which we’re commenting raises at least a few of those).

           SJ has never told me that I couldn’t comment here. If he ever did, I would stop immediately. This is, after all, *his* site — (although I will never forget him saying to me when I said “Oops, I just said “our” site. I feel like it’s our site — but have to remember, it’s yours,” and his response “No, it’s all of OUR site. We’re in this together.” I’m paraphrasing, because it was a couple of years ago.) — so if I am making inappropriate comments, I believe SJ would shoot me an email in an instant and say WTF (okay, he might not say *that* exactly but something analogous). I have always gotten the impression that SJ likes intelligent respectful debate of the case. He, like many of us, just detest the hatred and stalking — which makes it impossible for us to comment elsewhere.

           I mostly comment on legal issues, when I have time, just like Al — and as can be seen from the history of our debates and discussions here. I also comment on domestic abuse — because I’ve experienced it and I’m sure that there are aspects of it that many people do not understand. And even now, I disappear for days because I have soooo little time. I do my best to read, but I’m sure I miss comments here and there.

           I’m not here to comfort Jodi. I’m not here to assist her in her loneliness. I do totally empathize with all of the above. If she were my friend, I would do that for her. And if someone here thinks I should write to her about that, I will. And as time goes on, perhaps she would like to receive a letter from someone like me. But right now, she has plenty of support. I’ve been through the awful loneliness of fighting a losing battle with my ex (because I had to, or he would kill me) and the lack of empathy I received. But I’m here for justice. And I’ll be here for that — as long as it takes. If this site still exists 20 years from now (and knowing SJ, it just might — he’s not a quitter), you’ll still see a comment here or there from me.

           Does that explain who I am, why I’m here? Or do you need more?

           • Knew it. Just didn’t want to say anything. Always suspected it but the part about growing up in the UK with a bunch of different people gave it away.

             But – Hello again old friend.

             • Me too StillOutThere.

               One subliminal hint that you dropped sometime back confirmed to me that you posted back in the early battle days of the guilt trial as AA.

               Some great posts.

             • Hello A and Jadel! I outed myself a while back. Perhaps it got buried!

               • Um, I meant, Al and Jade, can’t type, apparently.

           • Many times I wished that you were around to comment after you withdrew….now I know why and it is good to see you commenting again.

             • Hi Judy! Sorry I had to withdraw from the site. With an active divorce case threatening my life, and a lawyer (his) and judge that were demanding I give my ex my real home and work address in a state 1000 miles from him where I fled to save my life — after I won my appeal and although I’m in an address confidentiality program which *is* my substitute legal address — and then, threats from “haters” because I posted here (crazy, right?), life got a little bit more than crazy for a while and I wasn’t emotionally able to handle it all. I was completely terrified actually and that made me very very paranoid! Life is different for me today because the legal case has ended and enough time has gone by that he can’t re-open the divorce, but I’m ashamed that I gave up fighting for my rights when I just couldn’t take anymore financially, emotionally, any which way. To make it all go away, ultimately, I signed a settlement. He got everything and I got nothing other than my cats — but I got my right to live my life which is priceless.

               I won my appeal, and set a precedent for other victims to maintain their address confidentiality, but I lost everything. My case has been cited a couple of times since then to keep other women safe. So, I won the victory I wanted. I wasn’t Roe v Wade but I set the groundwork for a case like that. My life, therefore, has meaning and wasn’t for naught.

               No one really understands domestic abuse other than a victim. And even then, there’s hierarchy based on “how abused” you were. If you don’t have photos of your face all messed up — and I don’t because he never “hit” my face — then, you’re seen as “less” of a victim by other victims. I can show you a picture of my stomach with his fist print in my bruises. I can even show you a video where he tells me he’s going to kill me, and you can watch him in all his 6’3″ glory (I’m 4’11”) telling me that and holding up his weapon (a wine bottle) that he’s going to kill me with as he says that. But, apparently, that’s not enough. I guess I should have let him kill me that night and I should have videotaped that from start to finish (assuming my phone worked even after I was dead). Then, I’d have enough, I think? The media would have broadcast that, for sure, and I guess, I’d be some kind of heroine today. But I’d be dead — so it really wouldn’t matter to me.

           • Still Out There,
             I remember you, too. Glad to see you’re back. You and Al were both missed.

             • Thanks Coldcase. I missed you all too. Actually, it was when I saw Al post here again that I said, okay girl, “it’s time for you to post again too” — to myself, of course. But it required me just taking hold of myself and having some guts. I’m not the most courageous person.

               I was actually surprised by my strong emotions waiting for the “verdict that never came”. As I’ve said before, I don’t know Jodi at all. I’ve never written to her, never received a letter from her. My closest connection with her is the Cat Eye print I bought — because I love it and cats so much. Other than that, I’m not her “fan” or her “friend.” Her words on the stand — her sworn testimony — will always resonate with me though. She’s me — I’m her — if things had turned out a little bit differently, in our lives.

               But, I was shocked at just how emotional I became at the thought that she might get the DP. I was honestly completely devastated at the thought that might be her verdict. I knew she wouldn’t be put to death a minute (or even 10 years) later, but I just couldn’t stand it. It would have made her appeal more “promising” (at least, in terms of getting attention) if she had gotten the DP. Intellectually, I knew that, and tried to reconcile my emotions and my intellectual thoughts — but it doesn’t work well. I couldn’t emotionally reconcile myself with DP as the best outcome of this mess of a case. And my emotions completely overcame me and I bawled my eyes out. Sitting here, at my desk at home, with tears streaming down my cheeks, I sobbed audibly because one juror was not persuaded to “follow the sheep” and I thought, yes, there is justice in this effed up world. I only wish I’d been saying that in the guilt phase 🙁

3. Jade, this was one of your best post!! Any idiot could follow it and end up with a wtf question about what crime scene was DT. F and team investigating!!!

   • According to the whizbang prosecutor, Jodi was stabbing his back at the sink with her non-dominant hand while there was no blood consistent with knife injuries to his body flowing onto the floor from these cuts. According to the ace detective, he was so impervious to this ongoing slashing that he was able to turn the faucets on and off and spend time coughing aspirated blood into the sink while it was occurring.

     1. How did he aspirate blood from those stab wounds and how could he be coughing it up and trying to run water in the sink if he was under knife attack?
     2. Why is there almost no blood on the floor in front of the sink?
     3. And why are the slash wounds on his back on his right side if Jodi is left-handed?

     1. He had to have had the bullet injury to his sinuses when he was at the sink, and the altercation had to have been in remission at that point.
     2. He had no bleeding knife injuries when he was at the sink; wasn’t under knife attack at that time.
     3. She had to have been facing him, using her left hand and reaching around him to make those knife injuries in a different moment and place.

     Why didn’t the prosecutor want the jury to realize these things? Why did he insist that the gunshot was last, after he was already dead? The simple reason is that this blood evidence, when seen in its entirety and without obfuscating commentary, could not have proven Jodi to be the aggressor.

     • Isn’t that the truth.

       The biggest problem there of course is that after the first wound, the chances are that the person being attacked would turn around, or move or something. There is such a close grouping of those wounds that for all practical purposes the position between the person being wounded, and the person doing the knife work would have to be pretty much fixed. There are only 3 ways that can happen:

       1. The person wielding the knife is held by the other person.
       2. The person wielding the knife is holding down the other person and also plying the knife.
       3. The person who is being cut is down and stationary while the knife is being used.

       In this instance the first case means that the knife wielder ( Jodi) is being held by TA who is facing her.
       In the second instance it would mean that Jodi was holding TA down while also stabbing him.
       In the third case it would mean TA was down and stationary while Jodi was whaling away at him.

       So you tell me which is the likeliest possibility.

       And why the DT didn’t point that out, or the jury didn’t get it is beyond my imagination.

4. The seriousness of the prosecutor’s ‘deceptive’ photo evidence should be evident to everyone at this point, Jade you have shown so much, and it all should have been brought to the attention of the trial court when they were admitted into evidence.

   If Jade was able to detect flaws and bring up rational questions, an expert in the field of forensic electronics surely would have done the same. Nurmi didn’t even ask Neumeister to evaluate them. By not questioning the photos, Nurmi neglected his responsibility to his client. How could this be anything less than ineffective assistance of counsel?

   The ‘deceptive’ photograph evidence should never have been brought into the courtroom much less entered into evidence. Nurmi should never have allowed them in without a fight. And, that is exactly what he did. He let them in without a fight.
   I recall Willmott’s casualness during her questioning about the ‘little foot’ shown in the ‘dragging’ photo. She seemed to agree with that ridiculous assumption! It was appalling.
   The entire ‘deceptive’ album as a whole could be one of the grounds for an appeal.

   • You’re right Carol,
     Here they let some pictures in and I’m sorry but anyone not questioning ALL
     of these details are just irresponsible and should find another career.

     Yet they didn’t allow the letter in because it was fake?????
     AND that’s what dumbass used to say “in his testimoy” they were fake?
     Because they weren’t allowed in?

     He didn’t think they were fake until they weren’t allowed.

   • In the first trial the defense did object to the gruesome autopsy photo of the “chin” cut, to wit the judge called one of her infamous sidebars. Juan thus went to the bench for a five minute sidebar while leaving the photo up for all, including the jury, to stare at. The defense must have won the objection because Juan removed the photo upon his return. Why it was allowed in the second trial is beyond me.

     • That damage was done. SMH

       • Sure was, R.Love!
         AND that was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!

   • Carol, The ‘deceptive photo’ as you call it, was the prosecutor’s ace card; a way to take full advantage of the fact that Jodi has no ability to recall what happened after a certain point:

     1. Allegedly depicts the injuries occurring in a certain order – I don’t know how that grasping fabrication was allowed to be put before the jury when the front of his neck cannot be seen, his head is up, and the blood could be from the gunshot injury to his sinuses
     2. Gave prosecutor a way to explain how he ended up in the shower – again, prosecutor testifying that he’s being dragged, yet there’s no indication that is happening in the shot; only the power of suggestion
     3. Gave him a way to get Jodi to speculate and confirm his own overreaching testimony that he was dead at the time stamped on the photo despite the fact that Jodi said she couldn’t remember – don’t know how JSS could overrule Nurmi’s objections to this line of questioning
     4. Gave the prosecutor an opportunity to portray Jodi as not taking responsibility for his death when her resistance to confirming HIS speculation was because she couldn’t remember – she had already taken responsibility; this was badgering and harassment.

     In using this photograph, the prosecutor was ultimately trying to set up Jodi for the death penalty, trying to characterize her as having no remorse about his death, when the reason she was having difficulty answering his questions was that he was asking that she respond to HIS SUPPOSITIONS about the evidence, not the evidence itself. Jodi instinctively knew that what he was doing was wrong. Nurmi should have been on his feet yelling.

     • Exactly, TryInnocence. You actually just nailed it there. In any other state, and perhaps even some courts in the state of AZ (????), the autopsy photo would have been deemed too prejudicial for the jury to view.

5. OK don’t we need to stop throwing the DT under the bus?? It’s like beating a dead horse. We all feel like things were missed. Let the appellate lawyer and court figure this out.

   • It isn’t a matter of anyone here throwing the defense attorneys under a bus, Cindy. It is what will have to happen in order for the Appellate Court to understand the injustice through errors made in her case.
     Jodi can’t claim she was not given a fair trial unless she can show the Appellate Court that there were errors in her case. We have discussed how flawed her case has been. And one of those flaws was the defense strategy.

     Trust me, her attorneys will not be surprised if Jodi claims Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, it happens all the time. And, they will not feel badly if her claim results in a better outcome. They will rejoice! Each of her attorneys can say a different one of them led Jodi to the defense strategy that was used.

     • Carol, I understand what you and others are saying. I think what I take issue with is the name calling. I know what the did and didn’t do. I was right there watching the trial with everyone. They had so many missed opportunities. But this just might end up being one of the best things when the appellate court reviews Jodi case.

     • The more evidence shown and picked up by others,
       the better Jodi’s chaces are, REALLY!!
       If they say that she was given the best cousel and the best advice,
       which I think that we all know that she wasn’t, then Jodi
       won’t get another trial.
       I’m not sure but I think that’s what happened. I really don’t believe Jodi was given the best advice
       and the other side made up so many lies and covered up so much, Jodi didn’t stand a chance for a fair trial.
       There’s far too many mistakes and the appeliate court has to know that.

       Who talks with the appeliate courts in Jodi’s favor?

       • Her Appellate lawyer, Aly.
         We won’t hold our breath for the appeal , though, it will take him/her a while to go through everything, and then write the appeal brief. I hope we learn who it is and his/her background. Pray, as I am that she gets a really top notch, eager beaver type. Someone who won’t leave a stone unturned.

         • Thanks Carol,
           I wish she had a Perry Mason!! : )

           No, seriously I hope it’s someone that really believes in Jodi
           and has seen how terrible this “trial” was.

           How unfair the system went for her and FIGHT like hell for her!!
           I’ll pray with you!!!

           • Aly, I think there’s a gross misunderstanding of what an appeal actually is here and in society, in general. It’s nothing like a trial.

             I honestly have little knowledge of Post-Conviction Relief hearings. When I worked for a criminal defense attorney back in the mid-80s, he was known for “winning” his cases (in other words, he got his clients off). He had been a star prosecutor for many many years before “switching to the other side” so he knew exactly what was going to happen, all the tricks of the prosecutor’s side, and how to overcome it. If all else failed, he knew the right people to work out the best plea deal with. As a young naive girl (that I was back then) and an immigrant, I was actually quite appalled that he was getting murderers, rapists, career criminals (mostly gang bangers) “off” on technicalities. But, as he told me, time and again, EVERYONE deserves a “fair” trial and adequate representation. Just because Gangbanger X most likely killed 10 people (which he should have been tried for) before his current trial, it doesn’t make him guilty of the current case in which he’s accused. And, if the prosecution effed up, then, they shouldn’t just be able to prove their case because of his background. I had never thought about going to law school or aspired to it before then. But, his arguments were compelling. Admittedly, it was not comfortable for me taking the collect calls from jail from these types, or even having them (or their “friends/associates”) drop off suitcases of cash to pay their retainers.

             Anyway, the point I’m making is that PCR is similar to a trial in a way, in that it’s a hearing, but it’s not something I know very much about because it’s not something my boss’s clients ever faced.

             Appeals, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. It’s all about writing a brief with reference to the record (and the record is everything filed, testified to, etc.) and pointing out a few errors that should overturn/change the case. The other side responds, with their own brief countering the points made by the appellant (the one who files the appeal) and then, the appellant gets an opportunity to respond again — but only to counter the points raised in the answer brief (filed by the other side). An appellate court then has to essentially agree to review the case (they don’t always) and determine whether or not there are any issues that need to be addressed/corrected/reversed. They may allow oral arguments, but they’re very limited and not like a trial either. They also may not allow them. They may simply decide based on the briefs and their review of the record.

             • Still,
               Thamks!
               How do we know Jodi will get one and ones that aren’t already biased?

               • Thanks! : )

               • Good question, Aly. Will Jodi “get” an appeal? She has the right to file for appeal, but it’s up to the higher courts as to whether or not they consider it. So, we don’t know, at this point, whether or not she will get an appeal. I think she should but my opinion is worthless.

                 In my own case, which was merely family law, I was somewhat surprised by the fact that the judges not only considered my appeal — but found in my favour and wrote an opinion (which is now case law) to that effect. Their opinion, unfortunately although in my favour, remanded my case back to the same court with the same judge and gave her yet another reason to dislike me (I disobeyed her orders and refused to give my ex my current home and work addresses, so I could save my life). Worse, the appeal reversed our divorce. So, I ended up married to him again — this time without my consent. (Yes, that happens in states like FL.) My point: You don’t always “win” during an appeal, just because something is decided in your favour.

         • Yeah, good luck with that hope, Carol, unless Jodi gets a very wealthy benefactor willing to foot the bills. Wealth inequality in court cases is THE biggest problem we face in our society. If you’re OJ Simpson and can afford a dream team of the best lawyers out there, it’s an entirely different story than being an indigent woman with now bankrupt parents (who were never wealthy to begin with). Good legal advice/representation does not come cheap. If you can afford great lawyers, you have every chance (although still not a guarantee) of winning your case. If you can’t, you’d better just do take a plea (criminal) or settle (civil/family) because essentially (totally unfairly), short of a miracle, it’s the best you’re going to get.

     • This one, I agree with you on wholeheartedly Carol. In fact, there were times during this case when I honestly wondered if Nurmi was leaving himself vulnerable to ineffective assistance of counsel deliberately (um, think about all his motions to withdraw, for example). There are also things I’ve said real life friends about this case that I’m not even sure I want to write on a site like this (where there are creepy people reading and distorting) and I don’t have a private place to talk about these things with other like-minded people here. But, assuming she has/will have a good appellate attorney and assuming he/she is competent, there is just more to this than anyone who didn’t go to law school could ever comprehend. Not that going to law school is the “be-all, end-all” but it teaches you to think like a lawyer. And you never think the same way again, no matter what you actually end up doing in life.

       But yeah, to your point, lawyers don’t care if a former client files for ineffective assistance of counsel especially in a DP or life sentence case. They expect it. That’s not “throwing them under the bus.” Not at all.

       • I didn’t think it would be throwing them under the bus.
         I just figured that’s the way they do things.
         In case one doesn’t feel good enough about a case, they usually will refer
         you to someone else.

6. Regarding the shower mystery, can someone provide a scenario of how getting drug into the shower he would end up in the position he was found? I am presuming he would have been drug in head first. I’m also presuming, based on the wall and door on the left side, that the most logical angle to drag him in would be in a direction left of center. (I guess one could also drag him in directly toward center but that provides even less room to maneuver. And, even then, once in the shower the tendency would be to maneuver his head to the left lest his lower body be jammed against the door.)

   • Depends on how far the shower door would open, I guess, but if he was being dragged FROM the hallway, it makes more sense to me (assuming the shower door will open far enough) that he’d be pulled towards the back right corner.

     • But there’s a wall right there so I assume it would only open 90 degrees.

       • Jodi picked him up threw him over her shoulder and just threw him in the shower. slit his throat and shot him in the head. Oh was that Jodi who did that??????

       • I’m sorry I had a rather sarcastic response.
         But this is one of the things that keeps me awake at night.

         • AND the shower door, is intact, with all the activity and transporting and multiples in and out of shower!!!! Simply amazing, a flimsy shower door……???common sense, Jodi could not indulge this feat of weight and power to position the body…

           • I believe like jade said, in picture 6, he had to be lifted in there.
             That is exactly what it looks like.
             And jade is right about the blood smears.

             What jade said made more sense to me than Jodi dragging him anywhere!!!

             Now, Cindy you can sleep. : )

             • Aly, so now that brings up just another question. Who did the lifting?? I’m treading carefully here with my wording. I do agree with Jade. Now way Jodi could have put him in the shower by herself…IMHO

               • Whoever belongs to the bloody boot prints, I suppose. I never knew about the one under him.

               • THANK YOU R.Love! : )
                 That’s exactly what I was going to tell Cindy.
                 So no one was interested in those footprints NOW they are gone, but at least there are pictures and it can be done.
                 Someone in a real investigation can find out, OR maybe not.

                 BUT, it isn’t Jodi’s. That they can see!!!!

                 NOW, Cindy all that you have to do is find those shoes and who was wearing them. : )
                 Then you can sleep! : )

   • Dragged head first???? I don’t think so, look at the neck…..movement would have decapitated…..the body was now, a huge weight for a person a third of the dead body….carry/ drag or pull this much rock weight….it is immense and common sense to put in shower is just ludicrous!!

     • Susan,
       I agree.
       Morbid maybe, but pulling him by his head, that’s what it would have done.
       And over that ledge??

     • Susan,
       Are you suggesting Travis’s throat was cut in the shower?

     • By dragging him head first, I didn’t mean literally grabbing his head and dragging. I meant as opposed to feet first.

       • I can’t see how he was dragged in there at all, Justus.
         But, I’m sure, IF his throat was cut that bad, even pulling him over that ledge
         would have done that.

7. Jade,
   Picture #29 – the cut finger. Do you have any information on this photo? Is this Jodi’s finger? If so, who took the photo and when? The photo appears out of focus. Is the cut on the “palm” side of her finger or on the “back” of her finger? I didn’t even know there was a photo of Jodi’s cut finger. If this is Jodi’s finger, she must have taken the photo herself since the cut is still oozing blood. But, would Jodi taken such a poor photo? I would think Travis’s body wasn’t even discovered when this photo was taken so it wouldn’t have been a police photo.

   • She talked about the finger cut at Casa Ramos, taking a picture of it and posting it to her Myspace – didn’t she?

     • Yes, Journee I believe you are right. I think it was to keep a record. Smart move in more ways then one.

     • Thanks, Journee.
       Do you think it’s strange Jodi posted the pic of her cut finger to her Myspace? It’s common knowledge when someone is stabbing a person, his/her hand(s) often gets covered with blood and slips onto the blade cutting themselves. It would probably be one of the first things police would check on a suspect who stabbed someone – cuts on their hands (probably on the palm side of the hands). It’s like she was providing evidence for the police by posting her cut finger. Was she trying to get caught?
       Now, on the other hand, if she had nothing at all to do with Travis’s death, I can see her not being worried about posting the photo although it seems a little odd. Who posts a finger cut on Myspace or today on Facebook?
       If she took the photo for workman’s compensation or whatever (???), wouldn’t she pass it into Casa Ramos administration?
       Cindy, when you say she was “keeping a record,” are you thinking workman’s compensation or something else?

       • I think it was just sort of an “ew, look what I did” –

         people seem to post crap like that all the time – look at this burn, look at this poison ivy, look at this awful haircut

         as to the wisdom of it – whether it happened on Jun 4 or not?

         all I can say is that Jodi doesn’t always seem to use the best of judgement

         but then, who does?

         • (Last summer, my cousin actually sliced off a bit of the end of her finger at work… she’s a restaurant manager. She had to go to the ER, by the time the hospital was done with her the restaurant was closed for the night so she came on home. Sent me an email a few minutes later, linking me to her FB page so I could see the picture one of the kitchen staff had posted to her page showing blood on the cutting board along with a bloodied knife and Lisa’s ‘fingertip’ – which turned out to be a piece of an almond.)

           • 😆

         • I suppose that’s one of the key issues – when she posted the pic of the cut finger. If she posted it before June 4, no problem. There would be no suspicion how or when the cut occurred. Even if it was posted after June 4, it it could be just what she stated – a finger cut on a broken glass at work. It must have been posted after June 4 though. Otherwise, it would never been mentioned in the trial.

           • I can’t remember if it was brought up on direct or cross –

             I remember JM challenging her on the incident report specifics – her saying that Casa Ramos was a small business that didn’t have the same protocols that bigger businesses do, JM saying the opposite as though it was evidence (testifying instead of providing rebuttal witnesses).

             And I don’t remember when it was supposed to have happened at all. Except she did tell Ryan, when she got to Utah, the bandage on her fingers was from cutting herself at work. But Jodi also described two separate incidents occurring at work. The one she photographed, she’d actually cut on a piece of the shelving where the glasses were refrigerated – and was the top of her finger, which seems to be what is depicted above. She told Ryan about cutting herself on broken glass.

       • regarding whether the picture above is of the palm side or the back of the hand.

         look at the picture and look at your own hand

         on the palm side, the webbing between the fingers fills the space between them, on the back of the hand there is the continued separation between the fingers on towards the knuckle, an indentation that is backed by the webbing on the palm side

         the photo above looks like the back side of the hand

         • That’s good, isn’t it? I don’t have any scientific proof but I think most cuts on hands during stabbing someone would occur on the palm side just because of how a knife is held.

           Just as an aside, I looked for 2 hours yesterday to see if I could find a case where one person attacked another person and the person under attack switched weapons in the middle of the struggle. I couldn’t find a single case although just by saying that someone will point one out. I know Jodi said the gun went off when Travis tried to tackle her and the gun was knocked out of her out of her hand and she didn’t remember anything after that. Well, I think she said he went unconscious for a second or two. But, although no one knows what happened after that it appears instead of picking up the gun, she went to get a knife (although I think it was close by because it had been used for cutting some rope). Maybe, the knife was closer than the gun.
           Now, back to cleaning my place.

         • That’s good, isn’t it? I expect most cuts to the hand when stabbing someone would be to the palm side. I had a longer reply but it went to the Comment Hall of Fame.

           • Yep. Wish DT had been astute enough to point that out.

       • CC53, yes that could have been what she might have done. Just thinking out loud. But since we don’t have a date for the MySpace picture.

         I thought of going over the pictures of the two of them that afternoon but then remembered that we had more or less thrown them out. (Taken at a different time)

8. Picture #18: Cut throat:
   I truly believe that the bottom picture is AFTER the medical examiner performed the autopsy. As we have all seen in all tv shows, bodies are cut open and the wounds are always ‘opened up’ to be thoroughly examined. So this photo that martinez – the cunt he is – presented to the jury was the only way to make them think that Jodi was this super duper professional butcher that cut his throat with such accuracy.. GMAFB!

   • I believe the medical examiner would have made that cut with a dremel tool. His throat was not cut to that badly before he had performed the autopsy. The pictures showed that. That is one thing that MPG came out with and I believe that.

9. Picture #29: Left hand/ Right hand:

   I don’t know about others that are lefthanded BUT I am and I know that I am ‘butterfingers’ when using my right hand. Totally useless. So to stab someone using your ‘weak’ hand is plain bullshit! BTW, Jodi is lefthanded for anyone that didn’t know.

   Try and test yourself on how useful your ‘weak’ hand is:
   1. Try eating a bowl of cereal w/milk.
   2. Try cutting bread.
   3. Try brushing your teeth.
   4. Try wearing your contacts.
   5., 6., 7…. try anything using your weak hand. The results will be miserable. How the hell could a person stab another person (that was fighting back) and not lose control of the knife. All our strength is in our ‘strong side’…

   So once again, martinez’s theory is just another crock of shit.

   • Pandora, in the US – for FAR TOO LONG – teachers and parents pushed leftie kids to use their right hands. The result is that a good percentage of the left handed individuals in this country – ALL of them that I know – are ambidextrous to some extent. There are things they’re comfortable doing with either hand, and for some there are things they’re actually more comfortable doing with their right hand (tool use is a biggie, because so many, like scissors and can openers etc., are designed for use with the right hand and it’s hard to find leftie versions.)

     Jodi herself testified that she is somewhat ambidextrous and that there are things she does with her right hand. I know one of them has to be taking pictures, because cameras are all designed for right-handed use.

     • It would be interesting to know when that picture of Jodi fingers were taken and posted. If she did cut them at TA’s did she stops to look for the surgical tape and his house? I would think it might blead through.
       Just going by my own experience of cutting fingers.

       Journee, I to experience the school system forcing my younger son to use his right hand. Why I don’t know. So Luke Jodi he uses his left hand for some things and right hand for others.

       • Since JM was making such a big deal about it, we’re left to assume it was taken after Jun 4, but I honestly don’t remember if a date was ever given.

         And we know he makes shit up all the time.

         • Journee, that’s the problem you knew know if what he said is true or not.

           Off topic for all of you have s fur child (dog) give them a extra hug to night. We had to have my fur niece put to sleep today.

           • I hope your sister is doing ok. That is such a sad time for the family. I’m so sorry for them . ♥ Nothing like a dog’s unconditional L O V E !! We are having a terrible storm and I have 2 under my feet right now~!!!

             • I saw that!! Give them a extra treat… and a hug from me. The darn girl had steak, ice cream cone and cookies with peanut butter before we went to the vets. We took her for a walk. At the vets she eat a bag of doggy and cat treats each. I grab some doggy bone treats and she was eating them when she took her last breath. Needless to say she was on protozoan. She rallied at the vets. My sisters a mess and I’m heartbroken. But it truly was the right thing to do.
               Another of one of Gods timings.

           • I like many others know the pain all too well. It took a long while, had to wait a long time, to find a puppy to love. But as R.Love said there is nothing like a dog’s unconditional love, and I hope she will be ready for a pup again soon.
             Emma, our Black Standard Schnauzer, loves us even when we argue (although she does run and hide). She is what sustains us, has sustained us through this trial. We got her just as Jodi started to testify. If Emma could talk she’d tell you ‘that girl is innocent, just like i am’!

             • 😆 Well, we would have 3 dogs voting to FREE JODI then! ♥

               • Right!!!
                 Nine more and we’d have a jury!
                 They’d be smarter than the 12 morons on the jury for Jodi’s case. 🙂

               • Amen Carol! ♥

           • Aw, I’m sorry. They’re family. Hugs there sis.

           • Oh I’m sorry, Cindy. Sooo sad. I had a most beloved cat for 22 years, my child, my baby, my soul mate. It’s the most difficult thing EVER.

         • 😯 Really??????? 😆

           • Thank you both for understanding. I do not have a fur child because of where I live. But I am aunt Cindy to all of them and babysit them all.

             I know Jodi has that kind of love you can see it in the picture of her and the dog. JM tried to make her sound like a monter over the cat. But never told the whole story.
             Does anyone believe that TA would let anyone in his house that would be cruel to his dog??

           • Now CC53 thats a fact!!!

     • That was a particular nightmare if you went to a catholic school. The left hand was the devil’s hand. I have a cousin who is left handed. I still remember a day from our childhood. We were visiting my aunt and uncle one year and she came home from school (A catholic school) and her left hand was swollen. Turned out one of the nuns at school had made her sit on her hand all day, so she’d learn to use her right hand. I thought my uncle was going to kill someone that day. I still remember my Dad chasing him into the driveway, and then the two brothers sat on the curb for what seemed like hours as my Dad calmed his kid brother down. However that was the last day she ever went to that school. Of course this was way back in the 60s.

       • Al, thank you for that story. I have never heard that before. The devils hand. So why was it still so bad in the 80’s in public schools?

         • I didn’t know they were still pounding that to this day.

           But just to tell you about the bad reputation of the left.

           You know the word sinister – means something bad and nasty. Well that’s actually the word for left in Latin (sinister – left). I think the greek words are similar – like aristera and dekstra or something (Pandora help!) While the word for the right is dexter (as in dexterous).

           Similarly we are familiar with the word adroit (which means capable in English usage). Well adroit is actually french for left. On the other hand when someone is ill mannered or locking in grace, such we say they are gauche. Well gauche is left in French.

           So this is an old old thing.

           And once again I prove that I am a veritable font of worthless knowledge.

           • I meant adroit is french for right. Oops

         • The word for left hand in French is “sinister.” IIRC

           • That’s the latin. French is gauche, as in

             “tourner à gauche” means turn left.

       • What a heartbreaking story for a child to have endured!
         Those type of things are hard to ever get over.

         • Can’t help myself, I must insert this comment into this thread. Reading mormon history: in some particular iteration of “fundamentalism,” when an infant was born, the father would repeatedly hold the child under COLD running water, causing it to startle and cry over and over again.

           They believed this correctly conditioned the child to be fearful and subserviant to “authority.”
           This is so extremely monsterous and cruel. Of course the mother was allowed no say about how her newborn was treated by these authoritarian males.

           I feel pain inside my chest just writing this. Culture is a very peculiar emergence in humans.

           I don’t know if animals would ever behave in this manner?

     • Same thing in Europe, Journee. My older sister is left-handed. The parents sent her to a Catholic school when she was a child and they demanded that she write with her right hand (left-handed is a sign of the devil, don’t you know). She has always been able to write with either hand since then. And, even more annoying, her handwriting with either hand is still 1000 times better than mine has ever been — and I’m right-handed. Thank the good Lord for typewriters/computers. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to comprehend a word I wrote LOL

10. Thank You jade!!!!
    So interesting.

    I was checking picture 23 and just was curious if you know who’s door that belonged to
    right at that puddle of blood?

11. Hmmm…

    Here’s a potential voice for Jodi:

    http://www.aol.com/article/2015/04/03/amanda-knox-vows-to-work-on-behalf-of-the-wrongly-convicted/21161171/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D638480

    • Journee, humm indeed…

    • Good for her!!!! She will be an amazing asset for anyone she decides to help.
      She definitely has walked a mile in Jodi’s shoes.

      • She sure has!!! Another young good looking
        female for the world to hate….Thank you Nancy Grace!!!

        • GGGrrrrrrrrr

    • I’d LOVE for Amanda to get interested in Jodi’s plight. She’s another poor victim of the awful media. She’s also another “slut” because she had 7 sexual partners before being accused of murder (at 20) and all of them, outside the sacred institution of matrimony. OMG, what a terrible person because she had sexual intercourse? Cut off her head, for crying out loud.

      But wait, there’s more. She had sex on a train with a stranger and she talked about it to a friend in an email. I mean, really? Is everyone gasping and holding their hands to their mouths?

      And it even gets worse folks, much much worse … she smoked marijuana with her boyfriend — also accused of murder, by the way, and she’d only been seeing him for a week and had been sleeping with him every day. He was a virgin before her, so obviously, she corrupted him and seduced him with her evil murderess seductress ways.

      But I haven’t even told you the best parts yet. During police interrogation, she did cartwheels. And, at one point, she sat on her boyfriend’s lap. And he gave her a sweet peck of a kiss outside of the police station.

      And wait, wait for this. Do you know that she smiled in court? OMG! Innocent people would NEVER do that. We all know that, right?

      And then, for the absolute coup de gras, she wore a pink t-shirt to court on Valentine’s Day that read “All you need is love.”

      I mean, honestly, why do we even bother with trials for these people? If they have sex before marriage, smoke pot, smile in court, wear pink t-shirts in court with lyrics by the Beatles, do we really need to know anything further about them or their cases? Obviously, they are guilty as sin, right? How can there be any reasonable doubt? Let’s just kill them NOW! No, better yet, throw them in with the lions and see if they survive. That’s how we can best determine their guilt or innocence, after all.

      • Didn’t the British press dub her “Foxy Knoxy” or some other such ridiculous sobriquet?

        • They did, indeed. That was her own nickname for herself since the age of 9 based on her sports abilities. But, you know, when she was accused of murder — in a sex trial nonetheless — “foxy” took on an entirely different meaning.

12. Jade,
    The “Post Verdict Transcript” seems to be a bunch of comments taken from several sources. I think I recognize some from Flores interrogation of Jodi, some from the trial, some seem like interviews with reporters and one doesn’t seem like something Jodi would say at all (the comment about her paintings where she calls it a gift, changes it to talent instead of gift and then says she’s just happy she can share it with the world. Doesn’t sound like Jodi but maybe she did say it). Are these comments from a TV show or radio blog?

    • Hey I thought the same thing. That comment didn’t sound like her at all.

13. Simply, very well presented for the common person, to fully understand, with this EVIDENCE. IT IS though tainted, with the help, thanks to the limited knowledge of Dr Horn and his findings, that were disputed and inadequately processed…for a PROFESSIONAL

14. OK I do have a question. Now that the trial is over will they release all the belongings of Jodi’s to her family or will the state keep them. I’m sorry if that’s a dumb question.

15. I’m still trying to work out how, IF it was her in the photo, as JM wanted us to believe, how she could be in that photo AND taking it–with all the rest in it as well.

    To get all that in the photo she would have needed to be standing at least 2 feel back, so how was she IN the photo too????

16. It is obvious to me that someone else Must have taken that photograph (162) Unless Jodi is a contortionist.

    • Gosh Heather1, you know she has magic powers. Haven’t you heard?

17. What evidence have we that it’s Jodi? NONE. Anyone can wear blue pants with a stripe..

    • Someone like a police man might wear that type. Hmmmmm

18. Something tells me the crime scene was staged. As Jade said, the Only way of getting TA in that shower in that small space, was to Lift him in there. Jodi could Never have done it. So, who Did?

    • Elf on a Shelf?

19. Ohh the POWER of Selling, repeated and repeated.. JM did a sales pitch for the masses–the mandatory Death Qualified Jurors. That’s ALL he is, a Third Rate Salesman with a commanding voice like they all have, and people BUY.

    • All I know is if he is selling something I’m not buying it from him!!
      And that is a N O plainly and clearly. 😆

20. To answer a couple of questions

    Coldcase:

    The most important thing about the cut on Jodi’s finger is that it is not on the hand Martinez factually stated to the jury that she cut herself. It is near the joint of the forefinger of the right hand, photographed from above.

    There was no way to account for the angle of the stab wounds on the back if she was using her left hand so Martinez made up the bullshit that she cut her hand BADLY and it HURT, so she had to use her other hand.

    Well if that was the case, they arrested her only a month later, where was that severe cut on her LEFT hand? Even if she had cut it and didn’t go for stitches, the cut mark or cuts would still have been very evident. He said her hand slipped off the handle of the knife because it was bloody. That would have made a super bad cut. They couldn’t photograph a cut at booking because there was no cut !
    _________________________________

    The last photo of Jodi’s remarks was taken from a post verdict interview. Several reporters and people were talking to her asking questions and I made the screenshot of the partial transcript when it was posted. I know it was right at that time because I was astounded when she said people had seen bruises all over and that Nurmi felt they weren’t necessary to testify. I couldn’t believe it.

    • Say what? Sorry Jade I didn’t read that because I couldn’t make it big enough to read on my phone.

      OK my mind is spinning. I know I have been hard nosed about the DT. But I also know they have f~ed up royally. I don’t want to start a debate but why on earth would they just blow the simple things that I even saw?? Every miss trial they called for was denied. They day they both bolstered up in court and asked to be released because they could not because they could not be effective console. ( my words) and they were denied. I don’t even pretend to know how the justice system works, but I can’t believe this is it. Jodi did not have effective console nor did she have a fair trial. The only positive is she did not get the DP. But even that isn’t 100% positive because it will take time for her appeals.

      So the moral of this is if you have money you can walk if you don’t…….something is very, very wrong with our system!!

      Sorry about my rant!!!

      • Cindy,

        So you know I’m no new comer to this whole thing about losing my cool at the DT. I was doing it in real-time while the trial was going on. But here’s the problem and I think this is what gets people incensed. Jodi is in the predicament she is in today because of the actions of at least 3 lawyers. Now, even though one of them is supposed to be looking for justice, one can maybe understand to a certain extent that this has all become a game these days – as in people go for a win. So, detestable as it is, to a sort of perverse level JM’s antics and sleight of hand are understandable in that he wins by putting the defendant away. Not that I agree with it, but I understand. But the other two attorneys were supposed to be on her side. I get it, they didn’t want to be there, but they were. As Pandora would say – put on your big boy and girl panties, and get the job done. Instead, their omissions are in a certain way at least partly responsible for this debacle.

        It’s like Nurmi said – you don’t have to like the defendant – you just have to do your job as required by all ethical, moral and legal standards. And they failed to do that, and at least I am now of the belief that it was more than just mere incompetence. And that upsets me, and that in turn makes me throw these guys under the bus.

        • OK I agree with everyone. Al, I remember every word you said in that trial. I know they really …F~ed up. But why?? What happened? I guess I’m still naive enough to believe that lawers do the best they can for their client. I also know that things go on that we don’t know about. I have 3 lawers in my family and have heard the stories. I just don’t understand what the heck went wrong.
          Or why?? My only issues and this is just me calling them names.

          • Oh I agree with the name calling thing.If you notice I rarely do.

            But at the end of the day people have the right to express their opinions in their own way. So as Voltaire said (and I’m sort of just paraphrasing here) “I may not agree with their opinion, or their way of saying it, but I will always stand for their right to do so.”

            • Bravo, I agree and I was out of line. I do believe in freedom of speech.

              We are a very passionate group of people!!!

        • Al, old buddy, I’ve been meaning to comment on this since you posted it (something similar) a few days ago. But it’s damn tax season and I don’t have time for anything right now which totally sucks. I’m about to start getting ready to go out tonight and have some badly needed fun. So, I won’t have time to respond back to you until tomorrow.

          And yeah, I have talked about Nurmi being the typical worn out PD. And yeah, a PD’s life is getting pleas for his client because he/she doesn’t have time to actually investigate the case and see if his/her client is guilty. I talked about that point above — wealth inequality in the court system.

          But, one thing you’re missing here. It wasn’t actually Nurmi that asked for the M2 deal the first time, and not even the second time. It was Jodi, herself, during one of her brief periods of being pro se. She sent the letter to the prosecution suggesting it and I think, requesting a settlement conference (if she used that lingo and knew to do it). She also requested it a second time, I think, in a follow up letter. I don’t have time to look up the exact dates, but I want to say the first time was in October 2011, and the second was December. Can someone double-check me on that please, or Journee, with the awesome memory, you might have more on that. I can’t remember when it was — but not long after, like maybe March 2012 — that Nurmi again filed a request/motion/something for a settlement conference and talked about Jodi making those requests and the state essentially ignoring her. He went through the formalities of filing it — Jodi obviously didn’t know to do that (one of my big issues with this case was her lack of knowledge/advisement during times she was pro se — up to the bitter end, actually — which is then ignored by the court — more on that, if I have time).

          So, let’s go back to your point for a sec. I’m sure that Nurmi had told Jodi her best bet was a plea. That’s what PDs do. It’s a mistake for anyone to ever think that a PD looks deeply into your case and investigates. They don’t have time for that. They simply take a quick look and see what’s the best plea they can get. It’s not that they assume their client is guilty per se. They are just looking for the best and quickest solution to get one case out of their ridiculous case load. I mean, it’s not unusual for any PD to have 500+ cases at any given time. In fact, one guy I know had as many as 800-1000 on a fairly regular basis.

          So yeah, Jodi is a young pretty woman accused of M1. Everyone knows that juries are less likely to convict women than men. And women in the US very rarely get the DP. So, from his first look at the case, he was sure that this would plead out. I’d almost bet that he told her he’d try for manslaughter and during the bargaining process, she’d probably have to plead to M2, and then, he’d try to get a lesser sentence than the max worked out. I bet he really believed that would happen. I assume he went into this thinking the state would agree to a settlement conference at some point — and no doubt, the judge would have asked for such a conference to occur — and Nurmi was just waiting for it, playing as few cards as he had to until it occurred. So here’s how he thought it would go:

          The state would say no go. They might go so far as to offer to take DP off the table if she pleads to M1, but that would be as far as they’d budge on the first go round. Nurmi would offer manslaughter as a done deal. The state would say “NO effing way.” So, they’d come to a standstill for a bit. Everyone goes back to their respective side of the ring and it’s quiet for a bit. Then, Nurmi would say “Okay, how about M2 with a reduced sentence?” The state would come back with “Hmm we can’t commit but we might be willing to consider M2 with the max sentence, all rights to appeal waived?” As I understand it, that’s 25 years max in AZ. The state would argue that she would serve all of those 25. Nurmi would try to bargain that down to the possibility of good behavior allowing her to be eligible for parole after 15-16 years. And he’d hope that would be the end result.

          Normally, that would have been the case in any trial like this. And you and I would NEVER have heard of Jodi Arias, Travis Alexander, or any of this fiasco. I’d be willing to bet if you asked any PD or criminal defense lawyer or heck, even a prosecutor out there a hypothetical about a situation like this, you’d get the same response as I just gave you. This was a “love gone wrong” case with a pretty female defendant and her boyfriend whose life was cut short in its prime (that’s the surface view). And okay, so she cut him up and it was pretty brutal, so the state isn’t going to cop to manslaughter, but M2 that’s the deal. It’s still not M1 with DP. It’s an M2 case all the freaking way. (Again, folks, don’t shoot me for saying this … I’m just talking about the quick on-the-surface view, without further investigation, that most lawyers would have of this case.)

          And I bet Nurmi prepared Jodi for that. I bet he told her “Look, the best we’re gonna get here is M2 and you’ll probably have to serve a full 25. I’ll do my best to get you a bit less than that. But you’re gonna have to allocute to killing him and accept that deal when I get it. The last thing you want is for this to go to trial because you could face the DP. So, this is it.”

          What happened next in that lawyer/client relationship? Did he not explain to her that he’d first shoot for manslaughter? Did he not explain how the “bargaining” process works? Most non-lawyers or even non-executive-level professionals wouldn’t really understand the whole idea of “settlement” — where no one gets what they absolutely want, but they “settle” for something a whole lot less, just to finish the deal. It’s not as if Jodi had experience in a workplace where she might have observed a deal go down. In a restaurant, you don’t go to the table and have them say “Oh, the price for a burger is $7, but we only want to pay $3.” And you don’t then negotiate to get it up to $5 — what it’s really worth and say “done deal” and everyone is happy. In a restaurant, the price on the menu, *is* the price of the burger. If you don’t wanna pay it, go down to the street to McDonald’s and they’ll sell you something similar for $3.

          I’m not really sure what kind of experience Jodi had as a professional photographer in brokering deals either. It seems like she was just trying to break into that world and doing work mainly for friends or friends of friends. She probably set a price and they said “Okay” and that’s how it went. That’s how everyone starts in business with friends, by the way — nothing wrong with it. But, if you don’t have experience in bargaining a deal, you don’t know a lot about it. She’d bought a house with Darryl, but I’d bet he probably handled any “deals” with that, assuming there were any, since he was significantly older and had bought a house before.

          And in PPL, she was selling something, getting experience in the “convincing” part of selling. But there was a set price for PPL per month, so it wasn’t like she had that experience there either.

          So, she didn’t know how to broker a plea. And she offered M2 right off the bat. I bet Nurmi — once back on as lead counsel — was pissed beyond belief that she offered that. You can’t go down from there. That was her offer. He was stuck with it. And Jodi hadn’t even discussed lesser sentences. Nurmi tried to, but by then, the state was sticking to their guns.

          And I’d bet that Nurmi really thought that at any point before trial, the state would cave and go for M2, possibly with the max. I’d be willing to bet he NEVER, in his wildest dreams, thought he’d have to actually try this case — as he did. When he finally realized that YES, he was going to have to try this case, he did his damnedest to run away from it and withdraw. He knew all too well that he had done what every PD does and banked on a deal all along and hadn’t done the necessary homework and investigation he needed to do and should have done from the get-go. And he knew it was late and it was going to be really rough to do it on the eve of trial (and by eve of trial, I don’t mean, the day before — trials like this require YEARS of prep).

          As an aside, I had a woman divorce lawyer for a while who took my case for essentially peanuts ($2,500) and she had been a PD for 15 years prior to switching to family law. She felt sorry for me, I think, believed in me, and really wanted to help. Interestingly enough, she’d been a psychologist before switching to law. I’d already spent about $20k on lawyers who had looked at the case as easy. We had no kids. It was simply property division — and by then, we didn’t have a lot of assets left that he hadn’t confiscated anyway. But, as time wore on in the never-ending divorce, he’d confiscated/manipulated all the assets — and to save my life, I’d had no choice than to run away, leaving everything behind me. It was the only choice I had if I wanted to continue to live — but it made everything more difficult. My lawyer — the former PD who had very little experience in family law — used to say to me “I can prep for trial in 15 hours. I’ve done it. I’ve been a PD for 15 years.” I laughed, a bitter laugh, because I knew all too well that my ex had convoluted my case to such a degree that NO ONE could prep for trial without at least, a month of solid review. And she really tried for me but it was essentially pathetic. She didn’t even preserve the record as she should have.

          I attended one hearing by phone, not allowed to speak, and it was woefully obvious to me that she was completely out-lawyered by his lawyer. When I read transcripts of the other hearings she attended (much later, while I was preparing for appeal), I was blown away by just how much she was out-lawyered. She wasn’t prepared appropriately at all — despite all her bluster. She didn’t expect what she was hit with. She didn’t realize WHO she was up against. Who she was up against was someone sort of like Martinez — on a smaller scale and in family court. I’d spoken to a LOT of lawyers in that county, begging for help. And they’d all asked who the opposing attorney was, and when they heard, if they knew him, they quadrupled their fee. They apologized and told me I was fighting a losing battle unless I had serious $$$ — which I didn’t. He was going to bury them in paperwork, drag them to court 3 times a week, and they just couldn’t help me with him on the other side for less than a TON of $$$. And that’s how it went with my lawyer who had 15 years of being a PD. She had TONS of court experience. She didn’t care when he dragged her to court for 5 stupid hearings in 10 days. It got to the point where the judge would see them and say “____ (my case) AGAIN?” in a strained voice. But she couldn’t handle all the paperwork he buried her in — and the 35+ emails he sent her a day, many at 3-5 a.m. — on top of his constant badgering for a hearing on every effing thing.

          That’s somewhat similar to what Martinez did to Jodi’s team in this case. He litigated everything (litigated — as in, let’s have a hearing, a sidebar, etc.). He overburdened an already floundering former PD who went into sole practice with paperwork. He didn’t win based on actual evidence. He won because he just wouldn’t quit and Jodi’s team didn’t have hundreds of people to deal with all that he threw at them and it was all too confusing and overwhelming. Martinez is an expert in what he does. It’s not ethical, but it’s what a lot of lawyers nowadays are resorting to, sadly.

          And no, Al, Jodi’s team didn’t make their points. They sure tried — but yeah, they stopped just short of making the point. I’m not sure how much experience either of them had in front of a jury. Trial experience in front of a judge is completely different than in front of a jury — but PDs have a LOT more bench trials than jury trial. You never know what the jury is thinking. Martinez has TONS of jury experience — and in that county. He knew how to make a point, drive it home (to the point of being sickening to us — but not HIS jury) and he knew his audience. He wouldn’t be as successful in front of MD juries — where you and I live — because we’re not as DP prone (if at all) and we’re not sitting out on our back porches with our guns. We also realize that adults have sex with one another, whether married or not, and that might mean oral and anal sex and any other possibility that in AZ could be considered “kinky.” And we have judges here, who — for the most part — are more discerning. They actually know the law — and know what is, or isn’t, prejudicial.

          And yeah, you and I both sat here during the trial going essentially WTF! (Sorry, don’t know if you actually cuss in your head or not — but I do.) So many times, Jodi’s team (both of them) ALMOST made it home with a point — but not quite. And they sat down. Then, Martinez got up and BROUGHT it home. I can’t stand him. I doubt you like him either. But he made his points. Strike that, he DRILLED them into the jury’s minds.

          I’ll leave you with this thought. If I say OJ Simpson’s trial, what is the first thing you think of? “If the glove don’t quit, you must acquit.” If I say Jodi Arias’s trial, what is the first thing you think of? “9 days out of 10, I don’t like Jodi Arias either” (and I’m her lawyer, allegedly attempting to convince all of you to acquit her).

          • Hey StillOutThere – wondered where you’d disappeared to.

            ‘Fraid I can’t help with dates on Jodi writing to the state for a plea deal. This is the first I’ve heard of it.

            Can tell you, though, that AZ doesn’t have a separate designation for manslaughter… at least according to the legal eagles who’ve reported on the case. Manslaughter IS M2 in shitzona, so there was nowhere lower to go with the opening parry from the DT.

            • Thanks so much Journee. I’m here, but it’s tax season, so I’m in and out — and mostly only “in” when it’s the weekend and I have a bit more time. Thanks for clarifying AZ’s shitty laws/rules. It’s been a while since I looked that up. AZ used to have legislature that did separate manslaughter from M2 under sudden quarrel/heat of passion. Did the do away with that?

              • Obviously, I can’t type today. “Did they do away with that?” That was what my typo-ridden question should have asked you. Ugh!

              • I guess it’s kind of a category of M2? Yes, SQ/HOP, lower years than M2 max, seems like it was something like 7-15 and it’s what Nurmi aimed for in the motion.

                It was the lowest thing they could aim for.

                • Gotcha Journee, thanks.

          • Hi there.

            So, no I wasn’t aware that Jodi had made the first offers for a plead deal. That would of course have made a difference. The one offer I have seen came from Nurmi – and that was for M2. I have no idea where he was headed with that and given AZ’s Truth in Sentencing format the best she can get off for good behavior is 15% of the sentence. So given the 25 year sentence that’s still over 20 years of actual time.

            I agree with you about people not being aware of how negotiations. I run a business, so of course this sort of negotiating is just de rigueur. But you figure most folks have bought a car or house or something. I guess being so young she never had, and could possibly be unaware of this – but wouldn’t her attorney have advised her. Of course its possible that the attorneys on both sides had an off the record conversation, where one said I won’t go for anything less than M2, if you propose that I’ll see what I can do. A sort of unwritten best and final offer. But that just doesn’t sort of seem right when the document involved is a legal one.

            If you stopped at WTF you were immensely reserved and polite. I was banging off things that involved people mothers, and sons and the like. But I do agree that the two attorneys on the defense appeared to be completely overwhelmed by Martinez, and completely oblivious to the reality of selling their case to their audience. And I use the word selling intentionally. As I said, I run a business, and my business involves selling big deals – so we are not selling cars, or other retail type stuff, or even houses. We’re selling big deals and that sort of selling is an art – as I am sure is trying a case in front of a jury. There seems to be a sort of momentum to the deal. If you lose the momentum, you lose the deal, unless the other guy just screws up royally. But you always have to be able to make your point in the most concise manner. People will only be willing to do so much “figuring out” to get the point you are making, and you can only hold their attention for a short period. Rambling testimony doesn’t do it. Plus if you elicit testimony, you have to make some point with it. It’s like that whole issue with the ” harder, faster, …..” video. Everyone was left with the impression they were alluding to some salacious material. It wasn’t till the closing that we found out what that was all about. It would have been so simple to tackle that by asking Dworkin 2 simple questions – what time was the video viewed and, do you know when Jodi showed up? Heck even if JM objected and the judge sustained, the jury would still know what that was all about.

            But yes, I agree they probably had no valid trial experience. The one capital trial of Nurmi’s I have been able to track down was a slam dunk on the guilt. But they just couldn’t sell their deal to the jury, and I often have wondered if this wasn’t because they didn’t believe the deal they were trying to sell.

            We all sit here and speculate of what went on that day at TA’s. Truth be told not a one of us knows what actually happened. Some may believe Jodi’s story, and that is their prerogative. I came to this site because it was the only one that hadn’t condemned Jodi before we’d really seen the evidence. After I’d seen the evidence presented in court, I was sure of one thing – based on the evidence presented she sure as hell wasn’t guilty of the charges brought against her. That is about all I am sure of in this whole case. I don’t know if it was M2, or manslaughter or self-defense. It just isn’t M1 on the basis of the evidence presented. The lines between the rest can get very blurry – its all a matter of shades between M2, manslaughter and self-defense. I guess (and I’m sure a bunch of people will correct me if I am wrong) but the difference between M2 and manslaughter by way of a sudden quarrel, heat of passion really ends up in who the instigator, or provocateur was. And the difference between the sudden quarrel manslaughter and self-defense merely resides in whether r not the defendant feared a certain level of injury. Given that no one presented any real evidence to support any of those situations, other than Jodi’s testimony with respect to self-defense there is no tangible physical evidence that points to one of those cases or the other. Yes, I understand that Jodi’s word is good enough for some. But the reality of this in a court of law, in front of a death qualified jury, in AZ, is that Jodi’s credibility is somewhat tainted. And whether we like it or not that is an issue that the DT had to contend with. They had to have known it. They had to know that, for most practical purposes, in front of that jury, that testimony wasn’t going to be worth a hill of beans. Any one would have known that. Even Jodi’s staunchest supporters here or elsewhere have to acknowledge that fact – to a death qualified jury, in AZ, Jodi’s testimony for self defense would sink like a lead balloon. So if the DT had any chance of saving her from the M1 conviction, they had to attack the state’s testimony up front. If they didn’t realize that they should not be practicing law, or be in any occupation that requires any level of deductive, or inference-based decision making.

            Now. it’s quite possible that the client instructed them to do what they did. Unfortunately this isn’t the UK where the barrister, in such a case would ask for written instruction. And like I’ve often said, if that was indeed the case, then – dang it.

            It’s been said that worse than not knowing something is not knowing that you don’t know that something. And if Nurmi was just a PD with no expertise in handling a jury trial for a client who might actually not be guilty of the charges brought forth, then maybe that’s what he should have argued to the court when he tried to withdraw. Instead he chose these cockamamy arguments like not enough money – that was handled easily, or not enough support staff – that too gets handled easily – much as he saw to his chagrin. I wonder how the court would have reacted if an attorney had stood up and said I want to withdraw because I don’t feel I have the necessary expertise to handle this case? But he didn’t do that – either because he was too proud or too dumb to acknowledge that he didn’t have the wherewithal to pull this off.

            As jade has pointed out so many times, it seems, at least as far as we know that this DT didn’t even go through the basic motions of trying to handle the evidence, or actually rebut the state’s case.

            And you are right, they got out-lawyered by JM. He played the DT, the judge and the jury like a fiddle. His own case in chief was the bare minimum he had to put forth to show that a crime was committed, and who did it. And then he used Jodi’s interview with Flores to great effect, along with the theatrics of the post-mortem pictures and then essentially lay in wait for the defense.

            Anyway, I am getting awfully verbose now, and will probably end up pissing off a bunch of folks, so I’ll leave it there.

            • Al,
              I bon’t know a thing about the law, myself.
              I guess that’s why I try so hard to understand it.

              Maybe Nurmi could handle this just about as well as I could.
              I think Jodi has some say, but the lawyers are the ones to advise her in the
              very best way they can.
              They were saying IF self defense then Jodi would have to testify because it
              was just the two of them.
              I think especially in AZ or in most othet states it’s always best for them not
              to. I believe that the lawyers also would prefer them not to.

              Do you think Nurmi thought that she should?

            • Oh hooray, Al, my long post to you actually made it from the barn. How ya doing? Glad you think of me as an “old friend” as I think of you. Funny (although not comical) that we’ve been chatting here for a few years, live in the same state, probably not too far from each other geographically, think a lot alike (and disagree on some things), and our only point of commonality is this site. Your wife and my fiance may not agree with this statement (they might actually be fit to be tied), but you and I would have great dinner conversation if we ever set one up. I don’t know how to get in touch with you (beyond this site), but if there’s a way, I’d like to. I promise I’m not scary. Just a very short English girl living in the US for a long time, with blonde hair, blue eyes, who could lose a few pounds, and who likes 80s/90s music. Other than almost becoming a lawyer, I sang semi-professionally (the term I use) and toured as a backing vocalist with some professional singers you probably know of. I’m so not a deadhead (you do know the dead weren’t popular in Europe, right), but my fiance’s brother is. He even gave up life and joined them for years on their tour, so you could talk about that, if all else failed. And I agreed to go on a date to see the Dead, and it happened to be Uncle Jerry’s last performance. I honestly had ZERO interest in seeing them. I had not grown up with the Dead in my life. But hey, this guy constantly asked me out and I thought “WTF” and saw the Dead. I had absolutely no idea who the Dead were — or why my American friends loved the so much — I just went for the experience. About a week later, Uncle Jerry was dead and apparently, I saw his last live performance. How screwed up is that?

              • See if SJ will give you my email.

                It would be fun. We could do a double date that way we don’t have to explain to the others how we’re meeting someone we met on the web – I can just imagine that conversation.

                But that Deadhead thing just becomes a way of life for some. You know how some people become Buddhists, or Hindus, or vegans, or whatever – because something in there appeals to them. That;’s how it is with the Deadheads – you either are or you aren’t and either way it’s still all OK.

                We have a saying about trying to explain this whole thing – “If I had to explain – you wouldn’t understand”

                • SJ if you’re reading, please give me Al’s email address or give him mine — whatever is easiest for you.

                  Hahaha Al, I’m a practicing Buddhist. I was previously into a lot of New Age stuff (like The Secret — but before everyone called it that) and yeah, I understand!

                • WTH??
                  Excuse me.
                  I’m sorry I thought I was at Jodi Is Innocent. com
                  Didn’t mean to end up at Harmony.com!!
                  Let me see where I went wrong!!

                • : )

            • Al, my old friend, read through that offer from Nurmi. He references Jodi making the same offer a few months before. (That is, if we’re talking about the same filing — but I guarantee you will find the ones from Jodi if you look.)

              I don’t drive, so even at age 49, I’ve never bought a car. I’ve bought one house in my life — my ex has it now — but I was involved in the negotiations. I was 36 when those negotiations started, so sure, I knew about brokering deal, how to ask high, negotiate through the counters, and settle for less. My point is, did Jodi know that? Her motions, even recently, were terribly (to say the least) put together. Where was her counsel?

              • I guess I’m going to have to go read that again. One gets so used to all sorts of motions referring to stuff as coming directly from the defendant, that nuances may get lost. I mean every motion starts with something like “Now comes XYZ through her counsel …..” and thereafter, any point that is raised is raised in a manner that purports that it comes directly from the defendant as opposed to counsel – and I understand why. Also the state will often say things like “The defendant claims, or says, or whatever”.

                So I guess one just tends to get into the inertia of always assuming that’s a manner of speech, as opposed to actually coming from the defendant directly.

                • Indeed Al. While represented by counsel, the lawyers speak for their client. So, anything said by the lawyers is interpreted by the court as words from the client. Power of attorney essentially gives someone else the right to be you (or me).

                  But yes, you have observed the typical formation of a legal document. “Now comes” or “comes now” depending upon the jurisdiction, ending with a Wherefore (prayer for relief) — and yet, when Jodi files a motion pro se, she writes a letter to the judge. It’s still a motion. She still serves the prosecution. But really? No one advised her as to the standard format of a motion in all these years?

            • Al, you said something (sorry for replying in fragmented pieces — I’m working from home today, so it’s what I have time for) about wouldn’t her attorney have advised her.Yeah, you’d think. Perhaps that should be “shouldn’t” instead of “wouldn’t”. I mean, really.

              One point in this case that has always nagged me is that Jodi was without counsel at times. That was her choice and I don’t blame her. But they were required to stay on as her legal advisers. That makes total sense to me, but what bugs me is that Jodi didn’t know how to craft a motion, an actual motion, requiring a date for a hearing. Where were her legal advisers? So a motion is full of now comes, the facts, and wherefores (prayers for relief). But no one told Jodi how to craft that? Her advisers didn’t take over before she filed? You all think they’re amazing.

              Maybe, they weren’t. Actually, our opinions are worth less than dust.

              • I agree.

                You know, one of the things I have seen many people here fall victim to is assuming that Jodi is some sort of meek, submissive babe in the woods. I think they don’t get that it is not unusual for a person to be submissive and obsequious in one situation or relationship and be completely in control of a different one.

                So while she may have been a complete wallflower in her relationship with TA, she did show some levels of independence in other situations – and so some of the attorneys actions may have been on her insistence. That is why I liberally season all my remarks with the caveat that this hold true in as far as it wasn’t being driven by Jodi.

                I guess there is only so much counsel can do against the wishes of their client, and that may be one of the reasons that led to Nurmi wanting to withdraw so often.

                But in as far as the format, and basic structure of a motion is concerned, I don’t see why the DT even when acting as advising counsel couldn’t say – “We get the point, but let’s just help you put this into the right format, with all the correct statements, etc”. One would also think maybe the judge would send it back to advising counsel for editing purposes, or may be not.

                Again, if they did and she insisted – well then dang it.

                I did see earlier a comment about someone’s suspicion that Nurmi et al may have behaved in a certain manner in order to intentionally create an ineffective assistance of counsel type situation. In fact I had raised the same point earlier.

                But it seems like Jodi did have some valid complaints, for instance not interviewing potential witnesses or following up certain evidence, which I gather only got addressed at times when she was acting for herself.

                But the thing is that there is some obvious flubbing on the part of the defense – like not preparing to question state witnesses, or missing obvious contradictions in the evidence, etc. That could only come in one of two ways – either the defense attorneys just weren’t doing their job, or the client directed them to not do the rightful. If the second is the case – then so be it. However if the DT missed all that then shame on them.

                Now this leads to the next question – and I don’t know the answer, so this is truly a question. Assume that you have a case where the judge sees an attorney just absolutely blowing the defense. So in essence the judge can see that this is a clear case of ineffective assistance of counsel – does that judge have an obligation to stop the trial, and declare it a mistrial due to ineffective assistance of counsel and move on?

                The reason I ask this is that, by her own admission JSS saw this in at least two cases – with respect to the defense’s handling of Melendez and Dworkin and the computer related issues and the handling of Flores and Horn. In fact she used that as a motion to deny a mistrial, saying yes this was an issue, but the defense had the opportunity to follow up and they didn’t. To me, a layman, that is an implicit admission of ineffective assistance of counsel. So what happens with that?

                • As always, Al, you said a lot in this post. Very insightful. I’m not typically seen as a wallflower either, but I was in an abusive marriage and completely overpowered. One has nothing to do with the other. Abuse can and unfortunately does, happen and it can happen to anyone.

                  Contrary to the opinions of some, attorneys usually don’t file motions for their clients that they don’t agree with. If they do because they’re pressed/forced, what they file is very half-assed — can’t think of a better description right now — and as minimal as possible. You can almost read between the lines and see that the attorney does NOT agree with the client in such motions.

                  An attorney takes an oath and is required to follow that oath. That doesn’t mean that all attorneys follow the oath to the letter, of course. But, most do. A client could not and would not be able to dictate witness prep or cross. That is the most ludicrous thing purported online about this case and it angers me. (I’m not angry at you, Al, but at the ridiculous nature of things said elsewhere — why I rarely read anything said online that makes a mockery of this trial).

                  To answer your question, no, the judge has no such obligation. Actually, the judge has no right to assess whether or not counsel is effective or ineffective. That is a subject for review post-trial.

    • BUT,
      She didn’t get any cuts on the hand that would be more awkward to use?
      What a dumbass!!

21. Great post jade. It becomes so obvious when its laid out systematically and logically. If you aren’t a defense attorney, you ought to be one.

    So a couple of things that came to my mind as I was reading this marvelous post, and looking at the pictures.

    The first one is a big fat mea culpa. So people have a tendency to sort of relate things to their own experience regardless of what the truth might be. I offer this as an explanation not an excuse. So here’s the mea culpa. I totally missed the size of the shower stall till I saw that picture today. Big fat oops there. We have two shower stalls in our house, and I was somehow just gravitating to them for size. Well this evening I went and measured our stalls and They are just so much larger than this one. This was a small stall. Now that casts the whole dragging that body in there in a totally new light. I wonder how many other folks fell victim to the same hasty generalization as I did. So now I get what all of you have been yelling about.
    So when I look at the pictures like Pic#4, I can see a couple of different ways to get that body in there. The first of course is to use a fireman’s lift, or have two people lift the body and dump it in there. Now could Jodi have lifted that body in on a fireman’s lift? Well I’ll leave that to you folks to answer. If on the other hand two folks dumped it in there – one grabbing arms and the other legs – then this is a whole new ball game.

    Now the other way I can see that body get in there is someone drags in the lower half, by yanking on the legs and folding them in. Then they get behind the torso and sort of leverage it in so it sort of rolls into the shower stall. Again could Jodi have done that – well anything is possible, but the question is how probable. I just don’t get it.

    There is a picture I have seen of the inside of that closet with the white box.
    http://jessicaknight82.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screen-shot-2013-04-26-at-6-51-04-pm.png

    Now look inside the closet, on the floor. Are those pools of blood I see? What the heck was going on in that closet?

    And what the heck was JM’s logic about that whole blood in the sink, much as jade points out. So apparently Jodi stabbed TA while he was sitting in the shower. He then got up and went to the sink. But for the amount of blood on the vanity, and the smearing and stuff he had to be standing there for a bit – several seconds at least. So what was Jodi supposed to be doing in the meantime?

    But here’s a more important question – why did he go to the vanity/sink? Let me put this forth. Let’s say you have a cut on the chest. The best way to look at it is to just bend down and look at it. I realize that this may be difficult for some women based on certain anatomical endowments, but I think the average guy would just look down, as opposed to looking at it in a mirror. If he saw the sort of bleeding one might get from a knife stab wound I would hazard a guess and say that the first instinct would be to grab a towel and not some Kleenex that might be on the vanity. But, assume that the situation was different, and the guy had a blow to the head and was bleeding (as in the gunshot). He’s hurting, and possibly a little stunned, and bleeding. What would he do – I guess go to the mirror to see what was up. And being a little dazed and confused he might linger there a bit, allowing for all that pooling and spatter, and smearing. I mean he can’t see his own forehead any other way. Does that sort of make sense, or am I chasing wild geese?

    And we already talked about the footprints earlier.

    • Yes, there were small blood pools actually inside the closet.

      That’s why I pointed out the amount of water it would have taken to make the water mark on the box was considerable and not done by splashing water on the closet floor with that plastic glass.

      Yet those blood pools still remained intact. Something had to have happened in there. Cast-off from the knife could never have caused that much blood.

      Water also didn’t affect that big blood pool in front of the closet. It would have been much more diluted if water had splashed over it because it would have been fresh blood.

      Here’s the link because I had a tough time getting it from your coded explanation lol.

      http://www.mediafire.com/view/55650a5p015zccb/Closet_box_and_blood_pools.png

      • jade

        Yup that’s the picture. This mediafire things cool. Gonna have to check that out.
        So what’s with that blood in the closet in any case? I raised this a few days ago too.

        I did download your picture from mediafire, and then blew it up, and enhanced it a bit using iPhoto. Now if you look at the blood spots on the floor it looks like they make a trail leading to the pool in the closet.

        So going back to my get a towel theory. Maybe that was TA going to the closet to get a towel, and the pooling in the closet is him standing there getting the towel etc.And maybe that’s the stained towel they found. Could that be what that’s all about? If so this is again adding up in elapsed time and subtracting from the scant timeline as alleged by the stamps on the photos.

        So now I have managed to further confuse myself.

        • If you take the time stamp from the photo of him on the floor beside the pant leg as only an indication of what time it was when Jodi stood up and got away from him after the struggle on the floor following the gunshot – she testified that she remembered him grabbing at her clothes when she broke away and he’s apparently got his arm up in the photo – then any number of things could have happened after that. She could even have run into the clothing closet again. They could have had a game of cat and mouse while he went up and down the hall from one clothing closet door to the other.

      • Wonder if something was flushed down the commode which caused it to overflow? The would’ve certainly flooded the room and maybe hallway?

    • Al,
      I’ve heard about a footprint, but not one under TA’s body.

      • Heard that for the first time today, but if someone’s dragging or lifting things into the shower stall, and there’s blood all over the place would it be so odd that there was one?

        The problem really is why no one wants to talk about these footprints. Even the one that is very apparent. All JM did was ask what’s that, and the witness said – that’s a footprint. That was it, the sum total of the testimony on that issue.

        No questions from JM along the lines of what size, does that match Jodi’s foot size, when was it made – none of the stuff you would expect.

        And the DT had absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.

        So what gives? If that matches Jodi’s foot size, JM should be all over it. If it doesn’t, the DT should be all over it.

        Again the Holmes story of the curious behavior of the dog at night. It did nothing.

        • So Al,
          The footprint in the shower wasn’t even brought up?
          Damn, that would have told a whole different story right there!!
          The MORE you find they WANTED to leave out is the biggest mystery.

          All of this bullshit that they say they did didn’t prove a thing.
          It’s what they LEFT out (Chose to leave out)

          The jury had questions to ask the witnesses, why the hell didn’t they. themselves
          ask about footprints and other important things that were left out or glossed over instead of the bullshit questions that they asked.

          I forgot who Holmes is, BUT I’m damn sure IF the dog was there, it went crazy OR it was just a stuffed animal. REALLY!!!!
          This get’s me more pissed off everyday!!

          • Aly,

            About the jury questions – I think the jurors probably tend to focus their questions on issues that either become contentious between the two sides, or that may result from some prolonged discussion of an issue.

            When we were watching the first trial people would comment on when questions started showing up in the jury question box, and the one thing I noticed was that most of them seemed to show up during the cross examination. So I guess people tend to see what gets contested by the other side and then explore that.

            But here no one seemed to interested in the foot print, and so I guess neither was the jury.

            • Like selling Al,
              that should have been the closing, you think?
              Bring it on home.
              Because to me, ANY prints mattered.
              They didn’t check fingerprints so I guess they weren’t at all
              interested in any other prints???
              That SEEMS very important to me, even though I don’t know
              a thing about the law.
              I learn a lot here and it’s because there are different questions, BUT
              it’s all for the good of Jodi.

              • Just another in the list of things they didn’t do.

                It seems like they were hell bent on the self defense case, and their tactic seems to have been – we’ll get by on purely Jodi’s testimony and the ALV abuse stuff, so none of this other stuff matters. Well, unfortunately it does – as you can now see very clearly.

                Why they chose this path is just beyond me – was it on Jodi’s insistence or sheer incompetence?

                I can understand some possible argument that says Jodi didn’t want to drag TA’s name through the mud – but I don’t believe it as being the reason for all this other stuff not being looked at. After all the abuse and other testimony did that in spades. So even if she might not have wanted to do that someone convinced her that it was needed. But why would she not want them to question some crime scene person about blood stains, or DNA or palm prints, or any of that sort of stuff? That just doesn’t make sense – at least not to me. And that questioning doesn’t go towards negating any other stuff she might have wanted done. So I do believe in at least that respect this was purely the DT’s fault.

                I just don’t think these guys understood the concept of reasonable doubt. Oftne times the reasonable doubt comes because the state’s evidence has to many holes in it – and if you bang away at those holes, often enough and loudly enough, someone on the jury might start noticing them. But it looks like these guys just didn’t seem to want to do that, or they were incapable of doing that.

                • Al, they weren’t looking at or for reasonable doubt. There was no doubt as to who did the murder. It was always Jodi. The only “doubt” was whether it was self-defense or not. Admittedly, I may not have much to say about the defense lawyers that is positive, but I give them benefit when it’s due. With the self-defense case they put on, this is not something they should be criticized for.

    • Al, it’s okay to say boobs here. You don’t have to call them anatomical endowments. It’s 2015. Everyone knows that women have boobs. Oh wait … in Shitzona people don’t have sex so maybe you’re right.

    • x

22. Interesting post – so many questions! Do you think the defense team was not competent, or do you think some of this is new information? I guess, if we see these things, why didn’t they? Would be great to walk this over with Jen and get her response. Some disconnect here. I imagine they dismissed some or all of this.

    Maureen

    • Hi Maureen. I honestly can’t say that Jodi’s lawyers were “incompetent” per se. I continue to say that they didn’t understand or know how to present to a jury and make a point — most especially, a jury in that part of the world, where, apparently, most people are exceptionally conservative-minded and this case involved sex — and sex outside of marriage, nonetheless. Martinez disgusted me — but he knew how to make his point before HIS jury. As for the defense, well, if they presented their case in NYC, perhaps it would have been received differently. Their strategy, their defense, was self-defense. Much of what Jade is brilliantly depicting is a different strategy — and maybe one that *should* have been presented — but it wasn’t.

    • x

23. A few days ago, when we were talking about grounds of appeal someone (I think it was StillOutThere) had mentioned that they thought the ineffective assistance of counsel had to be raised first at PCR. Unfortunately they were right. I did some research.

    Here’s what I found at the AZ bar web site:

    “All ineffective assistance of counsel claims MUST be raised in petitions for post-conviction relief.
    Any such claims raised by direct appeal will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.
    See State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 39 P.3d 525 (2002).”

    “Where ineffective assistance of counsel claims are raised, or could have been raised, in a Rule 32
    post-conviction relief proceeding, subsequent claims of ineffective assistance will be deemed waived
    and precluded.” Id., citing State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 100, 786 P.2d 948, 951 (1990). ”

    So looks like that would at least have to wait PCR, and then can be raised at a second appeal, unless they delay the direct appeal to await PCR. Which then raises the question of whether PCR must be done after direct appeal? I remember some discussion about that years ago where Also Abused pointed out that PCR had to await direct appeal. It seems there is a 90 day limit from sentencing to file a notice for PCR, and the trial attorney can be directed by the client to file that notice – so KN and JW could file the notice. After that, there is a 60 day period to file the actual petition. So it seems that at least up to that stage they can go without a direct appeal. It seems from everything I have found that the PCR can go forward without the direct appeal. In fact I found this little titbit on the AZ COA web site that says

    “Stay of appeal pending Rule 32 proceedings.

    Except in extraordinary circumstances, the court will not stay a criminal appeal pending the outcome of post-conviction proceedings filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. But, if a party obtains relief in a Rule 32 proceeding, that party should inform the Court of Appeals, filing a status report and attaching a copy of the minute entry granting the relief, since it may affect a pending appeal.”

    Which tends to imply that the two are independent of each other and the PCR can proceed without waiting for action on the direct appeal.

    Here’s another effing kicker I wasn’t aware of:

    “Indigent defendants are not automatically given the right to appointed counsel, but the trial court
    may impose counsel when, in the interest of justice, appointment of counsel is necessary. State v.
    Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 910 P.2d 1 (1996).”

    However there is a fairly recent SCOTUS decision (like 2012) (Martinez v. Ryan an AZ case) that seems to overrule this.

    Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.

    The ruling reversed a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that since there is no right to appointment of counsel during a defendant’s post-conviction relief petition there is no right to effective assistance of counsel. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. (wouldn’t you know the SCOTUS’s equivalents of Torquemada dissented).

    So now it looks like AZ is actually providing indigent clients with a court appointed attorney for PCR. According to some web sites I’ve seen it seems like they take about 3 weeks to provide the attorney and the 60 day period for the filing of the petition starts from when the attorney is appointed.

    The bad thing about this whole concept of course is that the ineffective counsel issue will first be brought up with JSS – the same judge who forced these counsel to stay on and denied several previous motions related to the whole attorney related fiasco.

    Now, I wonder if there is a way to then get JSS to rule on the PCR, and if as I suspect, she won’t do squat, then modify the direct appeal to include appeals from any of her PCR decisions? Anyone have an answer – maybe StillOutThere, or someone?

    • Okay, so this is weird, Al. You’re referring to me as different people under the two names I’ve posted as here. LOL What did I say when? Sheesh, I can’t even remember what I said this morning, never mind what I said 2 years ago. LOL LOL LOL I was one seriously emotionally screwed up woman back then admittedly, but I don’t think my posting style has changed all that much, has it? (Then again, I post here, so that makes me brain dead according to the internet populous. Oh wait, you post here so you’re brain dead too? Okay, we can have a brain dead discussion. This could actually be fun! :D)

      I am NO expert on PCR and honestly know little about it in ANY state, let alone Shitzona. But yeah, I do believe you are correct and that ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised during PCR (and heck, you cited the freaking case law, so obviously, you’re right! There’s my brain deadedness coming out.)

      So what I get from this is the procedural method of raising ineffective assistance of counsel must be first raised during PCR. It can then, subsequently, be raised subsequently during appeal — but NOT if it hasn’t been raised during PCR. So, I take it as a procedural rule. I could be wrong, but that’s my read.

      PCR is always independent of appeal, yes, and that’s in any state. But remember, PCR can be appealed as well. Also, remember that filing a notice of appeal is just that — filing a notice. You don’t have to be ready to write a brief or know what the issues you’re appealing are. You just have to file the damn notice on time or you’re procedurally barred from doing so. If you don’t file the notice on time, you can’t file the appeal later on. But you can cancel later. It’s kinda like saying, okay, my birthday is 6/20 and I will turn 50 and intend to partaaaaay. So, mark the date now on 4/5. I have NO idea what we’re going to do or where we’re going to party, but don’t put anything else on your calendar for that day. Save the date, kinda thing. Well alright, I’m being a bit too descriptive there, but it was what came to my mind as an analogy. 😛

      Habeas corpus petition is again, an entirely different tract, that follows its own course, separate from any other appeal. The law gets very complicated in these areas.

      I got a little lost in your question there, but I think you’re asking what happens if Judge Stephens denies PCR for ineffective assistance of counsel — assuming that’s raised. She probably will. I’d be shocked if she didn’t. As I said above, it can be appealed — and I’d imagine it will be. Again, some stuff is literally just procedural — following the law and doing things at the right time.

      Did I answer your questions? I hope so, but if not, hit me up again. I will be around a bit more tonight, but the next week will be absolute hell as we’re getting closer to that horrible tax day, 4/15, so I may not answer for days, sorry.

    • x

24. I’m going to say good night to you all. I’m to emotional to even make sense to myself.

    The only thing I know in my gut is Jodi didn’t receive a fair trial.

    Oh my brother I told you last night to look at that shower picture with TA in it. But I guess you were busy having the kids drag you around the house!!! LOL.

    Ask the kids how Jodi got TA in the shower. You my friend will not be able to just to figured it out in the same way Jodi did, if you believe Jodi did it..

    • I looked at the shower picture, and see what I said in a post above. Big oops on my part.

      The kid dragging me around was a few years ago, during the first trial. Right now they’re in college, and hopefully not dragging anyone around – now there’s a disturbing thought.

      So it just me and my lovely bride – who will not participate in any such lunacy.

      • Talk about some typos:

        *The kids dragging me around was a few years ago, during the first trial. Right now they’re in college, and hopefully not dragging anyone around – now there’s a disturbing thought.

        So it’s just me and my lovely bride – who will not participate in any such lunacy.*

25. Good Night everyone.

    Here’s one for Journee since she was there.

    Hampton ’89

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkvEeUtl7i0

26. Wow, Last post one night and first post next morning. Y’all are falling behind.

    Morning music

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZPmhS9cQc8

    • Good morning Al.

      • Morning. How are you this fine Saturday morning Ms Cindy?

      • So you had asked me a question the other day that I had failed to answer – how often do I call the kids. EVERY DAY. But we had an “Aw shucks” moment last night that brought about this answer. SO I had my usual daily interrogation going on, but I had them both on Facetime. And my wife walked in and said “Hi Kids”, and then to me – why do you insist on calling them every day. I’ve told you a million times you’re like a helicopter parent and you’ll just drive them away”

        And now for the Aw shucks:

        The boy said – “Its OK Mom we get it, let him be”

        and the girl said – “Actually its kind of cute”

        So I can just thank the powers that be for our kids.

        • Your a lucky man. . .you have a loving wife who bakes chocolate cake for you and kids that obviously love you! ♥ IMHO

        • Oh Al that warms my heart. If memory serves me right they are freshmen aren’t they? It is really hard to let go of them that first year. Most people have one go away to school at a time. Al, I’m sure it’s really hard for you as the father, the protector. You will be OK in time. Baby steps dad, baby steps.
          You both have done a very good job with these two. Sounds to me like they know that no matter what they can come to you for advice.

          If only Jodi had parents like you.

          • Yup freshmen, and we went from madhouse to empty nest in one swoop.

            So I do miss them, but we’ll make it I’m sure.

            But I still talk to my Mom every day, and she’s 86. So that’s just how we roll.

        • I wish I had a parent like you, Al. I actually did have one, my Dad, but he died when I was just 15. My mother didn’t care about anyone other than herself — like ever. She died at the end of 2013. Somehow, I knew “instinctively” that she died and I heard the bean sìth (banshee — yes, I’m crazy like that — after all, I post here so it’s not like anyone needed proof of my insanity anyway — but I just gave it to you, so have fun). I told my sister — via the internet which is the only relationship we have — and she was shocked, but later confirmed that I was right. Mum was, indeed, dead.

          I posted a while back about my friend who died last November after being hit by a car. He was so much more than a friend to me — he was the brother I never had growing up. Every morning, when I heard a ding on my phone, right before my alarm went off, I knew it was close to the time I had to get up, and that he had sent me a message. I so looked forward to reading and responding. His morning text put me in a good mood for the day, long before I got my lazy ass out of bed — and even before I read what he wrote. Once I fed the kitties and sat down to read his text, I was beaming ear to ear. In many many ways, he changed my life — not just the day I was in, but forever. And then, it stopped abruptly. He was in a coma for 2 weeks, unable to text, obviously. And then, he was gone. Pfft! An amazing person was erased from this plane of consciousness. And it all happened in an instant. He was on his way to meet us and see a great band, dance the night away. And BAM, he was hit by a car and his life ended. Just like that!

          Back when I was 15, I was in boarding school. For the year before Dad died, I always called home (well, Dad) on Wednesday nights. That was the night I was allowed to call. He died in October, and that year, my night was Thursday. Dad hadn’t gotten used to a different night as of early October. I’d only been back in school for a month by then. He still waited by the phone on Wednesdays hoping we could talk. The school rules were such that I could only call during the designated time if everyone else who was allowed to call on that night had made their calls. If there was time left, then someone from another year could make their calls. That night, I remember so clearly, I wanted to call Dad, but I was helping out the elderly nuns in the scullery with dishes. I’d volunteered to help them. It wasn’t something I *had* to do. I just hated to see them busting their old butts when I could help them. I made it up to the phone area with a couple of minutes to spare. But there were other girls waiting to call their parents, so I didn’t call Dad that night. Mum said later that he was watching MASH sitting by the phone, hoping I’d call. By the next morning, Dad was dead. I never got a chance to call him again.

          You just never know what can change in life in a few hours or even minutes. I last spoke to my friend at 6:20 p.m. He was about to leave in a few and I thought he’d beat me to the venue. He was hit by a car right after leaving his apartment, while crossing the street to the metro station, at some time between 6:30 and 6:40 p.m. 10-20 minutes later …. wow! At least, I know he was happy and looking forward to the night ahead.

          Go ahead and call your kids daily. Today is here, but we never know about tomorrow.

27. Further to jade’s post.

    One of the reasons why they couldn’t get a complete DNA profile may be because the biological material was old. Even though they can get DNA from really old material like old Egyptian mummies and the like is because the typically draw that material from that is protected like the marrow in bones, or from inside of teeth etc. But DNA deposited in an open space can be degraded by a variety of factors like heat, sunlight, bacteria, cleaning materials, mechanical action (like rubbing against the area), etc.

    So if a deposit of DNA has been around for a while, in the open, it is quite possible that the DNA will be degraded, and so not allow for a complete profile to be developed.

    So could this have been why the DNA from that palm print was not able to provide a complete profile, because it was old?

28. So people have often questioned the DT’s actions or lack thereof in this case. I’ve often wondered about this too and this is just a sort of recap, since the topic seems to have become current again due to the stuff in jade’s post.

    Usual caution about this being rank speculation, etc.

    I know StillOutThere and possibly others believe that this was just a burnt out PD, doing a miserable job, and I couldn’t agree more about the miserable job part. But I believe this was a little more than just a burnt out PD. I think it may be true that the DT’s actions were caused by a “too clever” ploy to get a plea deal. I think maybe KN just didn’t believe Jodi was not guilty of the M1 charge, and so set about putting together a scenario for what he considered a sweetheart plea deal. But in order to do that he had to have some leverage – which he didn’t think he had. So maybe, just maybe, he thought he could set up a situation where he could manufacture that leverage. SO he says OK, let me see if I can talk the court into allowing me to present a self-defense case. That sort of forces JM to have to disprove self-defense, but it also allows the DT to get in all this other info that might not be admissible under other circumstances. Then he goes about offering the state a sweetheart opening bid on the plea deal – M2!. I mean if there is any back and forth, where the heck is the DT going from M2? It’s like buying a house . You ask for $100,000. The buyer says $80,000 and maybe you settle for $90,000. So both people moved a bit. But if the opening bid by the DT is M2 where do they have any room for negotiation? Into M1 I guess, as long as the DP is removed.

    So I think KN wanted to do this plea deal and thought he could get it, because all he would be asking for was the removal of the DP. And I think he had himself convinced that he had a client guilty as charged, and he was going to get her a plea deal. So he basically canned any other stuff a responsible defense attorney would do.

    No analysis of the crime scene, no analysis of the coroner’s report, no interviewing the medical examiner, no other analysis of the state’s case, and no real explanation for anything other than the story Jodi would tell on the stand.

    And most of his other witness testimony was seemed to be keyed to just that end – no DP, whereas I think a different outcome of the whole verdict was possible.

    Now some may say that this is AZ, and Maricopa County, and a death qualified jury, and so the outcome was pretty much foreordained. And that might be so, but wouldn’t a DT have a legal and ethical responsibility to present the best case possible? And once again, it may be argued that maybe, given the circumstances this was the best case possible. I just beg to differ. Even if they didn’t want to put on an aggressive case of their own, they could have still had this stuff checked out, and at least cross-examined the state’s witnesses effectively. If they then decided they had grounds to move forward, they still had a chance to present their own case when it was their turn.

    But they did none of this. They just folded like a trailer park in front of a tornado.

    And hence my sentiment – Mr Bus meet Mr Nurmi.

    • Al, believe or not that really made sent to me!! Do you think that KN may have had a change of heart this time around?? But it doesn’t matter now. By the grace of God Jodi didn’t get the death penalty.

      • That may be so, the change of heart, because they did seem a little more aggressive. But it looks like they just don’t know how to close the deal. As jade or someone pointed out earlier, these guys just can’t seem to finish it off. So they just sort of ended the case in the middle. Also, their presentation was rather half baked. For example all that stuff with the disc drives. It was clear to me because I do that sort of stuff for a living, but they made it so confusing, that JM was basically able to confuse it even further. If you put on a clear presentation, the other side has a real hard time mucking it up – especially when you are correct and have the evidence.

        So you are correct, she escaped the death penalty by the grace of God, but by just the skin of her teeth – 11 to 1 if you remember. If that 12th juror had been a little less strong than #17 we’d have a completely different case.

29. ♥ HAPPY SATURDAY TEAM JODI! ♥ FREE JODI ARIAS ARIZONA N O W !!!!!
    Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

    • Amen!!!

30. Did anyone catch a glimpse of the Blood Moon. I missed it but found this. Interesting.
    2015 Blood Moon Prophecy‎ http://www.bloodmoonprophecy.com/‎

    • Ok well that didn’t work. Anyhow, I’m wondering how WLOPEZ is doing? I’ve missed his posts!

      • Good morning R. There are a few MIA.

        • I just hope they are A-OK! Miss them all. I understand needing a break though.

    • The last blood moon is Sept 28th,Feast of the Tabernacles.

31. Good morning Team Jodi. I am just doing some cleaning and listening to the retrial. JM gives me a headache, seriously.

    • Good morning Miss Vicky. You are a better person then I. I have started a few times and had to stop. I never, ever want to hear that voice again.

      • Really Ms. Cindy? You aren’t watching any of it?

        • I started a few times but got so darn mad. I have to be in the right frame of mind. It’s like watching a movie that you know the ending to. So for now…..

          • And a very bad movie at that, where the plot makes absolutely no sense. Who would believe such an idiotic premeditated murder plot in a Hollywood movie? No one.

32. It gets worse.

    I was astonished listening to the first days of the recent retrial that apparently Horn had an interview with Nurmi and told him in 2011–repeat 2011–that the shot was last. Nurmi had to have his autopsy report at that time and he DIDN’T KNOW the huge cowpie Horn just stepped in. Neither one of them, Nurmi or Willmott caught it. And believe me, Horn was hoping they didn’t bbecause he would have been nailed twice if he had said the shot was first. It would have been in writing and now it would have been in a taped interview.

    In fact, it wasn’t until Dr. Geffner pointed out the glaring perjury contradiction, and had Willmott went into Horn like a buzz saw instead of the milquetoast dismal cross she did, it could have been a shocking moment that could have turned the trial. Instead of sweating him to account for every minute of his time in that autopsy, where contemporaneous notes are always taken, and then the further confirmation conversation with Flores, she just muffed it. She has no ability to close the show.

    Of course Horn would have to be the biggest buffoon in the country doing autopsies if he admitted he didn’t see that his report was totally contradictory to what he was saying verbally but he was stuck. He noted CORRECTLY what he was observing as he was doing the autopsy and that’s how the report was written–no hole in the dura at all. Because there wasn’t one.

    Plus the Ayatollah had used the shot first in the hearing with the judge when they were making proffers of probable justification for aggravators–and based on the shot first, the judge gave them one out the three on aggravator #6–which was cruelty. So he and Martinez were screwed and Martinez was praying they would get through the whole trial without this being discovered due to the low level expertise and skills of a public defender.

    They got the cruelty aggravator by convincing the judge that he suffered pain for a time SUFFICIENT to qualify and they never mentioned anything about him being dead in 62 seconds. So the judge without this knowledge, accepted that it could have been substantial drawn out suffering. It was deliberate that they intended to deceive the judge and they never would have got it if they said the killing took only a minute and he was already dead when he was shot.

    So back to my first point, Nurmi should have known in 2011 that he had Horn nailed to the cross and should have just played dumb and led him further into the trap that would expose Martinez’ whole plan. But Nurmi was just the perfect patsy for the plan.

    Go back and listen to Horn on redirect with Martinez and you will see how Martinez SHOUTS the point that Horn had told him in a TAPED interview two years before trial that the shot was last. Unbelievable.

    • Jade the more you dig up the dirt the more we see the incompetence! I wonder if this wasn’t such a media driven case if the DF may have not been blinded by the spotlight!

      • Patty, I’m beginning to see it too.

      • I believe stupid is stupid, no matter what the circumstances. The only difference the media coverage made to the DT’s performance is that it shone the light on their ineptitude. I know the media had other sorts of impact, but I believe this DT would have been just as incompetent with or without the media. In fact had it not been for the media we would probably have been ignorant of the complete and utter lack of any sort of competence on their part.

        To plagiarize from old Foghorn Leghorn “These guys were about as sharp as bowling balls”

        I know Cindy, I’m throwing the DT under the bus again – but what can I do – they just made it so easy to do.

    • And that Chronis hearing perjured testimony to falsely obtain a cruelty aggravator factor in order to secure a Death Penalty is part of the reason this case must be overturned and remanded for a new trial….you can NOT lie your way into a death penalty aggravator with all that entails as far as a death qualified jury and rules, etc.. and then say in the end, well she didn’t get the death penalty so no harm no foul….OH NO !!! It does NOT work that way as there was an untold amount of harm done to Jodi by that perjured testimony not the least of which is the denial of Jodi’s constitutional rights to a fair trial….just another reason to vacate, remand or dismiss with prejudice…..

      • Oh what a web we weave when at first we seek to deceive……….

        • ….what a tangled web we weave……….

      • BB, it seems as though there are some distinctions in the law:
        European vs US. I am curious if you are in the US?

        • I’m here in good old USA…

33. Could the footprint in the shower have been created by whomever removed him from the shower?

    • That’s what I have thought – tho I’ll also say the ‘footprint’ really isn’t that clear to me.

      Just seems most likely to me that the red fluid under the body was decomposition seepage rather than blood.

      Also seems UN-likely to me that there would be a footprint in blood underneath the body – I just can’t work that into any imagined scenario of putting Travis in that shower.

      • My thoughts exactly. I believe that “stuff” is decomp. For that to be blood, T would have had to be very much alive when he entered the shower for the last time. I would think someone retrieving the body would have had to step into the stall and around the body.

        • And along those lines, could the footprint on the carpet be from the same person after stepping in that muck in the shower?

          • Wouldn’t there have been more step marks between the stall and the carpet?

            • yep

              like I said, I’m not sure I see a footprint in the shower at all – there’s a shape there that could as easily be a smudge made by some part of his body as he was removed from the shower

              and I find it as difficult to imagine someone getting IN the shower to get the body out as I do someone getting in the shower to put him in there

              • I was thinking they had one foot outside the shower and the other stepping over him to get leverage.

            • Yeah, you’re probably right. There’s a bit of distance between the shower and the carpet.

              • Every fill in the blank is ripe for whatever. I’m sending my positive energy to Jodi’s personal welfare and manifesting that vindicating evidence we need.

34. Thanks JADE…AGAIN! Now maybe JODI,S team could have done a better job if SHE had as much $$$ as AZ…..And a judge that was ….FAIR! Tiny WAS allowed to do anything in that court…..but in a military court he would be in Levenworth…for LIFE as the military has a real problem with FOOLS.This BULLSHIT WE can,t change the ststem…DUH! America ask the BRITS…ASK the SOUTH….ASK YOURSELF DO YOU WANT A TRIAL LIKE HERS?I will do my all for HER w/o end because I believe this world can be made better.BUT remember that words alone no matter how great in the end will not save HER from this darkness….$$$ THIS WILL! AND then DEBRA AMANDA and JODI can and will bring back JUSTICE for ALL with FAIR TRIALS and make ALL accountable in TRIALS….then watch the ten whores ….RUN!

35. How anyone can deduce what’s going on (“she’s dragging him”) in that photo is a mystery to me. This is one moment in time in the middle of a great deal of violence. Just because he’s lying down doesn’t mean he’s lying still. Perhaps he just knocked her down after the gunshot, she’s managed to get up and he’s starting to get up. Just as plausible as her dragging him. Another case of inventing evidence to fit the theory.

    • Very, very good point, Justus Forusall.
      It is plausible that he was starting to get up.

36. Alabama man leaves prison after 30 years on death row for two murders he did not commit. Now evidence shows that the bullets at the scene did not match to his gun….now that is a travesty of justice big time. He is now 58 years old. He could have been executed by now! Seems like every day you hear of these cases where people have been found guilty and serve mega time for crimes they didn’t commit. I wonder how many innocents have been executed.

    • That’s why we need to abolish the death penalty in the United States!!!!

    • The bullets at the scene did not match to his gun……..sound familiar? Hollow point bullets in Jodi’s grandpa’s gun doesn’t match the bullet at the scene either, now does it?? This case is so corrupted with phony evidence, destroyed evidence, perjured testimony that the appellate courts are going to literally vomit and purge this case……..vacate, remand……dismiss…….

      • Really!!

        30 years of his life??? Damn!
        How can he get that back?? He can;t.

        Agree BB,
        Only fainess for Jodi is NOW, dismissed!!!!

37. Yes BB – there are many pieces of evidence to be disputed in an appeal. And yes Cindy, it is so scary to think of the reality that many innocents have met with murder by the state.

38. And Jade, you have done it again….great job on your analysis ! And it highlights the biggest mistake on this case and that is that there was no forensic review on the part of the DT to dispute all the lies from the state…it certainly fits the theme of ineffective assistance of counsel….ignoring evidence such as the evidence on Jodi’s hard drive and absurdly deeming it irrelevant………

39. As has been mentioned a number of times, the DT didn’t have access to unlimited funds to get the experts that would have been able to blow this out of the water. Many times throughout the trial it occurred to me how important it was to have these experts. But I also know that rich people tend to be able to hire these experts not unemployed young women. I am not saying it is the whole story of ineffective assistance of counsel but I do think it would have provided a different outcome to have top notch forensic experts.

    • Oh give me a break Carol. They DID have access to fund to get various experts. This was a DP case. They were court-appointed, and the process takes a LOT longer, but they had time, lots of it, before trial. They apparently didn’t think it was important. They were convinced they were going for a plea deal and didn’t realize they had to actually investigate. Ruminate all you want but that’s what REALLY happened here.

      If Jodi was wealthy and hired her own lawyers, they wouldn’t have waited. The problem here is the wealth inequality in the courts. If you get accused of a crime, you had better have money to defend yourself. Otherwise, cop to a plea. That’s the TRUTH!

      • Of course they did end up spending over $3M for Jodi’s defense, so it seems money wasn’t really an issue.

        • Let’s look at the truth of what was spent. Nurmi & Willmott got paid an hourly rate. I can’t remember exactly, but I think it was $200 or $250 — certainly not unreasonable for an attorney, and actually CHEAP. So, every hour they spent in court, talking to Jodi, talking to witnesses, investigating the case cost $500 if they were both involved. Let’s get realistic here. $3 million divided by $200 is what? 1500 hours. How many hours of trial have we watched (and I haven’t even watched much of the retrial yet)? They got paid about $1400 EACH or more per day just for being in court. So just to have the lawyers present at trial was about $3k per day. Martinez made his regular salary whether he was there or not. But how many days of trial did we have? Multiply $3k by that, and see what’s left.

40. Al, I wrote a LONG post to you that apparently, went to the barn. It might show up. I don’t know. But the one point I wanted to make was that Jodi, acting pro se, was the one who offered the M2 plea. Did you not know that? She offered it twice before having counsel again. When Nurmi offered it, she’d already sent two letters to the state.

    • It showed up and I responded further up there somewhere.

      • Thanks Al. I’m glad my barn posts make it ultimately. LOL I kinda want to visit that barn and check out the posts that don’t get through. Then again, ewww. Maybe they belong with the horse doo-doo.

41. Jade, you’re amazing. And there’s only one thing I hope for … it’s that whomever is handling Jodi’s appeal is in touch with you. Unfortunately, legally speaking, some of what you present is a bit too late for the appeals process. But not all of it … you have some pieces that are seriously important and may qualify under de novo and/or judicial error (the autopsy photo — prejudical, for example). I don’t want to say too much here.

42. Here is a GREAT interview that I hadn’t seen before–all except for the last few minutes where the typical media wart hogs start flapping their jaws.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtFk15OtuNc

    • Thanks, Jade, for the video and your response to my questions yesterday. I always feel some anxiety watching Jodi being interviewed because I’m waiting for the “snark” questions from the interviewers which get my adrenaline pumping. This reporter wasn’t too bad except for “the most hated woman in America” comment and a few times when Jodi said something, the reporter would respond about how the poor Alexander family must feel. Those 2 reporters behind the desk near the end of the video with their comments about waiting for Jodi to say the two words (“I’m sorry”) bugged me. But, it wasn’t like the hateful Ryan Owens interview where Jodi finally responded:”I didn’t know you were a hater when you came to interview me” and he tried to back-peddle. Jodi was very composed, looked the reporter straight in the eye and gave thoughtful, intelligent replies. Good for her.

    • Jade,
      I sent a comment to you about the video but it must have stopped for something to eat or a bathroom break. It will arrive sometime hopefully.

    • Great interview! Jodi says she has no memory of the actual killing but believes that she must have done it…..

      thanks Jade

43. I had another thought that popped into my mind and I haven’t been able to get a definitive outright guarantee on this because after all, It’s Arizona, and federal laws often conflict with state laws and vice versa.

    This hadn’t occurred to me and normally I would dismiss it with another police department that operated on a basis of compliance with the law. But with Mesa PD, I wouldn’t hesitate to think that they would be willing to violate every law. Evidence fixing and perjury is their specialty.

    Jodi had testimony of conversations with Flores used against her that no doubt were not favorable to her. Especially her calling Flores after the killing and telling him essentially (as Martinez termed it) offering to help find the killer. Also telling Flores that Travis never owned a gun, among other things. Flores recorded those calls. Did he have a COURT ORDER to record those conversations when they were recorded?

    Police cannot wiretap or even record conversations with a suspect until they have gone to a judge and shown probable cause for a reason to tap the phone or to electronically intercept or record a communication. Lawyers can’t do it, she was not in a jail to forfeit reasonable expectation of privacy and she wasn’t Mirandized yet for sure.

    It was only shortly after June 4th when she started calling him and Flores started calling her. She was not by any means at that point yet, someone who they knew had killed Alexander. The police were still in the stage of merely gathering evidence and focusing on her because of vermin like Hughes and company saying she did it.

    Had they gone to a judge to swear under oath that they had probable cause to record her? I certainly didn’t hear Flores tell her she was being recorded on those early conversations that were played for the jury, which he would have been required to do without a court order. It is not considered like a 911 call where calls are automatically recorded.

    And there’s another problem if they didn’t. Jodi was in California when she made those calls. California is a TWO–PARTY state. Which means that both parties in a telephone conversation must be aware that phone conversations are being recorded. It is required to advise the person if they are in California that they are being recorded.

    Most states are one-party states which don’t require that both parties know a conversation is being recorded. It only requires that one person know. The exception being that you must be involved in the conversation. You can’t put a tape recorder under somebody’s bed for example and record somebody else’s conversations because that’s eavesdropping and against the law everywhere. Arizona is a one-party state. But it doesn’t matter.

    Because as long as Jodi was in California when Flores talked to her, if he didn’t have a court order or Arizona didn’t require him to get one from a judge or advise her that she was being recorded, he was committing a felony. Any other person outside of law enforcement would have unquestionably been committing a crime. And I haven’t yet been able to ascertain for certain if Arizona allows the police to just bypass a judge and record all they want, whenever they want.

    But if a court order was required and wasn’t obtained, all those phone calls should have been suppressed and inadmissible. If Nurmi missed that, and a court order was required, I just throw up my hands and there are no words to describe the incompetence.

    • Jade, in Arizona it is a one-party consent law….in other words if you live there and you want to record someone bc you have consented with yourself LOL ! you can go ahead and record without the other party’s knowledge or permission…unlike CA you can not do this…it requires two-party consent….so it was legal for Flores to record the conversation, but if Jodi was in CA when those conversations took place and she recorded without consent of Flores it would be unlawful and unusable in court…..also I believe that law enforcement has far more leeway on being able to record conversations with people of interest in a case….

      • the one party consent applies to the person recording the conversation so as long as that person is in AZ which is a one-party consent it is legal regardless of where the other party is located…..this is my understanding…

        • No, that’s not true. In interstate recording the state that has the most RESTRICTIVE law always governs whether the conversation can be recorded.

          If you ever record someone in one of the 11 states that require that all parties are aware conversation is being recorded, even if you are in a one-party consent state, you are liable for criminal charges if it is ever discovered.

        • You know, Jade, I believe I am not correct and you are correct….I thought that federal law came into play which allows recording with at least one party consent…..however, I believe in those states with two party consent that the state law supersedes that and so would require a two party consent…however that still leaves the law enforcement question as to whether or not law enforcement operate under special rules regarding ongoing investigations….

          • Exactly and all we need to find out is whether or not police can legally record in Arizona without any judge first approving it. I know positively they can’t wiretap without court order.

            There are even limitations as to how long the conversations can be monitored when there IS a court order. And the order has to spell out exactly why they need it or what they expect to learn.

            I’m still trying to find that answer if Mesa PD didn’t just do what they felt like doing without following legal requirements and that nobody would be with wiser.

            • Was any of this brought up in the trial about the legality of those recordings and how those were allowed – you know, what procedures / laws did they follow regarding those recordings?

              • I can’t remember any from the trial but this issue could have been gone over in pretrial hearings in order to allow such evidence into the trial…

                • What makes me suspicious is that it was so SOON–only days- after the killing that the conversations between her and Flores took place. I don’t know if they weren’t thinking let’s just go ahead and record her, there may be something she’ll say that will incriminate her.

                  Wouldn’t that be sweet.

                  And if a court order had been required first, there would have to be a record of it someplace.

                  It’s one thing if they just recorded her and nobody ever knew about it except the police. But these recordings were played to a jury. There’s only 3 possibilities:

                  1. They got a court order.
                  2. They didn’t need a court order and can record persons at any time.
                  3. The tape recordings were admitted and should have been suppressed.

                  And again, there is the issue that she was in California.

                • Okay, see my posts down below….it is regarding her agreeing to an official phone interview on June 25….but you are saying that there were some calls just days after they found TA so that would put it well before June 25….so yes, unless they asked her to provide a statement and she agreed or they got a court order or they didn’t need a court order or they were admitted despite not being properly lawfully recorded in which case they should have been suppressed…….

    • WOW is about all I can say to that one!!!

    • jade,

      A few questions about this issue:

      1. Does the law against recording apply if the call is initiated by the person outside the police department. So can the police record all incoming calls?

      2. Can the police ask for consent and then that becomes a freely made statement? So if the police officer says – do you mind if I record this, and the caller says – no go ahead, is that then legal? Its sort of like the police asking for permission to search, if you give it then I gather they don’t necessarily need a warrant.

      If either of those are true then this may be all legit, if either point 1 is true, or if Jodi was warned and point 2 is true.

      • Yes to number 2…..and she was calling Flores’s cell phone at least on some of the calls according to his report…..so I don’t know if the officer’s cell phone would be included in any blanket recording capability that the police enjoy….

        • the call on June 25 was an “official interview” as was the follow up that Jodi agreed to….however there were calls just days after finding TA as stated above so those may not have been proper depending on things as stated above…..

44. Okay, Jade, after going back and reviewing DF’s report it states in there that Jodi agreed to an official phone interview and such was conducted on June 25, 2008 and then Flores did a follow up “interview” ….so I believe that the fact that these were official “interviews” and Jodi consented to them that anything she said on those recordings could be used in court….in fact she initially had stated I believe in a message she left for Flores that she did not want to give a statement until she talked to an attorney but when Flores called her back a couple of days later she stated she regretted saying that and now she was willing to give a statement to him and would even provide one over the phone……..

    • 🙁

      • But I guess that could still leave a question as to whether some of the calls were before she agreed to an official interview ?? Do we know all the dates/times of all the recordings between her and Flores and do they all fall under the “official interview” status or not?

        • Even agreeing to an official interview does not mean you are consenting to it being taped. That should be stated specifically. She wasn’t in a police station. Police interview people all the time–they’re all deemed official interviews. It’s police asking questions in their capacity as law officers.

          But when you tape somebody that falls under a different standard. Appeals courts have even had to decide cases where conversations IN a police station were recorded without the person’s knowledge. Jodi was in her own home, in California, and I don’t believe they could record her without stating it was being recorded or some crazy law in Arizona allows police to record without getting a court order.

          I’m not so sure all these recordings met the legal requirements.

          • Well I was assuming that DF would have had to inform her that he was recording the official interview, but bc this case is so infected with misconduct, etc….it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t state that to her so that she was unaware she was being recorded….

            • And you are probably right that these recordings did not meet the legal requirements barring some special circumstances that allow law enforcement in AZ to record when they are suspicious of a person being involved in a killing, etc…..the state and the PD has shown the pattern of misconduct and not doing things by the book….

            • It wouldn’t have made any difference at all except for the fact that she was in California.

              Because in Arizona anybody can record somebody else with notifying them, and in fact even put a tape recorder on their person and tape record them without their knowledge. In effect–“wire” yourself and meet with somebody. Since you know the conversation is being recorded, it meets the one-party consent.

              But she’s not in Arizona and calls cannot be recorded, regardless if she’s making the call to somebody in Arizona or somebody in Arizona is calling her.

              Those early calls certainly would have required that notification, without legal authority.

              Words matter, and legal technicalities damn sure matter. Cases are won on them every day.

              • Exactly right …..those technicalities do matter and could potentially be another appellate issue if proper procedures weren’t followed and those recordings should have never been admitted….so I just hope and pray that the appellate attorneys that are working on Jodi’s appeals will thoroughly go through every detail of this case and protect Jodi’s rights in her appeals….and if the DT agreed to the admissibility of the recordings without bothering to know whether they were legally obtained (which is hard for me to believe) then ineffective assistance of counsel is certain…..but having said all that we still don’t know for sure all the details as to the legality of those recordings….unless someone can locate something on those recordings that shows one way or the other

                • It’s been so long sense I’ve heard the tapes, BUT I seriously thought that Jodi wasn’t too worried about herself.
                  Seemed like she was trying to help>

                  I’m pretty naive (spelling) not after this trial, but I would have done the same thing.

                  Af far as them taping her, it does seem like she would or could have had someone warn her.

                  Seems also like being in the two differents states made a difference, but not in this case, right?

                • oops, SINCE!!!

                • Well that’s just it, we really don’t know….CA does have a two party consent, however, we don’t know if CA makes an exception for law enforcement investigations (I’m guessing they do) and whether or not they share that exception in a reciprocal manner with out of state law enforcement agencies that are involved in active ongoing investigations of people residing in their state (I’m guessing they do)…but we don’t know for sure the details of whether these recordings meet the legal requirements….

    • Well dang I guess I have to read the whole chain before I post stuff. 🙄 😉

45. Journee,
    In relation to our conversation yesterday about a cut on Jodi’s hand, I accidentally came across more information tonight. Jodi saying to Martinez on a trial video: “I cut myself on June 4 early in the morning before we went to bed.” Apparently, she cut it on a glass and it was on her right hand. It’s on Jodi Arias Trial Day 22 on a Youtube video by Eonblue3 around 53:00.

    • Yah, I remember that now.

      The photo above is of her right hand.

      But if I remember correctly, during interrogation interviews, Jodi was showing Flores a healing cut on a finger of her left hand, palm side…. and I wanna say but can’t be sure, I think she said her cat did it? And that it had been so deep she could see the bone? Which wouldn’t have to be very deep at a finger joint.

46. I know it’s late, but I want to know if anyone knows in picture 23 if that door
    that is open goes to another bedroom?
    Anyone know?

    • I believe the door handle you see on the left side of the picture goes to the master closet, and based on floorplans I saw before the open door is the main doorway to the master bedroom, so it opens out to a hallway/open area outside the bedroom.

    • Door on the left is the linen closet, that’s where that box with the moisture damage is located. Door to the right in the picture is the master closet. That’s where Jodi said she retrieved TA’s gun, and that’s the door he was coming through when the gunshot happened.

      • Thanks SC and Jounree!

        So, I guess going straight back is his Bedroom and Bathroom.

        On the plans could you tell from those doors where the roommates
        lived?

        • At the precise position where the photo is taken, the shower is to the right of the viewer and the bedroom is down that hall in front of the viewer.

          There were plans shown at some point, either at trial or on HLN’s night court, that showed the other bedrooms. From the position of the camera in the photo you cited, straight down that hallway in front of you and on across TA’s room is the wall that Travis shared with Enrique’s room. Enrique had the corner room, and Zack’s room, from that same position, would be to the immediate left of Enrique’s room. NO bedrooms were directly adjacent to Travis’ master bathroom. But all of the bedrooms opened into the same loft space – the loft space where Travis held his UFC fight night parties – at the top of the stairs.

          • Thanks Journee! : )
            Enrique moved out not too long before this and Zach was still living there
            and all of their rooms were upstairs?
            Was he stil having those parties right before the Cancun trip?
            Just curious as ever.
            I told you I needed to ask more questions. : )

            Zach was the one that was there with his girlfriend on the night the others
            “came” to look for him.
            I wonder if they called Zach before they came.
            I know none of this helps, but at least answers questions that I either
            didn’t hear or forgot.
            Thank again,
            You’re a lot of help.
            I really do believe that you should have been the investigator.: )

            • Enrique moved IN about two weeks before Jun 4, 2008.

              Both roommates were at home on the night the friends came looking for Travis. Zack is the one who found a key to unlock TA’s bedroom door. Enrique did not emerge from his room, despite all the ruckus and shouting, until Zack knocked on the door to tell them the 911 operator said they had to get out of the house.

              • Wow! I didn’t realize he was that new to living there. How weird that he stayed in his room through all that.

47. Good Morning and Happy Easter everyone.

    Some morning music.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLU0KA0xUBE

    • Good morning and Happy Easter Al and Mrs. Al. No kids?

      • No. First time in 18 years. It’s just us and my pa-in-law who will show up sometime this afternoon. No easter baskets (which my wife was putting out even when they were 18), no peeps, or chocolate bunnies, or eggs or anything.

        If this is a face of things to come, I don’t like it one wee bit, and it sucks.

        • So start putting together an Easter basket for Mrs. Al

          Life is change. Gotta build new traditions.

          • I like that. Thanks Journee. Now I gotta go find some organic, 70% chocolate eggs ’cause that’s how my wife goes.

            Reminds me of the Jefferson Airplane song (which they ripped off John Wyndham’s Chrysalids almost word for word)

            “Life is change – how it differs from the rocks”

            • Happy Easter Al & Mrs. Al…. I bet breakfast in bed Easter morning would do..

              • Happy Easter to you and yours, Patty.

                BTW I got a chocolate Easter bunny, and the kids got parcels from Mom and Dad – so yeah we had to do something.

                But I promised to clean the garage, that kept me out of the kitchen, got the garage cleaned and now we have karmic peace.

48. This is a response to Aly’s various appeals related questions and a sort of addendum to StillOutThere’s comments.

    I think this may help from one layman to another.

    So basically an appeal is based on the principle that a defendant is guaranteed a fair trial, and certain things may have happened during the trial that took away that fairness. But it is not a new trial – so you don’t get to present evidence and all that.

    So basically during an appeal the appellate lawyers raise points that show why the trial was not fair. But these points are based on the actual conduct of the trial, and for the most part not the evidence that was provided. There is one exception, in that under certain circumstances one can argue that the evidence provided was not enough to lead to the conviction (but I gather that is a really hard obstacle to cross).

    So, basically the appeal is based on the conduct of the trial. That means that it really looks at the conduct of the judge, the prosecutor, the jury members, the defense attorney, and other circumstances during the trial.

    So when they look at the judge they are looking at all the decisions the judge made during the trial – to determine if the judge did something that was against the rules. This could be allowing in certain testimony, or precluding certain other testimony, or other decisions the judge may have made. The look at these to see if the judge made any error that might have caused the case to go one way or another. This is the judicial error part.

    When they look at the prosecutor, they look to see if the prosecutor did something that was against the rules. And there are a gazillion rules about what a prosecutor has to do, may do and may not do. Again they look at these to see if any of the rules were broken and if so could they have affected the outcome of the trial – that’s judicial error.

    The jury is supposed to be a fair, open-minded jury not exposed to outside influences and is supposed to decide the case based purely on the evidence presented. So they look at the jury to see if there was any hanky panky, like someone bribing a juror, or threatening a juror, or coercing a juror in any way, and that sort of stuff – and whether that could have affected the outcome. This becomes the juror conduct issue.

    Now the Constitution guarantees that a defendant gets a fair trial, and as a part of that they are supposed to get effective legal help. That means their defense team must provide effective legal help and support. So they look at that and see if it was done and if not could it have affected the outcome of the case. That’s the ineffective assistance of counsel thing.

    Now as the constitution provides for a fair trial, other issues can make the trial unfair, including certain types of media coverage, or demonstrations in front of the jury, or intimidation of witnesses who could have testified, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and they see if that could have made a change in the course of the trial. I think this is where the newly found evidence ends up. But it has to be newly found. If it was available at the time of the trial, and the defense chose not to use it, then that doesn’t count – unless it can be used to show ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Lastly, in the rarest of cases you might have a situation where the appellate attorney argues that the evidence provided just didn’t support the verdict. In fact they argue this to the trial court all the time. However, they can bring this up at the appeals again.

    There are probably other grounds but these are the major muscle movements. So you don’t get to reargue the case, or retry it, or question folks in front of the appeals court. The appeals are mostly handled on a technical assessment of what went on in the trial and how it could have affected the outcome of the case.

    So I keep talking about the “could have affected the outcome of the case”. This to me, as a scientist, is the greatest paradox of the whole appeals process. The appeals attorneys can not argue any evidence, they cannot present any new evidence, but the Appeals Court can look at all the evidence in the trial record when they try and determine if the error was meaningful.

    So you could have the appeals court agree with every point raised on appeal, and still decide that OK that was an error, but it doesn’t matter because in their belief that doesn’t change the outcome of the case. It’s interesting to note in this regard, that I read somewhere that in 7 past cases the appeals court has found that JM had committed prosecutorial misconduct. However in every one of those cases they felt that the decision would have been the same in any case, so they did not overturn.

    So I hope this helps set the picture for what happens in appeals, what they argue and raise. I’m sure I have missed points, and made some errors, and I’m sure people will correct those.

    • When talking about the prosecutor I meant “prosecutorial misconduct” – not judicial error. Still haven’t had my two cups of coffee.

      • Seems to me that to a certain extent the more evidence this particular prosecutor has, the more ammunition he stacks in his bunker. He seems to welcome all of it. For example, he wanted the letters in, after objecting to them at first. His ostensible purpose in wanting to get the letters in after the defense no longer wanted to use them was to shred the defense’s case by indicating in some way, either by inference or insinuation, or perhaps just by ringing the bell – i.e. questions asked of witnesses and overruled – that the defense experts relied on their content in forming certain opinions. The letters that would have been admitted were only electronic copies, and would have provided a green light for the prosecutor to tear them up for what couldn’t be seen with respect to a copy, such as writing pressure on the backside of the document, or a definitive read on kinetic aspects of the the pen strokes.

        Another example of how undaunted this prosecutor can be is the way in which he accused MS and GP, Jodi’s earlier attorneys, of destroying computer files when they viewed various pieces of evidence that had been taken into police custody a year earlier. The defense attorneys stated in court that they were never alone with the evidence, but that didn’t stop the prosecutor from making an accusation that was not credible on its face – accusing attorneys of destroying evidence potentially helpful to their client. He made the same accusation of Neumeister when he accused him in court of using the program “Incinerator” to destroy computer data.

        So this prosecutor’s approach seems to be to just keep stacking his side of the argument in every conceivable way, using each brick in the pile, no matter how far-fetched his suppositions become. If it happens that the defendant is innocent of the charges, how likely is it that debunking a couple of items would make a difference to the “outcome” if those items of evidence weren’t incriminating in and of themselves in the first place? In that instance, there would have to have been more bricks on the prosecutor’s side in order for him to have made the case at all because no single piece of evidence would ever spell out culpability of an innocent defendant unless it were misinterpreted. The wall simply would have to be built higher.

        So that’s why, apparently, this prosecutor seems happy to spin anything and everything in Jodi’s case. In the absence of any direct, substantive evidence against her a case was fashioned from everything within striking distance.

        But when can inference drawn from insinuation, or an array of suppositions about inconclusive evidence be deemed circumstantial evidence? How far can a state go down the “slime highway” in the absence of direct incriminating evidence against a defendant?

        How many gas cans will be enough for them?

        • All of the “socalled” evidence was so unbelievable
          and didn’t make a bit of sense.
          If the jury would have paid close attention to what was supposedly “evidence”
          or facts.
          Gas cans? Really
          What if she had a car fool, what does that prove?

          People used to have extra gas cans on a trip all of the time.
          It’s a matter of safety.
          They dpent so much time on that, it was pathetic and what if she decided
          to return all of them,BFD!!!!

          Where were fingerprints, did they check everyone as thoroughly as Jodi.
          MANY that we know were there. Why NOT???
          How much time did they spend talking about hair color.
          We do it all of the time and I’ve never had anyone question me for it.
          WHY Jodi???
          She had just as much right to color her’s. Why take a whole week trying to make
          something out of it?
          BECAUSE they really didn’t have any facts or evidence about Jodi.

          They asked did she kill TA and she said yes??? How many people have done that?
          There are many innocent people in prison because they admitted to it.
          ASK why after 2 years she admitted to it.

          • I was thinking about the hair dye, too, Aly, when I wrote that. How many times would she have to dye her hair for it to be considered a sinister act?

            It came out in the re-trial in the form of something that she wrote to another person back in April that she restored her hair color to brown before even leaving Mesa. There are pictures of her with brown hair in Yreka, after she left Mesa. She even testified on the stand that she had to dye her hair twice to make it take, since it’d been platinum before. So, in light of all of that exculpatory evidence, how many times would she have actually had to have dyed her hair for it to be an incriminating procedure? How many different colors would need to be involved?

            Here’s another thought I just had about the license plates. The rear plate on the rental was still upside down after she’d met up with Ryan in Utah. That’s where she was pulled over by the state trooper.

            By this time, for all Jodi knew, an investigation could have been underway back in Mesa, She had no way of knowing when exactly her cell phone would ring with news that he was dead. She ALSO had no way of knowing whether or not a neighbor would have seen a white Ford Focus in the vicinity with an upside-down license plate.

            Even if a witness might not have been close enough or concerned enough to see or note the actual numbers and letters, if a witness simply observed a plate with the yearly tag in the wrong place or the state’s name upside down, or saw a car without any plates at all, that witness could have taken it upon themselves to later call the police and say that they saw something irregular about an out-of-state white sedan or a saw one with no I.D. the previous day near the house of the deceased.

            If she had pre-planned this killing and had concocted a method to elude detection in advance, that consciousness of guilt should have impelled her to return any plates to their proper position so that she could say that there was no such irregularity with that car she’d taken on the trip.

            At what point do the prosecutor’s arguments constitute over-reaching? If he’d said that the reason she left the plate upside down was so that she would be caught in another state (how does one predict a location for a stop?) or be caught and could do television interviews and be famous, or that she left the plate upside down so that she could be caught and drag out an interrogation with the lead detective for thirty hours, never asking for a lawyer so that it would be as painful as possible for all involved, would any of that make a bit of earthly sense?

            If Jodi had meant to deceive by turning the plate, she would turned it around once she got back on the proper road to Utah. And the prosecutor never asked the state trooper or the car rental man in front of a jury whether or not the car had a front plate, although Jodi testified that the front plate had been removed by vandals in the Starbuck’s parking lot in Pasadena, and that she’d picked it up from the cinder block in front of the car and placed it on the floor beside the front passenger seat before heading to Mesa.

            Again, how much weird stuff has to occur – or be conveniently ignored – with the rental car for the prosecutor to make his case, and how many thoughts is he allowed to attribute to Jodi’s purpose in her supposed modus operandi (not wanting a red car, as if that’s unusual) in rendering all of these things sinister?

            At some point the carefully stacked bricks on the prosecutor’s side achieve a height such that justice is blotted out; the consistent over-reaching at that point should become an appellate issue. How high is that wall allowed to rise before, as Robert Frost said in his poem “Mending Wall”, “Something…wants it down”?

            • Tryinnocence,
              I can’t possibly understand the license plate BFD either.
              If it was upside down when she left the rental place, then who did it and why?

              Why didn’t an officer stop her before she got to TA’s?
              Why, right after she leaves.
              Who did it? Jodi didn’t!

              We never get a red rental car and never would have ever been asked WHY
              we didn’t want red, but thought we would be smart in turning our license plate upside down. Didn’t she follow Ryan Burns at one time.
              I think they try to get your attention and mind all of the iirrelevant things and yell it out ovrr and over again so it rattles your brain.

              Jodi didn’t know she was being set up and all of these minute things would mean a damn thing. I know if I were in her place, I would be stunned at all of the crap they thought was proof of anything bad.
              Chris said she had on long sleeves at some thing they attended after. BFD!!
              She can’t change her hair, she shouldn’t wear long sleeves and shouldn;t stop for gas cans.
              All of these things prove nothing and Flores told her he knew she was there because he had pictures of her and TA having sex that day. He’s such a liar.
              All of these lies have been coming from the prosecution and then she was arrested.
              No bond, WHY?
              She had already proven she wasn’t going anywhere. She had been talking with Flores.

              How high are the bricks supposed to get before someone tears it down?
              I think that’s a great questtion because I believe in the 1st and then even worse the 2nd really proved their lies and coverups and someone is ready to tear it down.
              I really believe, several are watching and are asing the same questions, PLUS theyare the ones to do so.

        • Very well said. Another brick in the wall….

    • Pretty darn fair straight up assessment, Al, and I’m sure it’s very helpful to others. The trial happened. It is what it is. What could have, should have, or you and I wish happened, well, they didn’t.

      • I believe there was a woman set free after 9 years,That was in Brownsville, TX
        Murder capital of the world!!
        Also in OCT. 2014 of last year same thing with a man. I believe 5 years in prison and 4 years
        on death row.
        So, never, never, never give up.
        We won’t and Jodi won’t

        So hang in there and never give up hope. If anyone deserves it Jodi does.
        There was misconduct all over that thrial and court room!!

        • Amen Aly!

    • That’s what I don’t understand about our legal system. It’s always like “well, there was prosecutorial misconduct, but it doesn’t matter anyways” and it just keeps happening over and over all across the United States.

      • And every time they look the other way, they just invite these prosecutors (like children who have not had limits firmly set) to push those limits just a little bit harder. And slowly those little monsters grow into something resembling Juan Martinez.

        • Exactly Justus! When are things going to change? The legal world makes my head spin.

          • Vicky.
            I know it all gives me a headache too.
            I always ask the same.
            I’m hoping we can do a lot by not letting them fool us time and time again.
            They have to know that we’re on to them and not letting up.
            We’re not accepting this kind of conduct.

49. HAVE A BLESSED EASTER TEAM JODI! ♥ ((((((((FREE JODI ARIAS AZ)))))))))
    ♥ FORGIVE AND MOVE ON ♥
    John 11:25-26 “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

    I believe all of this. ♥

    • Happy Easter R. Love

      I believe!

    • Happy Easter!

    • What a relief R.Love,
      You are always good for the heart and soul! : )
      Happy Easter!!!

      • ((((((Aly))))))

50. Happy Easter, everyone!
    Happy Easter to Jodi and the Arias family!

    Some Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes:

    “The earth laughs in flowers.”

    “All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”

    “In the woods, is perpetual youth. Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed…”

    • Beautiful Amy! ♥

51. Happy Easter Team Jodi! Hugs and love to all especially our girl! <3

52. Al,
    In the movie “Wild,” the main character, Cheryl Strayed (played by Reese Witherspoon) decides to do a 1,100 mile hike on the Pacific Crest Trail from the Mojave Desert to the Washington state border. A trip of “self-discovery” after her mother’s death. When Strayed arrived in Ashland, Oregon she learns that Jerry Garcia had passed away. Ashland, apparently, was full of radical youth and hippies, who were mourning Jerry Garcia’s death. She gets invited to a Garcia tribute concert at a club. Portions of 2 GD songs are played in the scene at the club. It made me think of this site and your posting of the Grateful Dead songs. Just a bit of trivia for Easter.

    • Cool, I’ll have to go check it out. I actually read a book about Cheryl Strayed a while ago.

      There’s another movie that has a big Grateful Dead motif called “The Music Never Stopped”, which is a rather good movie, if you ever get the chance to see it. It’s about a father trying to connect with his son, through his music.

      • I saw “The Music Never Stops.” It was a very good movie.

53. Regarding the discussion upthread on M2 vs. manslaughter. The first step in understanding Arizona criminal law as it applies to this case is to look at two easily available sources: the Arizona Criminal Code (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13) and the Final Jury Instructions (link at the top of this page under “Court Docs”). The criminal code has a separate section (13.1103) for manslaughter, making it a class-2 felony, whereas M2 (section 13.1104) is a class-1 felony. There is an earlier section on how the class of a felony determines its sentencing options. As for the jury instructions, they state that Jodi cannot be guilty of both M2 and manslaughter.

    • Thanks alan – either I misunderstood or it was misreported at the time.

54. Does the bottom left picture in pic #8, seems like ta’s leg has a lot of scratches, maybe from dragging over the shower door bottom edge? Thanks

    • I wondered that too, but they’re not noted on the autopsy report as such. Every other fresh bruise or scrape was noted. Maybe it’s livor mortis.

      • Thanks Journee, at least it could be, but since they didn’t put it in the autopsy report I’m definitely sure it is now! ha

        • Looks like a footprint!
          It’s more like a print, than a scrape to me.

          • I think you might be looking at a different pic Aly. I’m talking about the bottom left pic in picture #8. It looks like scraps on the bottom of ta’s leg, to me, but Journee says it’s not in the autopsy report, and I said yeah, and that means the scraps are maybe for real, ha.

            • I know that these are not the wounds you are speaking about, but these are the ones listed in his autopsy report which could have been caused by moving the body.

              Bottom of page 4 of 8 Blunt Force Injuries

              In addition to the injuries described above, the following blunt force injuries are observed:
              • A ¼ inch abrasion of the proximal volar right forearm
              • Two (2) blue-purple contusions of the right lower leg and knee
              • Two (2) abraded lacerations of the lower lateral left heel and ankle
              • A 2 inch blue-purple contusion of the medial malleolus of the left ankle

              • The pic above does appear to be abrasions to me. My understanding of livor is that it appears on the most dependent part of the body.

                • Just caught my eye, could be nothing really,who knows….

              • Well CanadaCarol, I guess I was implying that horn missed writing there were scratches on ta’s leg cause every thing he says or writes is suspect now that he’s been busted for perjury. I might accept Journee’s comment about the scratch-like looking marks are livor mortis, but I thought that livor mortis was blood settling, and his lower leg is elevated.
                Not many want to believe Jodi affected placing ta in the shower, but I’m going to say once again, I’ve had a gun directly IN my face and reacted with adrenaline and I’ve seen women(more than one) under the influence of adrenaline and I promise it IS possible that Jodi got him in there. I say possible, that’s all. I probably should not keep harping on points that cause these pages to vibrate, but I saw Jade’s picture and thought that those could be scratches from dragging ta in.

                • That is terrible johnm. I had a few close calls when I was a young child, but never anything like a gun in my face. The effects of adrenaline on the body in fight/flight are amazing.

                  Yes, Horn and his report leaves much to be desired, but his leg is elevated- in this pic anyway.

                • One things for sure, mind over matter is not just a concept!

              • I agree that it looks like abrasions. Just seems odd to me that if they were – I mean that’s a pretty big area, you’d think they’d be mentioned in the report. And yes, johnm, we know Horn is a perjurer, but we only know it for sure because his testimony contradicts the autopsy report.

                Livor is the blood that remains in the tissues settling to the lowest point. TA’s left arm, in that same photo, you can see is nearly black with livor, along the low side of it. Where his arm touches his body there will be no livor, because the compression of surface contact keeps the blood from going there. So that’s what livor looks like on a body part that’s roughly horizontal. But the left leg is canted, and the streaks are vertical – if the leg were straightened and the body standing, the ‘scrapes’ would be angled downwards – which would be a very odd angle to be pulling the entire length of thigh across that metal lip into such a small shower. I’m having difficulty even imagining how it would happen.

                But I can see how blood could streak straight downwards on a larger body part, in livor, where there is no point of compression to stop it.

                • on that note, uncle!

55. x

56. x

    • Yes Dwight,

      I don’t think there is much of a resemblance to the glass on the right side of the drain. I think that’s just how the blood took shape on the shower floor.

      But there definitely was something that had blood on it that was under where his right arm was laying. I had given some thought to that possibly being the vertical lines in the glass because only very little of the glass contacts the floor as it is laying on its side. But it appears that the width of what would be two vertical lines on the glass is not as wide as whatever caused that outline.

      http://www.mediafire.com/view/02de5sirvd4bv5t/Photo_for_Dwight_Huth.jpg

57. HAPPY MONDAY TEAM JODI! ONWARD WE GO!!!
    Try to be a rainbow in someone’s cloud.
    Maya Angelou

58. Good morning Team Jodi! Hey R. Love! (((R. Love))) Yes, indeed, onward, we go!

    • HI ((((((Vicky)))))

59. This from Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune:

    “Maricopa County Superior Court spokeswoman Karen Arra announced Monday that Judge Sherry Stephens has approved live coverage.”

    While I am happy for us being able to watch it, I’m also wondering what Judge Stephens is thinking. Could this be an attempt to keep people from coming to the court house with their signs and banners, to show their approval (LWOP) or disapproval (25 years)? Maybe it will help to stem the tide but there are still some very diehard and devoted haters who relish in the excitement of participating in a crowd, cheering and booing in unison, as if they are all at some long-ago homecoming game. It will be interesting to see just how many still show up.

    • It would be nice if only family showed up but I know that is asking too much. Heaven forbid them from taking the high road. . .ever. I’m sure the Haters will be there with their slobber dripping from their fangs. SMH

60. And while the dark side is obsessing about Juror 17, I wonder who is investigating Juan’s behavior during deliberations in regards to investigating Juror 17. I’d like to know if, while he was at it, did he also investigated the 11 who were voting in his favor? Does he want us to believe that of 19 people who signed up to be on that jury, none of the others like Nancy Grace…or, better yet, didn’t watch the Lifetime Movie? If all of the other 18 said they didn’t watch that movie, we know we have a large percentage of liars on that jury. Statistically it just doesn’t pass the stink test.

    • No Justus, it doesn’t pass the stink test! Wonder when something will be done about the lying, manipulating, deceiving, tampering and withholding evidence “prosecutor”? (Just realized he sound just like TA) I would think that would be the first thing the taxpayers would want to check on. Their tax money is being used for corrupting the masses IMO. It is time for our Government to step in and check on some of these characters in the Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office. They appear to be pulling the wool off the backs of some own their own sheeple. Arizona, we the people with brains haven’t forgotten about his deceitful and corrupt behavior.

      • They appear to be pulling the wool off the backs of some of their own sheeple. That’s better. 😉

61. Anybody who still doubts that T-Dogg would have been incapacitated by the wittybitty piece of the ejectile that came from the mouse gun, should read this.

    If this thorough dossier in addition to the information I have already given that Alexander could easily not have been incapacitated by the shot, well…then dream on.

    Horn, maybe you should tack this up on your wall above your autopsy table and look at as you’re phony-ing up more autopsy reports.

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

62. Thanks Al for the introduction!

    https://youtu.be/R_TC3l3RPo0

63. If I’m wrong, I’ll correct this.

    But I think I had read somewhere that this would be correct. And if so, you can see the close proximity he would be to that room.

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/ccq3uk2q5q91h9w/View_of_upstairs_bedrooms.jpg

    • Thanks jade,
      I won’t feel right about any of this until the roomates are drilled.
      Plus others too.
      That house was not that big plus carpet, all of that with blood and other
      (stuff) seems like they would have needed a mask to go in.

64. Well I hope we can get an idea of who will be representing Jodi on her appeals…we can at least find out a little bit about their experience level and so on….this is going to be critical that her appeals team work diligently and go through every last iota of detail on this case and make sure that they don’t miss any opportunity to include appeal issues….stuff we haven’t even thought of perhaps….

    ((((((Go Appeals Team)))))

    We are with you 1000000000% !!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

65. The following on Debra Milke’s appeal in the ninth circuit court makes for very interesting reading:

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/14/07-99001%20web%20-%20corrected.pdf

    • The prosecutor can not withhold exculpatory evidence. Such evidence exists in Arias’ case. The appellate attorney will find it and bring it to light.
      Thanks, BB it was a good read…

66. I just watched the video of the 3/4 hearing where Juan is trying to get Juror 17 booted because he believes (but can’t prove) that she accessed news items about the case. However, his main point is that she was on Facebook at all. What he fails to mention and Jennifer brings to the court’s attention is that other jurors were also accessing their Facebook pages and three of them actually became Facebook friends. Juan also tries to say that they couldn’t tell which way the 11-1 vote was leaning, toward death or life so he wants us to believe that all his inquiries into Juror 17 had nothing to do with his belief that she was holding out for life, that he would have still tried to get her dismissed if he believed she was voting for death. Give me another fucking break, Juan!

    • Ditto that !!

67. Someone was wondering when Jodi left Mesa to go home to Yreka. Jodi testified it was 5 weeks approximately after the argument in the car when TA slapped her.

    ALV through the journal entries and test messages dates the argument as March 2nd and there were messages between Jodi and TA on April 7th, when she was already in Hollister on her way home. I believe that was the day after she left. (ALV Day 41 at 33:00).

    • (text) messages 🙂

68. My question has been for a while now about Det. Flores and why he destroyed potential exculpatory evidence at the scene on June 10 and then again on June 19 (and perhaps other times like the mysterious near midnight deletion of info off of TA’s hard drive on June 19 as well….) blatantly ignoring standard protocol involving computer evidence…..his admittedly false testimony at the Chronis hearing involving the order of injuries…..and the question is this:

    Did Detective Flores know who Travis Alexander was when he went to the scene? Did he know him from the Mormon church since both are members and both live in Mesa? Did he have some previous knowledge of TA’s porn watching, etc..behavior? All logical questions given his actions from DAY ONE arriving on scene and throughout the trial including his obvious admitted perjury regarding his Chronis hearing testimony…..why else would a so-called seasoned detective commit these actions?

    So if anyone can input on this………..

    • During one of EF’s phone calls, (I believe it was) with Jodi he stated that in the condition in which he was found, he almost didn’t recognize him…I’ve always wondered exactly what was meant by that. One possibility would be that someone showed him a photograph so that he could at least preliminarily verify his identity, beyond just the address of the house. If he looked very different from a photograph that was given to him by a friend, I could see how he might say that he almost didn’t recognize him without actually having ever met him.

69. New post just added…

    The Mysterious Stench of Decomp & BS:
    https://jodiariasisinnocent.com/the-mysterious-stench-of-decomp-bs-justice-for-jodi-arias

    SJ
    Team Jodi #WINNING <<<

70. x

71. Jade,

    All due respect, but your assertions are in error.

    A sequence of events does exist that perfectly matches the crime scene and it says that Jodi was defending herself.

    You’ll have to wait till later to have it revealed.

72. Ever since hearing about this, I was sure Jodi is innocent. Not only with this evidence, but she is a beautiful, kind girl. Also, watching clips of her trial and her mannerisms convinces me she is innocent.

    • Hi Layne, Your observation and sense of her innocence is correct. You may be interested in reading the following:

      Jodi Arias: An Argument for Reasonable Doubt
      http://jodiarias.justice4usall.com

Comments are closed.