Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Jodi Arias Trial

842 posts in this topic

Anyone watching the Jodi Arias trial on In Session? Gee she`s a real Psycho right out of that movie Psycho, stabbing her boy friend 27 times in the bath room and shot him in the head.She pleading self defence, wonder if there was any scratchs on her ?

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=18420949

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defence is trying to prove her boy friend was sexully controling, by putting pictures on the big screems and all the moniters in the court room of a erection that he sent her. The people in the court room did`nt where to look just put their heads down. If I were one of the family of her boyfriend, I think I would have yell out my disgust and protested, even if I had to go to jail:(

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's EXTREMELY far-reaching.

If Alexander sent such a photo, the only thing it would prove is that he made the same foolish mistake that many, many others have come to regret.

I fail to see a connection between such a photo and control. It serves to show that there was a sexual element to their relationship, but that's the extent of it's value as evidence.

Give me a break. :no::td:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from wiki:

Alexander's friends discovered his dead body in a shower of his home. He had been shot in the face, his throat was slit from ear to ear, and he had been stabbed 29 times (the original report indicated 27 stab wounds). Maricopa County Medical Examiner, Dr. Kevin Horn, testified that Alexander's jugular vein, common carotid artery, and windpipe had been slashed. Alexander's hands also had defensive wounds. Dr. Horn further testified that Alexander "may have" been deceased at the time the gunshot was inflicted.[10][11] Alexander's death was ruled a homicide.

Arias changed her account of her whereabouts three times. She originally told police that she had not been in the home at the time of Alexander's death. She later told police that two intruders had broken into Alexander's home and that they murdered him and attacked her. Finally, she stated that she killed Alexander in self-defense and was a victim of domestic violence.[12][13][14][15]

i have three words for this, shes ******* guilty.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defence is trying to prove her boy friend was sexully controling, by putting pictures on the big screems and all the moniters in the court room of a erection that he sent her. The people in the court room did`nt where to look just put their heads down. If I were one of the family of her boyfriend, I think I would have yell out my disgust and protested, even if I had to go to jail:(

I agree with you. The defense reeks and smacks of desperation. It makes one think of a past case in which a woman allegedly murdered her pastor husband for the same kinds of reasons. One talking head claimed that she felt threatened by his size.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She pleading self defence, wonder if there was any scratchs on her ?

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=18420949

According to two prosecution witnesses, the only injuries observed to Arias were cuts to one hand, which (I'll probably needlessly point out) is a very common injury to an assailant when a knife is used as a weapon.

One witness was a guy whom Arias was 'seeing' who testified that he saw Arias the day after Alexander's murder when she came to visit him and during which time, they "made out".

He testified that he saw bandages on Arias' hand, and Arias told him that she'd broken a glass at work. (you know, it's kind of interesting to me... we've heard that "cut by a broken glass" one before.)

Anyway, that was the only injury those witnesses observed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jodi Arias is just plain crazier as a rat in a coffee. I just the tape for her talking a her boyfriend performing oral sex on her and she was upset about him do it to her. Please give me a break. She is guilt as sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was real abuse, there should be some kind of record of her trying to get out of the relationship if it was truly that bad. Yes, she might've gone back to him, but I think she would've at least attempted to leave.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the court going to allow Arias claims of Travis being a pedophile, her catching him getting it off when looking at little boys pictures. Pictures she claimed he put in the box in the attic,.A search in the attic and on his phone or PC shows no pictures.She keeps lying. Gee the court is only to her testimony of July of 2007, a year before she killed him in June of 2008, how many more lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is sick!!!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the court going to allow Arias claims of Travis being a pedophile, her catching him getting it off when looking at little boys pictures. Pictures she claimed he put in the box in the attic,.A search in the attic and on his phone or PC shows no pictures.She keeps lying. Gee the court is only to her testimony of July of 2007, a year before she killed him in June of 2008, how many more lies?

It's appalling when any victim is then further victimized in the courts, and I don't know how such character assassination is allowed when there's not only no supporting evidence, but there's evidence to the contrary, and it's statements from a defendant, and it's a defendant who's shown to have zero credibility.

I don't know how a defense could sink lower than this one has, and I don't know why it's allowed.

It's a desperate defense from the start. Right off the bat, 'self defense' doesn't fit this crime, and there's many reasons for that, and none of them can be disputed because they are the facts of the circumstances.

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from wiki:

Alexander's friends discovered his dead body in a shower of his home. He had been shot in the face, his throat was slit from ear to ear, and he had been stabbed 29 times (the original report indicated 27 stab wounds). Maricopa County Medical Examiner, Dr. Kevin Horn, testified that Alexander's jugular vein, common carotid artery, and windpipe had been slashed. Alexander's hands also had defensive wounds. Dr. Horn further testified that Alexander "may have" been deceased at the time the gunshot was inflicted.[10][11] Alexander's death was ruled a homicide.

Arias changed her account of her whereabouts three times. She originally told police that she had not been in the home at the time of Alexander's death. She later told police that two intruders had broken into Alexander's home and that they murdered him and attacked her. Finally, she stated that she killed Alexander in self-defense and was a victim of domestic violence.[12][13][14][15]

i have three words for this, shes ******* guilty.

Guilty, but guilty of what? Her proven lying and resulting logical conspiracy doesn't prove stabbing, shooting, slicing or murdering.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty, but guilty of what? Her proven lying and resulting logical conspiracy doesn't prove stabbing, shooting, slicing or murdering.

pretty obvious if you look at the case, if i have to point it out for you imma be over there shaking my head slowly in pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty, but guilty of what? Her proven lying and resulting logical conspiracy doesn't prove stabbing, shooting, slicing or murdering.

Uhhh hmmm......The last sentence says she stated that she killed alexander.....Think that is admiting to stabbing,shooting,slicing,and murdering....No?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think this meek little girl could`nt have over powered him, but she does admit it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty, but guilty of what? Her proven lying and resulting logical conspiracy doesn't prove stabbing, shooting, slicing or murdering.

Shouldn't the question be "why would she lie?"

Re: the rest of your comment, the primary decision of the jury will be whether or not the murder was committed in self defense. If they find that it was not, then their decision will then be whether or not the murder was premeditated.

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh hmmm......The last sentence says she stated that she killed alexander.....Think that is admiting to stabbing,shooting,slicing,and murdering....No?

She's not reliable. I know the temptation is great to believe the most damning of her three stories and provide the best case for the prosecution, but picking which story we want to believe just might let a killer go free. I don't feel comfortable convicting and punishing someone just for what they've said, on a multiple-choice prosecution where simply pick one because we feel like it. Changing her story as if she was the sole assailant isn't proof that she murdered anyone. It can just as easily be evidence that she's hiding something to protect the real killer. You might not care about such care in this case, but if I was on the jury with you, believe me you'd have to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the question be "why would she lie?"

Re: the rest of your comment, the primary decision of the jury will be whether or not the murder committed in self defense. If they find that it was not, then their decision will then be whether or not the murder was premeditated.

Yes that should be the question and the answer should be forthcoming before we all scream "Guilty!!!"

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then she had help. Who or Whom is she covering for? Is she willing to go to prison for the rest of her life for covering for someone? She has told so many lies in the case no one is going to believe her.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a death penalty case so there's plenty of room to plea bargain. They can take death off the table at the least, if she's willing to finger anyone else with a role in the murder.

Putting all the pieces together I'll paint a picture of what I see here. I see evidence of a BDSM-style sexual relationship with Jodi clearly the submissive. She wanted to please him in the hopes of nurturing the relationship, and went so far down his twisted sexual road that when she realized she had failed to win his love, she snapped and brutally killed him. In her own head, I think she was defending herself though it was psychological. Some women will do a lot for love, and I think this one was willing to play his deviant games, change her religion, and when she realized that all she was was a hole to come home to, she couldn't mentally handle it and flipped out.

Self defense is extremely hard to believe based on the injuries. The injuries tell me she was extremely emotionally distraught. The prosecution's jealous rage is reasonable. Some people are capable of being soft and calm in demeanor and withstand a lot of shame, hurt, fear, self-abuse, subjugation/submission and when some psychological limit is reached they explode like a volcano. I think that kind of circumstance might explain Jodi Arias.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that should be the question and the answer should be forthcoming before we all scream "Guilty!!!"

My opinions aren't based on ANYTHING Arias has said- indeed, she's not credible, but regardless of what Arias has EVER said, my opinions are based on the evidence that's been presented at the trial.

Since the case is on-going, I've decided not to comment further.

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just some things that should be pointed out

drives 90 miles away to rent a car and tells the agent she doesn't want the red car and lies and says she is just going to use the car in town yet puts 2800 miles on it (fyi red cars typically stand out more) oh and shes blonde when she rents the car, a receipt is in evidence that she purchase hair dye in a dark brown color and is a brunette when she comes to Travis' home. Admits that neighbors and roommates recognize her as a bleach blonde. Keeps receipts except for the time she is in Arizona.

No contact evidence entered that Travis was ever aware she was coming to his home. Turns cell phone off and takes out battery while she is in the state of Arizona coming to his home and leaving the state of AZ to go on and hump another guy hours later.

The last of May Travis writes to her he is not coming to see her afterall. Mysterious 'burglary' May 28th in the home where she is living and a .25 caliber pistol is stolen but other valuable firearms are left behind and other collectables as well. Travis Alexander was shot in the head with a .25 caliber gun also known to slash tires of TA and his girlfriend which means she carries a knife. oh and she leaves voicemails and diary entries after she knows he is dead, indicating that he is still alive.

To me shes a psycho b**** who after travis wanted nothing more to do with her she made the decision to viciously murder him. It's obviously premeditated there is no self defense and the fact that she changed her story three times into 3 completely different stories shows me she is nothing more than a liar and a murderer. she deserves the death penalty but unfortunatly since shes a woman that will be hard to get done although the prosecutor has put a woman on death row before.

Edited by Iron_Lotus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's not reliable. I know the temptation is great to believe the most damning of her three stories and provide the best case for the prosecution, but picking which story we want to believe just might let a killer go free. I don't feel comfortable convicting and punishing someone just for what they've said, on a multiple-choice prosecution where simply pick one because we feel like it. Changing her story as if she was the sole assailant isn't proof that she murdered anyone. It can just as easily be evidence that she's hiding something to protect the real killer. You might not care about such care in this case, but if I was on the jury with you, believe me you'd have to.

And believe me you would have to see my point that this isnt some "innocent little woman" this is one psychotic wacko!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me shes a psycho b****...

And believe me you would have to see my point that this isnt some "innocent little woman" this is one psychotic wacko!

So you're playing the insanity defense. Very clever!

I don't think she's innocent. I just think that juries are guilty of wrongfully killing people when they mete out life and death, and if she truly is psychotic she might not even know what happened. I know it's easy to deny that as a possibility in our rush to judgment but that's what psychotic means. People lose touch with reality and fall into their own reality in their own mind. The 3rd story she landed on can be as true to her as her 1st or 2nd. A battery of polygraphs would be relevant to separating the lies from the truths, as well as determining if she even knows the difference anymore. I would expect inconsistent results in a truly psychotic individual, and if the deal was to proceed with death as Iron Lotus indicated above, it wouldn't happen with me on the jury. We're nowhere close to passing judgment either way yet. Psychological evaluations would also be highly relevant to my determination.

I would feel uncomfortable serving with any juror whose mind was already made up, and already hedging her chances of being put to death based on mere court precedent regarding convicted women.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're playing the insanity defense. Very clever!

I don't think she's innocent. I just think that juries are guilty of wrongfully killing people when they mete out life and death, and if she truly is psychotic she might not even know what happened. I know it's easy to deny that as a possibility in our rush to judgment but that's what psychotic means. People lose touch with reality and fall into their own reality in their own mind. The 3rd story she landed on can be as true to her as her 1st or 2nd. A battery of polygraphs would be relevant to separating the lies from the truths, as well as determining if she even knows the difference anymore. I would expect inconsistent results in a truly psychotic individual, and if the deal was to proceed with death as Iron Lotus indicated above, it wouldn't happen with me on the jury. We're nowhere close to passing judgment either way yet. Psychological evaluations would also be highly relevant to my determination.

I would feel uncomfortable serving with any juror whose mind was already made up, and already hedging her chances of being put to death based on mere court precedent regarding convicted women.

no i think shes perfectly sane shes just a ****ed up individual, you know like the psycho b**** at a club your friend says to stay away from, that kinda psycho b****. the insanity defense wouldn't work because its obviously premeditated. she is a cold hearted murderer and thats that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.