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

Posted (edited)

No I'm not interested in that thread thank you and oddly enough I do know what kind disgusting laws Az has and what they define as first degree murder. I don't feel bad for Alexander, I think he played with fire and he got burned. As for the families of both, like i said previously, I do feel for them. And as for an example of how the prosecution took words out of contex...if you had maybe watched the trial instead of listening to phone calls you would have heard him repeatedly take what she said to the detective on tape about taking pix of him out of context. She clearly states she had to do some convincing PRIOR...NOT on the day of the murder. You should recap some of this trial we're taking about and then I wouldn't have to give you examples. And next time you want an example just ask, don't assume that I want one from you and in return I'll feel the need to prove my opinion to you too.

Alexander deserved to be brutally murdered...he deserves to be dead?!

Nothing you could say could be more appalling!

No, you don't have to 'prove your opinion' if you don't want to, but I do expect that one bases their opinion on fact, which you clearly have not done and can't do because re: the rest of your post, you don't get it, and I certainly don't care to explain it to you.

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahaha I love that its appalling for me to imply that a man who preyed on a persons weakness and used them and treated them with such disrespect got what he did because he chose not to be a decent human being but your statements about Ms Arias are not appalling. Since when does taking advantage of someone and using them make you a good person? Did I miss that memo? Oh and please please explain it to me...share your knowledge oh great one. Hahaha your funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those two had no business being together in the first place, should have listened to grannie

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahaha I love that its appalling for me to imply that a man who preyed on a persons weakness and used them and treated them with such disrespect got what he did because he chose not to be a decent human being but your statements about Ms Arias are not appalling. Since when does taking advantage of someone and using them make you a good person? Did I miss that memo? Oh and please please explain it to me...share your knowledge oh great one. Hahaha your funny.

I personally (I know this reply was for Regi but just wanted to reply too) don't believe that Alexander was a great person. And I do think he was using Jodi for sex in the months / weeks before he was killed. Obviously not a nice thing to do and pretty stupid considering she had shown obsessive and stalker behaviour if witnesses are to be believed. But that doesn't mean he deserved to be killed.

I guess it's all down to whether you believe the stuff coming out of Jodi's mouth in court. You obviously believe all this bad stuff she says about Alexander, myself, I don't. I think the terms which you and I consider to be derogatory were just used as part of the sex talk. As far as I have seen, other than Jodi's word, there is no other evidence at all of violent or abusive behaviour from Alexander.

Maybe using her for sex once they split could be considered abusive behavior? I don't know. But sadly men all over the world will do that, sleeping with their ex girlfriends just for sex while giving them the impression that they will get back together but knowing they won't. It's not at all nice but they don't all deserve to be killed. Maybe a good slap yes lol.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8MC75M7YcQ&feature=player_detailpage

What I still don`nt under stand by the crime scence , if Thavis was shot in the head frist running by the sink, there would have been blood splatter on the walls, the mirror , ect. however if he was shot crouching down as Jodi had said tackeling her like a linebacker, would`nt there have blood on the casing shell on the floor that had dropped.Also if you looked at the blood on the sink it does`nt looked like its from a gun shot blast.There just something in all the blood at the scene that does nts fit. They really should have gotten the blood expert in there from the beginning like Dr Lee to prove or disprove Jodi `s story .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add I believe the last photo of Travis alive, was of of the photo of him sitting in the shower with his legs cross like he`s posing, but you can`nt see his head and there no blood. Now Jodi said she was crouching down to take that picture when she dropped the camera and Travis got mad at her. Could it be that when Jodi started stabbing him.? I was convinced of her story, but now I`m having some doubts again. :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If I was to believe that she wasn't a willing participant and that she was indeed used and abused by this man, then yes I could totally agree with your statement. However I don't believe that, we only have her word for it. Unfortunately the only person (still alive) who knows the 100% truth is Jodi.

Just out of interest, I know she changed her story from knowing nothing, to masked burglar, to self defense. But when did she submit that final plea? Was it early on after she was arrested? I was reading on a news site earlier that said it was 2 years after being arrested that she eventually pleaded self defense. Does anyone know if that is true or just media hype.

But how do we know he treat her like crap apart from her saying so? I'll admit to not listening to all the tapes and reading all the details of the trial so correct me if I am wrong, but she sounded (to me) to be getting off on that kind of stuff as much as he was. Any violence and mis-treatment has only been mentioned by her since she changed her statement (or are there witnesses and evidence proving it apart from her saying it is true)?

Moon Gazer, the 'sex' tape is available on Huffington Post's web site, and like you I question the reason she recorded the call. I think you're suggestion re: blackmail is most likely; that she thought she could use it against Alexander...somehow.

Anyway, at the time of the tape recording, they were not a couple in the traditional sense of the word, and indeed, both spoke of going about their separate future affairs. Alexander did speak of taking a multipurpose trip toward the end of the month (May) and that he'd make visiting Arias his top priority of that trip, but never once was there an "I love you", "I miss you",or an "I need you"...nothing by way of romance was ever said from either side.

In contrast to anything resembling romance, Arias spoke only of how she wanted to have sex with Alexander. At one point, she said that both of them would eventually marry other people and she was concerned that she wouldn't be able to reach her full sexual potential.

I don't know anything about the extent of their relationship and what it actually involved...I mean, I know they lived a 1,000 miles apart, so what ever contact they had, it could only be through the airwaves for a certain amount of time!

In one police interview (avail. on YouTube) she told the detective that it was after they broke up that she moved to Mesa, and that Alexander wasn't happy about that.

In one police interrogation shortly after her arrest (portions of which were shown in the trial, and is also on YouTube) she finally told the intruder story.

It seems to me that the self defense story was brand new when the case came to trial.

I know she stuck to that intruder story (version 2.0- miss you booz2u!...inside joke) for at least a couple of years, and there's lots from it that prosecutors are using against her because it's clear that what she told police then, fits what she said then, and what she says now, fits what she says now.

It's fascinating to watch. I think bits of it are true.

For one thing, she said Alexander didn't have a gun.

She described it as a spur of the moment notion to visit Alexander. (I don't believe that's true...just in the sense that Alexander didn't know she was coming) She said "And I thought, maybe I will just go see Travis briefly" ...that she called him and told him she was coming. She later puts it "I just showed up."

She said they looked at pictures she'd brought for him.

She said he didn't want to take the shower photos...that he first said no, but she told him she had ideas... that he was uncomfortable, and that he said he felt "gay".

Describing events after Alexander was shot, she said it was "a blur". (That blur has since turned into a great fog :lol: )

(It's interesting that she'd already described the intruders...what they wore, etc., but she didn't mention that they were masked until the detective asked about their identity and whether or not they appeared to know Travis, or vise-verse.

She adds to the story as necessary...fascinating to observe!)

She showed the detective where she was cut on her hand during the attack. The cut was to the ring finger of her left hand and she said that she can't bend it all the way since the injury.

The most chilling and indeed, pitiful thing she said (I think she revealed) is that Alexander, at one point during the attack, said "I can't feel my legs".

And she said Alexander was conscious after the gunshot and was "crawling around".

She first said to the detective that she couldn't tell him what happened because she was worried for her family's safety from the intruders.

After she told the intruder story and the detective told her he didn't believe her, she said she didn't want to tell the truth...because of her family.

On the stand, she said she didn't want to tell the truth to protect Alexander, and herself...because she knew she'd done "something bad."

I think the best juror question I've heard was the one that asked that if she was in a fog and didn't know what had happened after the gunshot, then how did she know Alexander was dead....why didn't she go back...or call police.

I remember her answering something like that she couldn't explain her state of mind...that she knew she's done something bad...whatever, something like that! :no:

Edited by regi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add I believe the last photo of Travis alive, was of of the photo of him sitting in the shower with his legs cross like he`s posing, but you can`nt see his head and there no blood. Now Jodi said she was crouching down to take that picture when she dropped the camera and Travis got mad at her. Could it be that when Jodi started stabbing him.? I was convinced of her story, but now I`m having some doubts again. :unsure2:

That photo you speak of is what Arias claimed in her police interrogation was the time when intruders came into the bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that info Regi. I listened to some of the tape but was at work so decided best to wait until home haha. I'll have a listen to the rest later when the boys are in bed.

I honestly think if I was on that jury I would have trouble believing anything that came out of her mouth. It seems to me that she has lied again and again, all to cover her tracks and try and get out of it. Seems she sat 2 years on her intruder story before her lawyer finally convinced her there was no chance anyone would believe it so she came up with the abused self defense idea. It's a long time to perfect her story.... and anything she can't explain.... then there is the fog!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how do we know he treat her like crap apart from her saying so? I'll admit to not listening to all the tapes and reading all the details of the trial so correct me if I am wrong, but she sounded (to me) to be getting off on that kind of stuff as much as he was. Any violence and mis-treatment has only been mentioned by her since she changed her statement (or are there witnesses and evidence proving it apart from her saying it is true)?

Witnesses and other evidence other than her statements? No. And the one thing we can all agree about is it that Arias is a liar!

To the contrary, all of her allegations are contradicted by the evidence that IS there, including her own writings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8MC75M7YcQ&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

What I still don`nt under stand by the crime scence , if Thavis was shot in the head frist running by the sink, there would have been blood splatter on the walls, the mirror , ect. however if he was shot crouching down as Jodi had said tackeling her like a linebacker, would`nt there have blood on the casing shell on the floor that had dropped.Also if you looked at the blood on the sink it does`nt looked like its from a gun shot blast.There just something in all the blood at the scene that does nts fit. They really should have gotten the blood expert in there from the beginning like Dr Lee to prove or disprove Jodi `s story .

Wow. That description sounds the most plausible of what actually occurred.

With Alexander sitting naked in the shower, he was definitely at his most vulnerable.

The gunshot was at a downward angle, so maybe that's when she shot him...for some reason she didn't shoot him again...he was able to get out of the shower and by that time, she began attacking him with the knife.

It certainly correlates with the entire scene.

Thanks for posting that video!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, docyabut2, that's a critical point re: premeditation that I hadn't before realized! I admit that I hadn't given it much thought!

Arias claims in her testimony that it was Alexander's idea to take those shower photos, but if so, then why would she have lied about that in her police interview years before?

The point is that there was no reason to lie about it before, but there is, however, a reason to lie about it now.

Whatever she lies about, one can take it to the bank that it's gonna be to her benefit!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow. That description sounds the most plausible of what actually occurred.

With Alexander sitting naked in the shower, he was definitely at his most vulnerable.

The gunshot was at a downward angle, so maybe that's when she shot him...for some reason she didn't shoot him again...he was able to get out of the shower and by that time, she began attacking him with the knife.

It certainly correlates with the entire scene.

Thanks for posting that video!

The only question there is why turned to a knife, when she could have shot him again. Some say maybe the gun jammed. I suppose the shell casing could have rolled over by the sink.But you know Regi they could have gotten a blood expert ,you know those that analyse blood splatter at crime scenes. Even though a lot of the blood was cleaned up, those blood experts know exactly how wounds and blood from weapons happen.The state could have disproved her whole story.

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that info Regi. I listened to some of the tape but was at work so decided best to wait until home haha. I'll have a listen to the rest later when the boys are in bed.

I honestly think if I was on that jury I would have trouble believing anything that came out of her mouth. It seems to me that she has lied again and again, all to cover her tracks and try and get out of it. Seems she sat 2 years on her intruder story before her lawyer finally convinced her there was no chance anyone would believe it so she came up with the abused self defense idea. It's a long time to perfect her story.... and anything she can't explain.... then there is the fog!

You're very welcome.

Re: the second part of your post, Right?!..and you've got it! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only question there is why turned to a knife, when she could have shot him again. Some say maybe the gun jammed. I suppose the shell casing could have rolled over by the sink.But you know Regi they could have gotten a blood expert ,you know those that analyse blood splatter at crime scenes. Even though a lot of the blood was cleaned up, those blood experts know exactly how wounds and blood from weapons happen.The state could have disproved her whole story.

Well, they could have obtained a blood splatter expert, but apparently, they didn't think it was necessary. I definitely don't agree that such an expert's testimony would have been the end all.

I mean, the most blatant aspect of this case is that those wounds to the body show that the attacker wanted Alexander to be dead!

If the gunshot occurred first, then I think it's most likely that the gun jammed.

I don't know anything about .25 caliber guns specifically in that regard, but I know that can happen with that kind of gun.

Or heck...maybe the gun only had one bullet!

I certainly don't know why there was just one shot, but I do know that it was her intention to kill Alexander with the gun which she'd stolen from her grandfather, and that she took the gun from the scene and ditched it elsewhere because it was NOT Alexander's gun!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, they could have obtained a blood splatter expert, but apparently, they didn't think it was necessary. I definitely don't agree that such an expert's testimony would have been the end all.

I mean, the most blatant aspect of this case is that those wounds to the body show that the attacker wanted Alexander to be dead!

If the gunshot occurred first, then I think it's most likely that the gun jammed.

I don't know anything about .25 caliber guns specifically in that regard, but I know that can happen with that kind of gun.

Or heck...maybe the gun only had one bullet!

I certainly don't know why there was just one shot, but I do know that it was her intention to kill Alexander with the gun which she'd stolen from her grandfather, and that she took the gun from the scene and ditched it elsewhere because it was NOT Alexander's gun!

If they could prove there was no gun shot splatter of blood on the bath rooms walls, ect. It certainly would discredit her claim that she shot Travis by the bathroom sink as he was attacking her. The shower we know was wash down after Travis `dead body was place back in there. I read that some where.

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That blood splattler on the sink could `nt be from a gun shot wound, because the bullet went through his right eye brow and stopped in his left cheek, the blood splatter would have only come out of the entrance wound.

article-2258479-16CAC8A1000005DC-616_634x357.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched this trial from the get go....& I still am on the fence in a way..... I realize Jodi has told so many different lies, that I have a hard time believing her, but sometimes I do believe her. I am not convinced at all by the prosecutions case that it was premeditated, What bothers me the most is her coolness on the stand. If it were me in her shoes, I would be such a wreck... so remorseful... yet she is so calm and collected, even cocky at times. I dont care if it was 40 years AFTER THE FACT that I KILLED someone.. I would be a complete mess. I think most people would be. How can she sat up there in front of his family and answer questions about what happened as if she were having tea with a good friend talking about the weather???? THAT & THAT alone has me thinking she is a very SICK person who definitely COULD have premeditate this horrible act.

Edited by missterri
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched this trial from the get go....& I still am on the fence in a way..... I realize Jodi has told so many different lies, that I have a hard time believing her, but sometimes I do believe her. I am not convinced at all by the prosecutions case that it was premeditated, What bothers me the most is her coolness on the stand. If it were me in her shoes, I would be such a wreck... so remorseful... yet she is so calm and collected, even cocky at times. I dont care if it was 40 years AFTER THE FACT that I KILLED someone.. I would be a complete mess. I think most people would be. How can she sat up there in front of his family and answer questions about what happened as if she were having tea with a good friend talking about the weather???? THAT & THAT alone has me thinking she is a very SICK person who definitely COULD have premeditate this horrible act.

I agree, if I had killed someone in self defense, even 4 years after the fact I would not be cool and calm about it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like Arias are indeed capable of fooling people!

The reasons are obvious; they're often intelligent, articulate, and will have what appears to be a plausible answer for everything (or if not, then the event was too traumatic and so they don't remember!)

They're very often charming, which is probably an asset which takes them the furthest, despite the obvious.

The thing is, they often can't give a direct, simple answer, and they have to provide an explanation which comes with a lot of pretext. They have to 'set it up', and that's where they manipulate.

Another issue is that they lack appropriate emotion.

Describing that reminds me of a police detective who's now in prison for the murder his wife.

First, let me say that the evidence against him was overwhelming, and there's no doubt of his guilt.

I remember him from junior high, and little bit from high school. I didn't know him, and the one thing I recall about him was how meticulous he obviously was re: his appearance! Anyway...

He said he found his wife dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. This occurred in the bedroom of their home, and the gun used was his service revolver.

His official statement was 3 pages long, and told of the day and evening before, including precisely what they ate in their five-course meal at a fancy restaurant and the kind of wine they drank.... and only the last small paragraph pertained to his wife's death which occurred the NEXT evening.

The Tx. Ranger who took the statement later said that it was the most bizarre statement he'd personally ever read.

Not only was the statement bizarre, but his behavior was bizarre; his emotions simply didn't correlate with what had occurred. (and they never would.)

Now, here was a man who at the time had about a 15 year career on the police force and so certainly, he was more familiar than most with what statements from witnesses look like, and also with the behavior expected from those who've experienced traumatic events of all kinds, yet he, for his own self interest, he couldn't fake such things; he was unable convey his story in an appropriate manner, and he was unable to project the appropriate emotions associated with truly having experienced a traumatic event.

My point is that people can't deny their true nature, no matter how smart they are.

It's almost laughable how they will not accept responsibility, no matter what! They refuse to acknowledge what's in front of them if it's not in their best interest to do so.

And, they often offer an explanation which would show them in a favorable light!

That's masterful manipulation right there! They want us to believe that they are something they know they're not- which is considerate, and thoughtful of others.

With Arias, (and not even considering her lies and behavior immediately after the murder... to and toward everyone she came in contact with, but...) said she first lied to police because she wanted to protect her family.

Later, to explain why she didn't tell about her allegations against Alexander years earlier, she said it was because she wanted to protect Alexander.

At one point on the stand, she explained that her 'brain gets scrambled' and it was the prosecutors fault because he was 'yelling' at her.

Then she conceded that it was her fault. (sympathy card!)

In an interview for one of those programs and when she was still pushing her 'intruder story', she'd explained why she's smiling in her mug shot. She said it was because she'd asked herself how Alexander would have handled the situation...essentially, she said she's smiling in her mug shot because of Alexander!

Certainly, anyone who's watched Arias for any length of time on the stand has observed some of what I've described.

Still, I'm not surprised if Arias has fooled a few people, however, I can't imagine that she's fooled many!

I just hope she's not fooling anyone on the jury.

Edited by regi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw this on the news last night she is crazy. she even looks likeshe is not playing with a full deck lol.

i did not know what happend unit i read this post thanks

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that woman has a very serious problem, to be sure.

Very dangerous mentality in general public society, in my opinion.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does the trial continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When does the trial continue?

Wednesday, I believe the defense is bringing in the psychologists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the defense expert(s) will tell the jury that Arias' behavior/fog is classic of abused women. There's always an expert.... :whistle:

I recently learned of a phenomenon called 'undoing', and it's where a remorseful perp attempts to undo what they've just done... they try to 'fix it'. The primary thing they do is to pretend that it didn't happen, and part of that is to make the victim comfortable; by placing the victim in a comfortable position, and maybe using pillows and blankets...that sort of thing. They will clean up the scene, but the attention is focused on the victim because that's where the remorse is.

In this case, Arias' attention was to the scene, and all of her actions were to her benefit. There was no show of remorse as Alexander's body was left crumpled in that shower stall! She didn't even cover up his naked body, which would have been the very least she could have done for him.

No remorse, indeed.

You know, if the prosecution had used an expert, I think it should have been a criminal profiler.

Edited by regi
2 people like 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.