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

I would like some solid proof, if Jodi planned to killed Tarvis or she spontaneously killed him out of self defence.

No proof its was not Travis gun, or who`s gun it was. Lots of people buy guns and don`n tell any body.

Gas cans and no cell phone calls,lots of people carry extra gas at night to cross the desert, in case they get lost or get stuck and cell phone batteries die all the time.

No confiding or threats to anyone or in writings saying she would like to kill travis.

Again no proof of where the gun came from for the self defence, or any witness that saw Jodi ever was hurt or beat up by Travis that he would try and hurt her again.

I still not convinced of either

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just getting settled in at home. Looks like I may have missed some interesting testimony today... the screen I'm looking at right now reads "state tears defense expert's diagnosis to shreds". Wow. Does the forum concur here or is this the Nancy Grace school of law & extreme prejudice talking here? The clip with be on you tube probably by tomorrow so I'll catch it at some point, but if anyone did see it, what did you think? Is Juan Martinez doing his pit bull prosecutor approach again... (holds on & doesn't let go)?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not been keeping up with the case, it's not on the news here in the UK, but have been keeping up with this thread (all 30 odds pages - you guys have me hooked!).

Only now have I watched footage of the trial, and like others have mentioned, I can't believe how put together she is, considering she killed the poor guy. Pretty sure if I killed anyone, especially in self defense, I'd still be messed up about it, even 4 years later, and having to recall the events would seriously upset me. She's very good at dodging questions.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking through the links again.

1) If Travis had attacked her, as Jodi claimed, why didn't she run out of the apartment rather than into the closet to get the gun? She said he attacked her viciously .... has she said what the attack consisted of? Why, when someone is simply in a rage over a dropped camera, would you think of shooting them?! Overreaction or what?!

2) The responding police officer stated that the smell of decomposition was strong when the front door of the house was opened, and yet the other housemates seemed to accept it without comment or the need to look for the source! (I don't see any significance in this, but it seems odd to me that Travis's housemates seem to change very often).

3) For the bullet to enter Travis's right brow and then lodge in his left cheek, his assailant would have to be taller than him or Travis would have to be on the ground. I think that last photo taken when Travis was alive, where he's sitting on the floor of the shower, his right brow facing the entrance to the shower, shows the perfect position for the bullet to enter at the angle it did. As I understand it, the gun used is small, so Jodi could have hidden it in the camera case around her neck and it would just be seconds in between taking that last photo(of him alive), and shooting him.

4) The trousers that the assailant is wearing in the next photo, the ones with the little zip near the ankle, Does anyone know if Jodi's friends, relatives, Travis' housemates etc were asked if they had ever seen her in similar trousers?

5) For the photo of the hall ceilng and upper part of the wall to be taken(accidently), I believe Jodi must have had the camera on it's strap around her neck all the time, which would show her statement that she dropped the camera(which was what made Travis attack her, she claimed), to be a lie ....... if what she said was true, why, in the ensuing melee would she have picked it up and placed it around her neck again?

6) This is irrelevant now, but contrary to what someone said (much)earlier in this thread, I believe it would be possible to go from legitimately defending yourself to crazed frenzied attack quite quickly.

7) Watching the interview that she did when she was out on bail(?), remembering that at that time her story was that two masked intruders had killed Travis, she is so pleased with herself whenever the interviewer asks her about her sexual encounters with Travis she can't help smiling ....... this is not an abused and bullied woman we are looking at, this is a very willing participant!

8) I wonder if the reason she decided to kill him was because it suddenly dawned on her that he didn't mean terms like 'prostitute' as a compliment on her 'bedroom skills', but actually, he really did see her as someone to be used sexually, whenever he felt the need? Use, and immediately discard.

9) Did she drag him back to the shower because that is the farthest point from the door into the bedroom and therefore(she reasoned), it would take longer for the smell of decomposition to spread to the rest of the house? Although I also think that she might want to wash away the evidence of what she had done and try to make him look 'normal' again, less shocking. (I still have trouble accepting that she could drag him and lift(?) him slightly into the shower when he was literally a dead weight).

10) Why would anyone know Travis had a gun? He may not have told anyone other than Jodi, or maybe he didn't even tell her, she just saw it on a previous occasion. Is there a central bank of records of gun owners? Had he ever owned a gun in the past?

11) The defense claims that the bullet casing was lying in blood that was already on the floor therefore she didn't shoot him first(vitally important in their claim of self-defense), but it occurred to me that the casing could have been moved on purpose or accidently kicked into the blood pool later on.

On a lighter note: for some reason the mention of Travis' 'religious undergarments' made me smile ....... had to google them :lol:.

Also, in Jodi's early interview she mentioned that in the end, it didn't matter what the jury's verdict was because the important thing was how God judged her ...... I don't know about you, but I would rather face a jury than a wrathful Old Testament God any day! Just highlights how little her religion really meant to her. And I bet Travis squirmed more than a little when he met his Maker ...... not sure his God would see s***my as an acceptable alternative to celibacy! What a pair of hypocrites they were.

Great points!!

#3. This point is so good that I need to reassess (again!) my theory. Maybe when she pointed the gun at him in the shower, he grabbed for the gun, slipped and fell and then the gun went off when he landed on the bottom of the shower?

#6 I can see myself being so freaked out that I had to use such physical force to protect myself, that I go berserk with a knife or empty a gun but then to cut a throat would be a stretch for me.

#7 I smile when I'm embarrassed.

#9 I think I finally figured out why she drug him back to the shower!!! Maybe she realized that she got some of her blood on him and had to wash it off. What do you guys think? Make any sense? Also isn't there evidence that she tried to clean up some blood on the floor? Didn't she also put the bedding in the washing machine? Maybe all this was to get rid of her DNA? I think that's when the camera got thrown in the washer with the bedding by mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

West Coast Gal, I watched part of the trial today and IMO for once NG was not over-blowing her always biased view. Martinez made mincemeat of the psychologist (Samuels) on the stand today. He totally shredded him. I felt sorry for him. There was an issue w/ if he served as an evaluator of Arias (which is what he was prescribed to do) or did he begin treating her (which he was NOT to do--there's a concern if the evaluator enters a therapeutic relationship w/ the defendant he may not be able to stay objective)? Martinez made the case that Samuels entered a therapeutic relationship with Arias, which would invalidate Samuels' testimony. Martinez scored points on that one. He also caught Samuels on a key point, which is the test he administered to Arias is nullified if she is determined to be lying at the time she took the test. Martinez showed evidence that personality test was taken during the period Arias was still pushing the bogus ninja intruders story. Samuels had to acknowledge this was so, and that probably he should have given her the test over after it was revealed she was lying when she took the test. Martinez made Samuela look pretty pathetic as a witness and a professional. I have to ask is this the best the defense can do? Why would they put this man on the stand unless they were desperate? It's sad, really.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queen in the North, Arias was not cool and collect when she was recounting the murder. She was sobbing pretty hard. Now, whether the tears were real or an act, I can't say. But she certainly seemed very emotional. But the thing is, whether the tears were an act or not, she is still guilty of killing a man in cold blood. If a person must defend herself against an attacker she doesn't have to shoot him in the head, stab him 27 times and slit his throat. She may as well say Travis killed himself, LOL!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points!!

#9 I think I finally figured out why she drug him back to the shower!!! Maybe she realized that she got some of her blood on him and had to wash it off. What do you guys think? Make any sense? Also isn't there evidence that she tried to clean up some blood on the floor? Didn't she also put the bedding in the washing machine? Maybe all this was to get rid of her DNA? I think that's when the camera got thrown in the washer with the bedding by mistake.

Hi spayneuter - check out that video clip docyabut2 posted on blood spatter on page 30. It's got tons of clarifying information. At the same time it also states what cannot be proved due to the crime scene process having simply not tested a few things and confirms the fact that there was quite a bit of water introduced to the hallway, compromising the blood and affecting the overall analysis. This video should answer all your questions about whether JA attempted to do some clean up.

As for her reasoning for anything... at this point I'm ready to surrender to the idea that there's a world of difference between what normal people might consider logical and that which Jodi Arias might think and do. I caught a glimpse of brain images during today's court proceedings. While I didn't catch the context it was being presented in, there was a huge difference between that which represented "normal' and Jodi's brain image. It was a blue/red contrast image. I'll be looking for it on you tube when the video of what testimony occurred today is posted there. I can't speak to what Dr. was attempting to demonstrate. We'll see!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martinez made Samuela look pretty pathetic as a witness and a professional. I have to ask is this the best the defense can do? Why would they put this man on the stand unless they were desperate? It's sad, really.

Thanks Aaronsmom, for filling in the blanks for me there. I was only catching tail end. So it's true then. I have to wonder if this could lead to a mistrial, a blunder this big. Am I mistaken to think that it is a huge gaffe in this case if the principal psych essentially disqualified himself (in his own ignorance & unpreparedness, apparently). Amazingly unprofessional to say the least. That would actually be a type of success for the Arias defense team, don't you think?

As for the defense team in general... they have only one task ahead of them really, to try and beat the death penalty. Desperate is all they can be. It is sad, I agree. I'm actually bugged at how giddy some of these TV professionals are with the hate talk. It's hit a fever pitch.

Edited by Leftcoastgal
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day i said she was crazy,but i think she is crazy like a fox if u know what i mean she is playing the court and jury they will see right though it

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The doctor who was on the stand is nothing more then an educated idiot. He is using correct information and applying it to the situation incorrectly. If he actually did more tests and spent more then 30 hours with her.... he could of easily avoided being cut to ribbons today. If he took a little bit longer he would of came to the conclusion of BPD(most likely with an Impulsive subtype) which commonly seen with PTSD and vice versa(I could get deeper but I can only stand examining her for so long before my head wants to explode, though I wouldn't mind getting my hands on her journal for closer examination). Explains pretty much everything and including her Machiavellian ways unfortunately not what actually happened that day(Doesn't give her an excuse for what she did though).

I wouldn't be surprised if they did it to try to sneak in a mistrial.

Does the prosecutor remind anybody else of a cat playing with a mouse before it finishes it off?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when asked where she threw the gun..... oh look!.... suddenly there is that darn annoying (yet convenient!) fog again! :)

It's too funny! Sound the fog horn! :lol:

Yeah, it's just too darned bad Arias can't retrieve that gun...you know, 'cause it's a kinda important piece of evidence re: premeditation and you know... she could show that it wasn't her grandfathers gun afterall. Oh, that dreaded fog...bless it!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#3. This point is so good that I need to reassess (again!) my theory. Maybe when she pointed the gun at him in the shower, he grabbed for the gun, slipped and fell and then the gun went off when he landed on the bottom of the shower?

#6 I can see myself being so freaked out that I had to use such physical force to protect myself, that I go berserk with a knife or empty a gun but then to cut a throat would be a stretch for me.

#7 I smile when I'm embarrassed.

#9 I think I finally figured out why she drug him back to the shower!!! Maybe she realized that she got some of her blood on him and had to wash it off. What do you guys think? Make any sense? Also isn't there evidence that she tried to clean up some blood on the floor? Didn't she also put the bedding in the washing machine? Maybe all this was to get rid of her DNA? I think that's when the camera got thrown in the washer with the bedding by mistake.

You make great points too! Especially the fact that she would want to get rid of her own DNA ...... that hadn't occurred to me.

Something that I thought of overnight: a day or so after the murder, somebody asked Jodi why she had dressings on her hand and she said she worked in a bar and cut her hand on a glass there. Did she work in a bar? If so, wouldn't there be a written record of that accident? I know that here in the UK even the tiniest of work accidents has to be recorded just in case there is any 'comeback' at a later date.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello regi - do you know the other two states that allow this type of jury participation? I'd never heard of or seen this this before, I think it's an effective tool to allow them to ask questions as they come up, with the witness available to address them.

oh... you've mentioned the camera case a few times now. Can I ask what your thoughts on it are? Odd having it sitting in the middle of the floor as it is... as if retrieved in a rush... to catch the shower activity I suppose. Your posts are always thought provoking. Your recent list supporting premeditation was strong, hard to overcome those facts. Since the case comes down to this singular point, it's everything, between life & death for her should the jury not buy this current psych evaluation. I'm anxious to hear cross-examination of this witness. Thanks!

First, thank you very much... I hope to provoke thought!

Re: the points of premed., you know, there's other circumstances that I think are incriminating that I didn't mention...like that story about the license plates. :whistle:

I'll tell you what, that's just another of a few firsts I've heard in this case!

Re: your first question, I've read that the other two states which allow jurors to question witnesses are Colorado and Indiana.

I appreciate that you've listened and have addressed my question re: the camera bag. :tu:

My current thought is that that could have been where/when Arias deleted those earlier photos.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see the mock trial on HLN? I missed it but I got bits and ends of the show today, They even had a whole set up of the crime scene and Jose Baez Cayce Anthony`s lawyer was on the show, who had said in the clean up the bullet may have got swept away where it was.Well anyhow Ten out Twelve people found her not gulity of frist degree, so evidenty people are believing her self defence story.

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The doctor who was on the stand is nothing more then an educated idiot. He is using correct information and applying it to the situation incorrectly. If he actually did more tests and spent more then 30 hours with her.... he could of easily avoided being cut to ribbons today. If he took a little bit longer he would of came to the conclusion of BPD(most likely with an Impulsive subtype) which commonly seen with PTSD and vice versa(I could get deeper but I can only stand examining her for so long before my head wants to explode, though I wouldn't mind getting my hands on her journal for closer examination). Explains pretty much everything and including her Machiavellian ways unfortunately not what actually happened that day(Doesn't give her an excuse for what she did though).

There's very interesting analysis/opinion re: the testimony of the defense expert at the following link.

http://kristinarandl...ory/jodi-arias/

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... do you know the other two states that allow this type of jury participation?

I was curious enough about this to have researched it. In the event anyone else is interested, there are 8 states that allow jury questions and 3 that require the judge to inquire into them.. Those 3 are AZ, FL and KY. It's a controversial practice in legal circles apparently, points made pro and con. Trivial Pursuit anyone? :tu:

http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/issues-pertaining-to-the-jurys-performance-of-its-duties/questioning-of-witnesses-by-jurors/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queen in the North, Arias was not cool and collect when she was recounting the murder. She was sobbing pretty hard. Now, whether the tears were real or an act, I can't say. But she certainly seemed very emotional. But the thing is, whether the tears were an act or not, she is still guilty of killing a man in cold blood. If a person must defend herself against an attacker she doesn't have to shoot him in the head, stab him 27 times and slit his throat. She may as well say Travis killed himself, LOL!

I've now seen part of the trial where she speaks about the murder, where she is being shown pictures and she refuses to look at them, hiding her face? She does appear very emotional then.

But other times, earlier I watched her talking about the time between her shooting him and getting the knife she is very emotionless, apart from seemingly getting annoyed at the prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make great points too! Especially the fact that she would want to get rid of her own DNA ...... that hadn't occurred to me.

Something that I thought of overnight: a day or so after the murder, somebody asked Jodi why she had dressings on her hand and she said she worked in a bar and cut her hand on a glass there. Did she work in a bar? If so, wouldn't there be a written record of that accident? I know that here in the UK even the tiniest of work accidents has to be recorded just in case there is any 'comeback' at a later date.

Yes, your absolutely right! This very point came up when Arias was on the stand. Martinez pinned her on this. She claims she told the manager about the injury when it happened and he said OK but didn't take further action. She also said something about giving her band-aid, but that contradicts testimony from a co-worker that Arias' hand was bandaged--not wearing a simple band-aid. He grilled her on work procedures regarding workplace injuries--don't all workplaces now require a report every time an on-the-job injury occurs?. (The answer is yes, though I could believe that many workplaces are lax on such things) anyway, she claimed not to know. I heard something on HLN that Martinez may bring the manager in as a rebuttal witness. Who knows if he will remember, but I don't think there's anyone who believes her claim of an on-the-job injury. It really reminds me of OJ Simpson saying he cut his hand on his cell phone. Yeah, right! LOL

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious enough about this to have researched it. In the event anyone else is interested, there are 8 states that allow jury questions and 3 that require the judge to inquire into them.. Those 3 are AZ, FL and KY. It's a controversial practice in legal circles apparently, points made pro and con. Trivial Pursuit anyone? :tu:

http://courts.uslega...sses-by-jurors/

The Anthony jury didn't have a single question for any witness? No way!

It appears it must be that it's at the judge's discretion of whether or not questions are allowed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regi, you are right. It is up to the judge's discretion, but I heard it's very unusual.. I think it can be good...maybe it should be allowed in all trials, if the jurors ask questions, it could help them deliberate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Anthony jury didn't have a single question for any witness? No way!

It appears it must be that it's at the judge's discretion of whether or not questions are allowed.

In those 3 states, incl. FL, it's required by law though. The other 5 states are at the judges discretion to allow or deny them. The judge must have addressed it another way in Anthony case, outside the eyes/ears of televised audience. The lawyers & judge still review each question as to it's appropriate value to the case as well as being within the letter of the law RE exactly what witnesses may be asked at all. It had to have been addressed in some fashion.

Let me do some searching for anything that might have superseded this law between time of passage & implementation in FL and the Anthony trial. I'm sure there's a window of time between these two events. I'll see what I can find online about it.

I'm wondering more and more about the camera & case and it's role. Introducing the camera during his shower was either a ruse to get him in this vulnerable position, or he was under threat, with the gun on him. Everything on that camera card had to be destroyed or the sneaking into Arizona was for nothing. Her taking the pictures was pure fiction, they were never meant to see the light of day and she knew this. I'm trying to work up an idea on her surprising him in there, as if she had left. and returned as you suggested.

So the sleuth in me continues to try and work out these parts that we will never know for certain. This case has everything including the bathroom sink in it. Let's not look in the kitchen!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's very interesting analysis/opinion re: the testimony of the defense expert at the following link.

http://kristinarandl...ory/jodi-arias/

I actually thought the same way about it being until I looked at the whole picture objectively and took everything in context that I could(Which is why I wouldn't mind her journal). Her behavior isn't all that shocking or telling, it is when you get to the reasons behind it all that it gets disturbing.

I don't actually think her intruder stories were faked but a delusion. Please bear with me because that her stories would of gotten her off, nor does it excuse her of any of her actions......

Remembering events from a 3rd person perspective and projecting the negative on to something that isn't real, isn't all that uncommon(There is a whole slew of other possibilities as well). Meaning that she was protecting herself from the fact that she was actually the assailant and that Travis had to actually try to protect himself from her. Her ninjas were basically a delusion of those two things that she didn't want to admit to herself. Basically a recovery from a dissociative state(amnesia -if you are a expert who really shouldn't be considered an expert). Yes people can get PTSD like symptoms from dissociative delusions, which is why she is quite dangerous when put in to stressful situations and relationships. This all fits with how she reacts to other people and why she clung to that Laws of Attraction book so much because it helps reenforce her ideal world where nothing is actually wrong.

There is a fine line between a lie and the truth as somebody sees it. The rest of the lies(and the clean up) you could expect from anybody when facing the fact that if they get caught they could get die. She is more reactive then instrumental when it comes to violence. Which is why I couldn't point to APB nor psychopathy(This is more of Casey Anthony, Though I won't hesitate to call Jodi, a "non-clinical" psycho).

Edited by Jinxdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When she brought the camera into the bathroom as was said when Travis thought Jodi had lelf to surpise and killed him, would she also have brought the gun and the knife with her to? Her story after he body slam her after getting out of the shower, she ran down the hall around into the closet, climb up the shelf got the gun, came out of the other end of the closet back into the batroom and shot him after he tried to tackle her, but then she had to run get the knife and stabbed him 27 times and cut his thoart at the end of the hall, run get the blanket to dragged his body back into the bathroom.According to the time line in the photos from the time travis was alive to that photo of him dead back in the bathroon with his neck already cut took 62 seconds seems impossiabe.So she must have brought the gun and the knife with her into the bathroom. It still a puzzle to me why would she stabbed him so violenty to end his life,if she had only planned to shoot him. Did the gun jammed or was there only one bullet in the gun or what? What really happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see the mock trial on HLN? I missed it but I got bits and ends of the show today, They even had a whole set up of the crime scene and Jose Baez Cayce Anthony`s lawyer was on the show, who had said in the clean up the bullet may have got swept away where it was.Well anyhow Ten out Twelve people found her not gulity of frist degree, so evidenty people are believing her self defence story.

Wow. Not guilty? Really? What part of the premeditated evidence did they not understand? I think it's time for professional juries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious enough about this to have researched it. In the event anyone else is interested, there are 8 states that allow jury questions and 3 that require the judge to inquire into them.. Those 3 are AZ, FL and KY. It's a controversial practice in legal circles apparently, points made pro and con. Trivial Pursuit anyone? :tu:

http://courts.uslega...sses-by-jurors/

I like that the jury can ask questions. What do the rest of you think?" Why would it be a bad idea?

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.