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

Making human trash famous, for one thing. Highlighting the worst of humanity instead of the best. A massive waste of resources; revealing a gossipy nosy herd of an audience.

I have no interest in Jodi Arias's ultimate fate. I'm not going to change my opinion about Nancy Grace's daily trash because there's a correlation between that trash and not-guilty verdicts. Arias should be given a fair trial, all the facts should be considered, and the rule of law should prevail. Period.

Have to agree with ya yamato,the more this continues as a circus act even if proven guilty her chances of walking get better and better the more this sideshow nancy grace type bs continues.I believe the way the guy keeps questioning her,his tactics could wind up backfiring on him.This is a mostly male jury most males do not like seeing a woman get what appears to be bullied no matter the circumstances.Just my opinion

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What is the significance of the sequencing of Alexander's injuries?

There are two reasons why this is important to Arias' defense.

A defense attorney's job is to create as much doubt about the prosecution's case as possible. If the defense can show the prosecution is unsure about its theory of Alexander's death, it may erode the jury's confidence in the prosecution's case.

The sequencing also matters because this is a death penalty case. If the prosecution can get a guilty verdict and prove that Arias was cruel and caused Alexander to suffer, she may be sentenced to death. However, if the defense can show that Alexander was shot in the head first, attorneys can argue that all of Alexander's other wounds happened after he died, and so he didn't suffer -- and that could save Arias from the death penalty.

http://www.hlntv.com...ravis-alexander

As the article said ,what came frist the stabbing or the shooting in this decision on Jodi`s case? If I was a jurier I would want to know for sure. Its still not clear how Jodi killed Travis.To me that photo points to Jodi stabbing Tavis frist in the shower.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3:52 p.m. ET: Detective Flores and Prosecutor Martinez are going back over where pieces of rope were found at the crime scene.

3:50 p.m. ET: Martinez is having Flores read over more Facebook messages between Alexander and Arias. Now Martinez in reviewing a photograph on a piece of rope found at the crime scene

http://www.hlntv.com...odi-arias-trial

Thanks for those links. The only rope I was aware of was the rope Arias claims to have thrown in a dumpster.

Has Arias been asked where she ditched the gun? (Of course, that's another thing she must not remember because otherwise she'd certainly want it retrieved if at all possible, you know, to show that it wasn't her grandfather's! :rolleyes: )

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's very possible to form an opinion and then to change that opinion in the face of new evidence or new understanding. Common sense has a place in forming opinions too.

I don't know why you quoted me, and made those comments. :cry:

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've rushed to judgment on this matter multiple times on this thread when you state that "...she killed Travis...". I can dig up those instances if I must but I don't care about you and you shouldn't care about me. Let us stick with the facts, and stick with the story. Let us not get personal. This isn't about me and it isn't about you. I could care less about you or me. Boring...

Didn't she admit to killing him?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you quoted me, and made those comments. :cry:

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing.

Well there you go. Your last sentence answers what you didn't know in your first sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't she admit to killing him?

The liar admitted a lot of things. Are we going to believe all of it, none of it, or just what regi cherry picks for us to believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing.

lol

I think that statement precludes you from ever being on a jury. (only saying)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liar admitted a lot of things. Are we going to believe all of it, none of it, or just what regi cherry picks for us to believe?

The evidence is there and she is trying to lie to get out of what she had already admitted.

The defense has no case.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I said I watched her show one time in years. Your "fixation" dispelled.

I insinuate because Nancy Grace's audience form their opinions from Nancy Grace? No, I flat out state that they do. People don't think for themselves, they rely on the junk food they see on their boob tube to form their opinions for them. The examples of this are endless. This moral hazard has taken us to war and resulted in the death of millions. It's the primary reason why we have the unsatisfactory dolts in Congress and the White House that we do. It's the essence of our moral and financial bankruptcy in this country. This is just another ghastly appendage of the same societal beast.

I didn't attempt to defame Alexander's character. He defamed his own when he said the trash on the "sex tapes" that he did. Any man who blathers that a 12-year old girl is "hott" needs to get his head on straight.

Yes we are in the court of law, what do you think this trial is? A circus act for your entertainment? Jodi Arias is innocent until proven guilty. Your extreme bias on this matter does not change the color of right or nullify the most sacred rights of our people.

Nancy Grace viewers are led to believe that people are guilty when they turn out innocent in the end. "Universally" means not personally. "Highly correlated" means that there's a relationship between watching Nancy Grace and believing in the guilt of the accused, which you have been crystal clear is your own opinion whether you watch Nancy Grace or not. This presumption of guilt is a theme of that vampire bat's show in case after case, after case. You've rushed to judgment on this matter multiple times on this thread when you state that "...she killed Travis...". I can dig up those instances if I must but I don't care about you and you shouldn't care about me. Let us stick with the facts, and stick with the story. Let us not get personal. This isn't about me and it isn't about you. I could care less about you or me. Boring...

We will agree to disagree because as it stands, you have no hope of changing my mind with responses like these. Good day, and please try to remember the importance of Presumption of innocence and Due Process in our legal system.

YOU'RE the one talking about Nancy Grace! No, Nancy Grace is NOT for MY entertainment, and I don't appreciate your suggestion she is.

You brought Nancy Grace into this discussion early on with something about her "kiss of death" re: Arias' lies. You've mentioned Nancy Grace several times since then. No one else has said a word about Nancy Grace!

You even posted a video clip from her show which serves to further spread her propaganda!

Btw, as far as I'm concerned it's my own perception, and) it's for me to decide whether or not YOUR fixation is dispelled.

What Nancy Grace has to do with the evidence in this case is beyond me, and you TELL ME "let's stick with the facts"?! Give me a break!

I don't know why in Sam's Hill you go on to say "I don't care about you, you shouldn't care about me". That's just too weird.

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The liar admitted a lot of things. Are we going to believe all of it, none of it, or just what regi cherry picks for us to believe?

Oh, regi encourages you that you should. :lol:

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so after reviewing the case again from yesteday, the prosecuter pointed out the photo and it is of a Jodi`s pant legand and foot, and of Travis lying down bleeding. Joni said yes that was her.They still can`t say the bleeding was from a shot wound or a stabbing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol

I think that statement precludes you from ever being on a jury. (only saying)

Hey, what can I say? I call it like I see it, and I can't help it. It comes naturally when I'm faced with certain facts. I could give consideration to what a defense presents, but in this case, it would only re-enforce my opinion! :yes:

Edited by regi
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Your last sentence answers what you didn't know in your first sentence.

Yikes! That again, sounds like Arias!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the significance of the sequencing of Alexander's injuries?

There are two reasons why this is important to Arias' defense.

A defense attorney's job is to create as much doubt about the prosecution's case as possible. If the defense can show the prosecution is unsure about its theory of Alexander's death, it may erode the jury's confidence in the prosecution's case.

The sequencing also matters because this is a death penalty case. If the prosecution can get a guilty verdict and prove that Arias was cruel and caused Alexander to suffer, she may be sentenced to death. However, if the defense can show that Alexander was shot in the head first, attorneys can argue that all of Alexander's other wounds happened after he died, and so he didn't suffer -- and that could save Arias from the death penalty.

http://www.hlntv.com...ravis-alexander

As the article said ,what came frist the stabbing or the shooting in this decision on Jodi`s case? If I was a jurier I would want to know for sure. Its still not clear how Jodi killed Travis.To me that photo points to Jodi stabbing Tavis frist in the shower.

The way I look at it, the sequence doesn't matter. If she shot him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the further injuries, and if she stabbed him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the gunshot.

Bottom line, there's no reasonable explanation for ALL of those injuries, either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU'RE the one talking about Nancy Grace! No, Nancy Grace is NOT for MY entertainment, and I don't appreciate your suggestion she is.

You brought Nancy Grace into this discussion early on with something about her "kiss of death" re: Arias' lies. You've mentioned Nancy Grace several times since then. No one else has said a word about Nancy Grace!

You even posted a video clip from her show which serves to further spread her propaganda!

Btw, as far as I'm concerned it's my own perception, and) it's for me to decide whether or not YOUR fixation is dispelled.

What Nancy Grace has to do with the evidence in this case is beyond me, and you TELL ME "let's stick with the facts"?! Give me a break!

I don't know why in Sam's Hill you go on to say "I don't care about you, you shouldn't care about me". That's just too weird.

You're the one spreading her propaganda. In fact you're even worse than Nancy Grace when you actually write stuff like "my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing." Not even Nancy (dis)Grace would come up with a statement that ridiculous.

There's a million problems in the world infinitely more important than this soap opera beauty pageant of a court trial. I'm here posting about Nancy Grace because of the much greater societal problem she represents by putting the trash on TV that she does to boost her ratings. That's why I'm talking about Nancy Grace. You had me confused with someone who cared about Jodi Arias's fate. Sorry, there's much bigger fish to fry here than some ditzy court trial that sucks people in with propaganda posing as legal expertise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one spreading her propaganda. In fact you're even worse than Nancy Grace when you actually write stuff like "my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing." Not even Nancy (dis)Grace would come up with a statement that ridiculous.

There's a million problems in the world infinitely more important than this soap opera beauty pageant of a court trial. I'm here posting about Nancy Grace because of the much greater societal problem she represents by putting the trash on TV that she does to boost her ratings. That's why I'm talking about Nancy Grace. You had me confused with someone who cared about Jodi Arias's fate. Sorry, there's much bigger fish to fry here than some ditzy court trial that sucks people in with propaganda posing as legal expertise.

Look, I have an opinion on this case, and that's ok because I can think what I want, whenever I want, and as far as I know, I can express my opinion here.

The sole reason I joined this board was to participate in the True Crime topic, obviously in the interest of discussing such cases, sharing information, and so on. It's rare for me personally that I have an opportunity to discuss a case that's currently on trial, but my interest in any case is in discussing the facts, circumstances, and the evidence pertaining to that particular case.

Since this case is ongoing, then I think it's reasonable to discuss the evidence as it's presented at trial, and I can do that regardless of whether or not I've formed an opinion.

Unfortunately, I see that that's not always possible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one spreading her propaganda. In fact you're even worse than Nancy Grace when you actually write stuff like "my opinion on this case WILL NOT change because the evidence is such that it's a no-brainer!, so that there's NOTHING that the defense could present which could even possibly change my opinion. Nothing." Not even Nancy (dis)Grace would come up with a statement that ridiculous.

There's a million problems in the world infinitely more important than this soap opera beauty pageant of a court trial. I'm here posting about Nancy Grace because of the much greater societal problem she represents by putting the trash on TV that she does to boost her ratings. That's why I'm talking about Nancy Grace. You had me confused with someone who cared about Jodi Arias's fate. Sorry, there's much bigger fish to fry here than some ditzy court trial that sucks people in with propaganda posing as legal expertise.

I don't understand why you are in such a tizzy. Nancy Grace is a tv show. I don't watch it, but to each their own.

This is a pretty cut and dry case. I'm surprised it is garnering this much attention.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect everyones views on this topic regi yes this looks very clear cut by what we are allowed to know,even gut instinct.What yamato is saying holds the same amount of weight if not even more with our current system of law (innocent until proven guilty).This woman seems snyde,arrogant,and at times emotionless.A smart prosecutor can and will make the case and prove it without a doubt.As yamato has stated until proven guilty.My opinion this prosecutor is playing with fire with a majority male jury with the tactics he is using,and for some reason as has also been pointed out the media blitz never seems to help when trying to do what could or should be done.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I look at it, the sequence doesn't matter. If she shot him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the further injuries, and if she stabbed him first, then there's no reasonable explanation for the gunshot.

Bottom line, there's no reasonable explanation for ALL of those injuries, either way.

Jodi claiming she shot Travis in self defence, don`t you think it has to be proven either way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jodi claiming she shot Travis in self defence, don`t you think it has to be proven either way?

Of course, but I don't need to wait to have my own opinion.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 words Crazy b****

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

innocent until proven guilty.

That has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

Edited by regi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

100% correct i agree with your opinion! lol did not mean to single you out either just responding back.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jodi claiming she shot Travis in self defence, don`t you think it has to be proven either way?

Not to me, it doesn't.

Let me explain before that gets misunderstood.

First, it doesn't matter to me what Arias claims because Arias has been shown to ALWAYS lie to benefit herself.

Regardless of that fact, I know that the murder wasn't self defense because 1) those injuries are not consistent with self defense. (In fact, the only evidence of ANY self defense is on the VICTIM'S body.)

2) The evidence also shows premeditation.... the facts and circumstances prior to and then proceeding the crime show premeditation.

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.