long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

[anagrammy]

I've enjoyed all of your posts so far, but when you start talking about a possible "accomplice" - You lost me.....Even JA admitted on the stand that she did this ON HER OWN.

Yes, and we can certainly believe the murderer's Jodispeak.

To me the great value of this site is to be open to the suggestions of other sleuthers. Together we harness a great deal of experience and brainpower to help LE consider every possibility. Every person here has a unique life experiences which can fill in the dark corners of the true picture.

There are things LE know about her which they can't bring into the case due to lack of evidence or perhaps because it doesn't fit their strategy. Or because of a plea deal which might be forthcoming--we wouldn't know about that. Just what we do know about how "justice" unfolds is discouraging enough. A system that allows a murderer to threaten the reputation of a victim, a family and even a church?

Here's what I have that points to an accomplice- it's just a beginning list. I won't list the evidence for these claims unless someone asks me because most of us know them already:

1. JA is at the professional level at sex, i.e., could be a sex worker level. This gives her an ability to work the men while they think they are working her.

2. JA is able to keep men interested in helping her long after a relationship has ended.

3. JA is an experienced snoop. This is not the first time she has hacked into social media, stolen journals, identified and harassed new girlfriends, etc.

4. JA cannot be told "no" and is intimidating. Example: how she reacted when Skye Hughes told her to get out of her house. She followed her into the kitchen and sat on a stool staring at her while she made dinner. This sends the message "I leave when I decide to, not when you order me out."

5. JA has stuff on people she keeps on hand. Penis photos, phone sex tapes, etc.

6. JA shows up unannounced, invites herself, refuses to leave. Ignores social norms and is considered "weird". Invites herself on vacations, enters people's homes when they are absent. Includes herself in gatherings and when told to leave sleeps under the Christmas tree.

Given the above, it would not be completely unreasonable to imagine her showing up covered with blood at Gus' house asking for help after killing Travis. She could have Matt along with her.

It is to her advantage to use an accomplice because, in her way of thinking, she can blame them later if she needs to. "I had no plans to kill him and didn't even know that Matt brought a gun....we were only there to crash at his place to get the new camera he was giving me so we could take pictures at the conference...I was introducing Matt to PPL. I guess Matt was jealous....which was such a surprise to me-- I had no idea he was still in love with me...I begged him to stop stabbing Travis!"

Matt is the person she trusted, the one who would never betray her, so he is the most likely accomplice. She also could involve Gus, who she presumably had photos, recordings or whatever, and whose interest in JA was already suspicious.

Here are the clues I see which point to an accomplice:

* dual purchases on the trip which start from where Matt lived. Dual sunscreen, dual hamburgers purchased moments apart suggest he has no money, so she covers his meal (because he is along at her request).

*she says, "Matt didn't answer until he got there" meaning until he got to ? I would like more info about this, maybe I missed the discussion (hard to keep up!) If this statement was about her call to him the next day, he may have been meeting her at Gus' house.

*Gus refuses to identify the person in the car with him when JA calls on July 5th. This could be Matt and they could be disposing of evidence after JA cleaned up and continue on to Ryan's. JA is really calling to find out if they have heard from the police yet and if they got rid of the evidence. She would be very anxious about this.

*There is a male shoe print at the crime scene. (Has this shoe been matched with the roommates? with crime scene experts? I may have missed the discussion on this as well.)

*Travis yells for Jodi to "get help! get the neighbors!" He doesn't think she is the assailant and sees that she is ok, meaning she's standing there not stabbing him. He doesn't seem to know she stabbed him! This suggests someone else may have been there. Why would he ask the only person there to get help when he has been assaulted?

*JA's first story "I wasn't there" shows that the original plan was to plant evidence suggesting two people committed the murder. Why not one person? Because two people did commit the murder and suggesting that draws LE attention away from JA/MM. This could be the reason for using two weapons. It explains why there is only one bullet (only one needed to prove shooter+stabber). The motive was the usual robbery-gone-wrong, which is threadbare it has been used so often.

*The accomplice is wearing gloves and doesn't participate in the murder. His role is to help dispose/handle the body after. Marie Hall testifies that there was loud music coming from Travis' room, which obviously was turned on to mask the noise of the murder.

*An accomplice explains many of the puzzles in this case - Jodi taking photos of herself? Her moving the body, washing sheets, washing clothes, and cleaning up the crime scene in such a very short time, then leaving the house with banister cleaned and only one drop of blood found in the lower bathroom.

I don't have a firm stance on any of these and am just putting ideas out there. Every time I think I can draw a conclusion, more evidence appears or I learn of evidence that others here knew but somehow I missed. So please forgive my errors and omissions and correct any misinformation.

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I am bring this over here since I had 0 answers this morning. It is requote-ified :wink: by me.

Originally Posted by Dmacky View Post
I need some help figuring out that magazine message. The last sentence was something like "btw, your interview was great". Interview with who? Did MM give an interview to 48 hrs, or one of the media outlets she used? Was it an interview with her attorneys? If it was the latter, her attorneys would ALREADY KNOW he gave a different story, or fu**ed up the story (using her words). "Unleash the sleuther's" because this has been driving me crazy. Anyone know, or have an idea??

Dmaky, this is just speculation, but I wonder if this refers to an interview with her lawyers, specifically Nurmi?

I think I read that it was at the time of the hearing about the pedo letters was when Nurmi tried to withdraw. There was speculation that he knew MM and/or Jodi was going to lie in that hearing and he didn't want to be part of that. [Maybe hard to believe, since he must know Jodi lying her @ss off constantly . . .]

If MM said one thing during one interview, then Jodi sent him the message in the magazine to come see her and get the new story, then Nurmi interviews MM and his story is different and now matches Jodi's, he would know something was up.

Now I don't actually know if MM ever got the message in the mag, I guess not or how would the prosecution end up with it? But maybe she got to him another way. She is very sneaky and conniving.

 

[Southern_Meadow]

I missed the beginning of the trial. Hln is playing reruns of testimony,Marie hall testifying that travis had a stalker.
I'm assuming the jury was present and has notes to key points of all testimony,since the the defence is dragging their feet for a reason.
To perhaps keep the jury from remembering everything the prosecution presented. It's been over a month since the prosecution rested their case.

They're also going to re-play testimony from Det. Flores, Ryan Burns, the ME and DB.

 

[wenwe4]

AZ, like most states, has been in a budget crisis since The Great Recession. Bureaucratic administrators can be very "penny-wise but pound-foolish," as my grandma would say. This case was filed in 2008 and has been draining the coffers for 5 years with some of the most absurd motions and hearings imaginable. The cost and scheduling of the actual trial was probably not the State's greatest concern.

Sad for us here in AZ. Maybe we can get another 1 percent "temporary" sales tax add-on to pay for this.

OT . . . I recently visited AZ for a week. I was astounded at how many LEO's are directing traffic around construction zones. I have never seen that previously as most construction companies employ their own traffic flaggers where I am from. Seemed like such a waste of taxpayer monies to employ 4 LEO's in uniform with squad cars to direct traffic all day around repairs and/or replacement of asphalt or traffic lights at one intersection (IMO).

I saw that at least 3 or 4 times in the 2 days I was out and about driving around. Just seemed strange to me.

 

[GoodGurl]

OT . . . I recently visited AZ for a week. I was astounded at how many LEO's are directing traffic around construction zones. I have never seen that previously as most construction companies employ their own traffic flaggers where I am from. Seemed like such a waste of taxpayer monies to employ 4 LEO's in uniform with squad cars to direct traffic all day around repairs and/or replacement of asphalt or traffic lights at one intersection (IMO).

I saw that at least 3 or 4 times in the 2 days I was out and about driving around. Just seemed strange to me.

In my experience, the company is paying, not the taxpayers. Which ever company has the contract to do the work, they employ off-duty LEO to direct traffic. I think sometimes the State mandates that it be off-duty LEO who get these jobs over just a construction employee. Just from my construction experience.

 

[The Farm]

With only two days of court this week I'm afraid we will not get to the cross examination of ALV. I will probably choose to do outside gardening work while JW is still on direct.

I, for one, am not the least bit worried about the Hughes' emails. I have watched this trial everyday and what the DT is infamously known for by now is liking to snip things, generalize them, take them out of context and put their own spin on them. I believe the Hughes emails will be the same MO the DT has used from day one.

Remember the time the DT left it hanging about the penis pics? They let the jury believe the entire weekend that they came from Travis' computer. BUT once Juan got up to cross examine he had dismantled the 'out of context' foggy questions asked by the DT. He immediately made it clear it did not come from his computer but from Arias' hard drive.

This will follow the same pattern. The defense tries to deceive and Juan makes things clear and cleans their mess up. Juan will once again clear up the issue about the Hughes emails just like he did about the issue of who's hard drive the pics were really on. Iirc Chris himself said he is not worried and Juan will clear it up when he gets up to cross. He may have left that comment on a FB page iirc.

What I cant tolerate to watch anymore is an expert who seems to be outdated and thinks every time there is DV abuse the wittle victim is always the female and the big bad abuser is always a male. In fact I think the 11 men on the jury are sick and tired of hearing how good women are and how bad men are. I want Juan to ask her has she ever testified for a male victim in any criminal case? From what I have read she is the 7th expert contacted. So imo those six others cherish their reputations and couldn't testify for the defense and be honest.

I find ALV very biased. She completely omits ALL of Arias' obsessive stalker terrorism acts. I guess if Juan ask her why those weren't taken into consideration she will answer like Samuels did and state it 'doesn't matter' but of course it does matter greatly and the jury knows it.

IMO

Well did you take the words out of my mouth.

 

[katydid23]

I wanted to bump this post because instead of working with speculation (like we all are as far as Jodi having help or not) those of you who believe she absolutely, without a doubt, did this by herself then...PLEASE explain to me why she bought two meals, twice???

I will try to locate the 4 receipts but she clearly buys a hamburger and soda at In-N-Out Burgers.....and 5 minutes later, she buys another meal. Why????
She did this TWICE on her way home. There are 4 receipts (cc charges) to prove it.

If you watch the interrogation tapes, one of the last ones shows Jodi eating a sandwich. She picks at it like a bird. True, she was probably an emotional mess (but, not really) but it doesn't appear this 5'6" 125 lb woman has a voracious appetite. Especially after murdering someone. So why is it she purchased double meals if...............she was all alone?

I think Juan doesn't want to go there because it's all speculation but that doesn't mean it disappears. It only adds to the fact that we absolutely don't have all the facts!!

I don't know where to find it now, there are so many threads in this case. But someone may have debunked the double order theory. I may have to go and try it myself today because my 19 yr old DD is coming to go shopping. Maybe I will take her to In and Out to try this theory out.

But it was posted upthread that there are DOUBLE RECEIPTS give out at In and Out. You get one as you order and one at the end when you pick up your order. I may have to check that out today.

 

[atthelake]

Maybe she couldn't crash at DB's place for whatever reason (he got a new gf maybe?).
She did crash at MM's according to her( = we don't know for sure)

We hear he is married now. Was he married at that time?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I am bring this over here since I had 0 answers this morning. It is requote-ified :wink: by me.

Jodi Arias Pre-Meditation Smoking Gun I mean "Remote Control" - YouTube

Interesting, luv! Did you notice at about 2:59, Juan asks, how did the remote make its way into your car?

She starts to say, I don't know, it c ould be . . . and Juan says don't speculate if you don't know.

Then, Jodi says "It was already with him"

To me, that means, it was never with him, as I typically think the opposite thing happened from what she is saying, when she is trying to distance herself from evidence.

So to me, what this means is that Darryl did not have the remote at any time, and JA accidentally left it in the car after she 'sold' Darryl the DVD from grandma's breakin.

I bet Juan will come back to this on rebuttal.

 

[Donnareit]

I was rewatching some of Thursday's trial where ALV is talking about JA's dad. I noticed the twin aunt was blinking like crazy, opened her mouth as in, "say what", and rubbing her nose. She even frowned a tad when ALV mentioned dad was jealous and didn't like mom visiting her fams.

Her body language tells me she did not agree with the things ALV was regurgitating from JA.

I saw her mom do the same "open-mouth-say-what" when Jodi first testified to the wooden spoon abuse. The aunt reached over to hold her hand, and they both sat like statues through all that BS.

If this were my sister and I in their situation, you can bet we would be falling all over ourselves laughing the first chance we got to say, "Did you hear THAT?"

 

[atthelake]

With only two days of court this week I'm afraid we will not get to the cross examination of ALV. I will probably choose to do outside gardening work while JW is still on direct.

I, for one, am not the least bit worried about the Hughes' emails. I have watched this trial everyday and what the DT is infamously known for by now is liking to snip things, generalize them, take them out of context and put their own spin on them. I believe the Hughes emails will be the same MO the DT has used from day one.

Remember the time the DT left it hanging about the penis pics? They let the jury believe the entire weekend that they came from Travis' computer. BUT once Juan got up to cross examine he had dismantled the 'out of context' foggy questions asked by the DT. He immediately made it clear it did not come from his computer but from Arias' hard drive.

This will follow the same pattern. The defense tries to deceive and Juan makes things clear and cleans their mess up. Juan will once again clear up the issue about the Hughes emails just like he did about the issue of who's hard drive the pics were really on. Iirc Chris himself said he is not worried and Juan will clear it up when he gets up to cross. He may have left that comment on a FB page iirc.

What I cant tolerate to watch anymore is an expert who seems to be outdated and thinks every time there is DV abuse the wittle victim is always the female and the big bad abuser is always a male. In fact I think the 11 men on the jury are sick and tired of hearing how good women are and how bad men are. I want Juan to ask her has she ever testified for a male victim in any criminal case? From what I have read she is the 7th expert contacted. So imo those six others cherish their reputations and couldn't testify for the defense and be honest.

I find ALV very biased. She completely omits ALL of Arias' obsessive stalker terrorism acts. I guess if Juan ask her why those weren't taken into consideration she will answer like Samuels did and state it 'doesn't matter' but of course it does matter greatly and the jury knows it.

IMO

This is the first I've ever seen anywhere that said she was the seventh. Can you quote or find a link or a reference?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I don't know where to find it now, there are so many threads in this case. But someone may have debunked the double order theory. I may have to go and try it myself today because my 19 yr old DD is coming to go shopping. Maybe I will take her to In and Out to try this theory out.

But it was posted upthread that there are DOUBLE RECEIPTS give out at In and Out. You get one as you order and one at the end when you pick up your order. I may have to check that out today.

That makes total sense, katy, and would account for the several minutes difference in time between giving the order, and having the order picked up.

 

[sindydee]

Hey guys, when is court on this week? TIA x

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I saw her mom do the same "open-mouth-say-what" when Jodi first testified to the wooden spoon abuse. The aunt reached over to hold her hand, and they both sat like statues through all that BS.

If this were my sister and I in their situation, you can bet we would be falling all over ourselves laughing the first chance we got to say, "Did you hear THAT?"

Donna, I wonder if this is exactly why we sometimes see them laughing. Maybe they just can't control themselves at the BS that comes out of JA's mouth.

I definitely saw that reaction about the wooden spoon at the beginning. I was wishing they had split screen the whole trial.

 

[atthelake]

I missed the beginning of the trial. Hln is playing reruns of testimony,Marie hall testifying that travis had a stalker.
I'm assuming the jury was present and has notes to key points of all testimony,since the the defence is dragging their feet for a reason. It's been over a month since the prosecution rested their case.

I like that juan is kind and smiling, gentle to Marie as he questions her.

1 word ..tumescent

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[GoodGurl]

Interesting, luv! Did you notice at about 2:59, Juan asks, how did the remote make its way into your car?

She starts to say, I don't know, it c ould be . . . and Juan says don't speculate if you don't know.

Then, Jodi says "It was already with him"

To me, that means, it was never with him, as I typically think the opposite thing happened from what she is saying, when she is trying to distance herself from evidence.

So to me, what this means is that Darryl did not have the remote at any time, and JA accidentally left it in the car after she 'sold' Darryl the DVD from grandma's breakin.

I bet Juan will come back to this on rebuttal.

I don't think this is new behavior for JA. I think she has a very large group that she uses/scams to pay her bills. She robs from "peter" to pay "paul". And I'd bet a paycheck that she steals from each one of them. And then sells that to someone else. This IMO is her means of suppport. The jobs were just a mimic of how actual people live.

 

[gypsyblue]

I am bring this over here since I had Easter goose egg answers this morning. It is requote-ified :wink: by me.

"you fuc*ed up, what you told my attorney the next day directly contradicts what I've been saying for over a year. get down here asap and see me before you talk to them again and before you testify so we can fix this/ interview was excellent! must talk asap".

^ ^

Bbm~ did it say YOUR interview? Maybe she meant her interview?

 

[atthelake]

Yes, and we can certainly believe the murderer's Jodispeak.

To me the great value of this site is to be open to the suggestions of other sleuthers. Together we harness a great deal of experience and brainpower to help LE consider every possibility. Every person here has a unique life experiences which can fill in the dark corners of the true picture.

There are things LE know about her which they can't bring into the case due to lack of evidence or perhaps because it doesn't fit their strategy. Or because of a plea deal which might be forthcoming--we wouldn't know about that. Just what we do know about how "justice" unfolds is discouraging enough. A system that allows a murderer to threaten the reputation of a victim, a family and even a church?

Here's what I have that points to an accomplice- it's just a beginning list. I won't list the evidence for these claims unless someone asks me because most of us know them already:

1. JA is at the professional level at sex, i.e., could be a sex worker level. This gives her an ability to work the men while they think they are working her.

2. JA is able to keep men interested in helping her long after a relationship has ended.

3. JA is an experienced snoop. This is not the first time she has hacked into social media, stolen journals, identified and harassed new girlfriends, etc.

4. JA cannot be told "no" and is intimidating. Example: how she reacted when Skye Hughes told her to get out of her house. She followed her into the kitchen and sat on a stool staring at her while she made dinner. This sends the message "I leave when I decide to, not when you order me out."

5. JA has stuff on people she keeps on hand. Penis photos, phone sex tapes, etc.

6. JA shows up unannounced, invites herself, refuses to leave. Ignores social norms and is considered "weird". Invites herself on vacations, enters people's homes when they are absent. Includes herself in gatherings and when told to leave sleeps under the Christmas tree.

Given the above, it would not be completely unreasonable to imagine her showing up covered with blood at Gus' house asking for help after killing Travis. She could have Matt along with her.

It is to her advantage to use an accomplice because, in her way of thinking, she can blame them later if she needs to. "I had no plans to kill him and didn't even know that Matt brought a gun....we were only there to crash at his place to get the new camera he was giving me so we could take pictures at the conference...I was introducing Matt to PPL. I guess Matt was jealous....which was such a surprise to me-- I had no idea he was still in love with me...I begged him to stop stabbing Travis!"

Matt is the person she trusted, the one who would never betray her, so he is the most likely accomplice. She also could involve Gus, who she presumably had photos, recordings or whatever, and whose interest in JA was already suspicious.

Here are the clues I see which point to an accomplice:

* dual purchases on the trip which start from where Matt lived. Dual sunscreen, dual hamburgers purchased moments apart suggest he has no money, so she covers his meal (because he is along at her request).

*she says, "Matt didn't answer until he got there" meaning until he got to ? I would like more info about this, maybe I missed the discussion (hard to keep up!) If this statement was about her call to him the next day, he may have been meeting her at Gus' house.

*Gus refuses to identify the person in the car with him when JA calls on July 5th. This could be Matt and they could be disposing of evidence after JA cleaned up and continue on to Ryan's. JA is really calling to find out if they have heard from the police yet and if they got rid of the evidence. She would be very anxious about this.

*There is a male shoe print at the crime scene. (Has this shoe been matched with the roommates? with crime scene experts? I may have missed the discussion on this as well.)

*Travis yells for Jodi to "get help! get the neighbors!" He doesn't think she is the assailant and sees that she is ok, meaning she's standing there not stabbing him. He doesn't seem to know she stabbed him! This suggests someone else may have been there. Why would he ask the only person there to get help when he has been assaulted?

*JA's first story "I wasn't there" shows that the original plan was to plant evidence suggesting two people committed the murder. Why not one person? Because two people did commit the murder and suggesting that draws LE attention away from JA/MM. This could be the reason for using two weapons. It explains why there is only one bullet (only one needed to prove shooter+stabber). The motive was the usual robbery-gone-wrong, which is threadbare it has been used so often.

*The accomplice is wearing gloves and doesn't participate in the murder. His role is to help dispose/handle the body after. Marie Hall testifies that there was loud music coming from Travis' room, which obviously was turned on to mask the noise of the murder.

*An accomplice explains many of the puzzles in this case - Jodi taking photos of herself? Her moving the body, washing sheets, washing clothes, and cleaning up the crime scene in such a very short time, then leaving the house with banister cleaned and only one drop of blood found in the lower bathroom.

I don't have a firm stance on any of these and am just putting ideas out there. Every time I think I can draw a conclusion, more evidence appears or I learn of evidence that others here knew but somehow I missed. So please forgive my errors and omissions and correct any misinformation.

Okay, I have wanted to ask so many times. Where is the evidence that she got into and hack this email, bank, on Facebook? not to be challenging, just want to understand and get up to speed with everyone else.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chester_from_THM]

OT . . . I recently visited AZ for a week. I was astounded at how many LEO's are directing traffic around construction zones. I have never seen that previously as most construction companies employ their own traffic flaggers where I am from. Seemed like such a waste of taxpayer monies to employ 4 LEO's in uniform with squad cars to direct traffic all day around repairs and/or replacement of asphalt or traffic lights at one intersection (IMO).

I saw that at least 3 or 4 times in the 2 days I was out and about driving around. Just seemed strange to me.

Something random I noticed about AZ watching this trial. They have almost daily major serious auto accidents that shut down major roadways/highways.

And seems like lots of crime, although I supposed you'd see both in major metro areas (which I am not in, so probably stands out more to me)

 

[ElleElle]

How did MM earn a living?

Jodi had $1000 in that bank account. She works as a waitress, owes everyone money (including Travis); yes she can go on the roadtrip for photography?

She had this planned once she found out Mimi did not want to go to Cancun and Travis wouldn't take Jodi!

She's an evil toxic parasite. :furious:

OT: I think Marie Hall is adorable.

I think she borrowed money from him. Hence the deposits in Monterey.

In the interrogation video, she said she owed $$ to her grands, parents, Darryl. I think she borrowed money and leached off anyone she could manipulate.

Clearly MM was still in this category, since he was willing to lie/ for her years after the murder.