long weekend break: discuss the latest here #102

Allyne Smithe said:

While I don't know for sure he had a shower earlier, I think he likely did. There is no soap, no shampoo, no washcloth in those photos. His arms are high above his head in a number of the photos, spaced throughout the eight minutes. It's almost literally, "stick 'em up." But I believe, and suspect the prosecution also believes, that she planned to murder him in the shower. There is precedent for it in the Psycho Shower Scene. She was a fan of old movies and was surely aware of that classic.

His shower was a tiny one. For some reason the shower pics make it appear bigger than it was.

She had to corner him, and what better place than to not only trap him in the shower, but make him sit down in the shower to make him small and less able to defend himself. If the shower weren't important to her in the context of the murder, she wouldn't have bothered to drag him from the end of the master bedroom, where he'd reached, back along the hallway to the shower. I believe that was her plan all along, to leave him dead in the shower.

Think about it. If you want someone dead and intend to get away with it, you need a plan, a very well thought out plan. Jodi had that. To quote a reporter who live-blogged Prosecutor Martinez' opening statement, "Martinez says Arias attacked Alexander in the shower, because his defenses were down."

I am not the least bit psychic. But when I see the shower photos, not just the final few but all of them, I'm filled with a sense of dread. It jumps out at me that he was being controlled by a gun. Many others have had a similar reaction. I could be wrong but it's my visceral reaction.

I'm interested in hearing whatever thoughts and theories you might have. You could be right and I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

I've believed since I first became familiar with this case that she planned it and at some point had the gun on Travis while he was in the shower. Just not sure if it was from the beginning or not. The one thing that trips me up is the photo of Travis when he has the very startled, surprised expression as though maybe he had just realized she was there at that moment. If not surprise at her unexpected appearance what could it have been?

My mind rolls in and out of the fog of testimony, especially while doing dishes.

1. Arias testified the fog lifted in the desert, when she pulled over and found her hands bloody.

2. When Juan asked her if she was still in a fog when she was on top of Ryan Burns, she answered "Yes."

3. Samuels testified that she reported to him she came out of her fog after the checkpoint at the Hoover Dam, when she found 'she was covered in blood.'

Take your pick!

Mykeru said:

There's no such thing a [sic] bullet that won't kill you.

Click to expand...

:waitasec:

Factually snipped by me.

Just read on another site that OJ and JA have the same birthday....creepy!

rhondavous said:

Makes me wonder why some cases captiviate our attention to the degree it almost becomes OCD. I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of the legal process and trial protocol. Who knows, might spur me on to finally go to paralegal school. I hope your husband recovered from his illness, but it sounds like he had a wonderful caretaker. How intriguing that you actually knew someone that was so closely involved in the O.J. Simpson trial.

Click to expand...

One of the big fascinations of this trial for me is trying to determine what the lawyers' strategies are. Why do they ask certain questions? What information are they trying to elicit? Why do they behave certain ways? How are they going to tie it all together for the jury?

I'm sure people can (and probably have) done studies on why we get so involved. I never thought I'd be this, well, obsessed. Undoubtedly some of it has to do with connecting to a great group of like-minded people. For the most part I like the differing views.

I didn't know the man from the OJ trial, just one of his siblings. But it was indeed quite eerie. Here was something that was all over the news, and it suddenly seemed very real.

gngr~snap said:

respectfully snipped and bolded by me.


anal sex - (x 1,000,000)
JM to Ryan - Jodi was strong wasn't she?
DB - not wanting his face shown.
JA -not wanting her "before" boob job pictures shown
to the jury...
Jodi - stating she is not "gay"
there is an even stranger undercurrent here...

add in the comments about JA having big hands etc.
"There's something about Jodi."
Travis found out and so did the prosecutor! IMO

(I imagine it will never be told to the public)
but something about her genetics
~ again IMOO

Click to expand...

No doubt, she is Sooooo strange, and I have to admit that I was surprised when I saw the nude photo of her with the braids? It appears to me that before her breast implants there was really nothing there, as in flat chested like a boy.jmo

kscornfed said:

thank you. one thing i think is very clear is that low self esteem is NOT something she suffers from. in fact, i'd say it's just the opposite. she thinks very, very highly of herself.

Click to expand...

I don't know how to word my feelings about this issue. Basically I think that low or high self-esteem is a human quality that Jodi just doesn't have. She's the center of the universe. She doesn't have the capacity to even question it -- it's a rock solid certainty, like breathing air. I think she feels tremendous anger for people who get in the way of what she wants, but it's not because she thinks she's better than you. She IS better than you, in her mind. She doesn't compare herself to others. I'm not saying it well, I know. I'll have to give it some more thought.

Mykeru said:

You realize from that point on the rest of your life is bonus time? By the way, Did you ever find the safety on that revolver?



I will repeat: Just because the .25 caliber (developed in 1905) is an inferior round, mostly due to the power of the shell and not the caliber of the bullet itself, doesn't mean it's a joke.

25ACP Winchester 50gr FMJ vs Ballistic Gelatin - YouTube

There's no such thing a bullet that won't kill you. Especially when it it is acting on something soft and squishy in a confined space like brains in a skull.
Even the rubber kind can kill someone if they are hit in the chest or the head from the right distance. John Eric Hexum, an actor, was killed by a blank round that drove a plug of his own skull into his brain.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Brandon Lee (Bruce Lee's son) also killed by a blank round?

Clue Finder 55 said:

Arizona Laws that qualify a murder for the death penalty

I would like to say that I have copied Parts of an article and I’m posting it so people might understand how and why a prosecution would try and convict a person charged with a first degree murder which qualifies for death penalty such as with the Jodi Arias trial. I believe one or more of these factors listed below qualify a person for the death penalty and that one or more of these acts were committed in this murder. This is my opinion only and I believe the prosecution on this case will prove this

Especially “Cruel"; (The victim-oriented factor)

To find that a victim suffered mental anguish or physical pain, the Court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the victim was conscious during at least some portion of the crime and that (2) the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would suffer

As to physical pain, the victim does not need to be conscious for “each and every wound” inflicted for cruelty to apply. Sansing, 206 Ariz. at 235, 77 P.3d at 33 (quoting State v. Lopez (I), 163 Ariz. 18, 115, 786 P.2d 959, 966 (1990)). Physical pain may be found where a conscious victim physically suffered for at least a short period of time. State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz.

Gratuitous Violence

The gratuitous violence factor focuses on the intent of the killer as evidenced by his actions. State v. Bocharski, 218 Ariz. 476, 189 P.3d 403 (2008). The fact finder must consider the killer’s intentional actions to determine whether he acted with the necessary vile state of mind. The state must make two showings. The state must first show that the defendant
did, in fact, use violence beyond that necessary to kill. The state must also show that the defendant continued to inflict violence after he knew or should have known that a fatal action had occurred. Id.
The showing of using violence beyond that necessary to kill often involves a “barrage of violence.” State v. Ceja, 115 Ariz. 413, 417, 565 P.2d 1274, 1278 (1977). See Bocharski, 218 Ariz. at 494 ¶ 86, 189 P.3d at 421 (twenty-four knife injuries to head and face, including eight stab wounds that penetrated deep into face and neck, unnecessary to cause death); State v. Detrich, 188 Ariz. 57, 932 P.2d 1328 (1997) (three stab wounds were fatal and thirty-seven others were excessive, constituting gratuitous violence);


I may have not interpreted some of these factors correctly so you can look up Arizona Laws yourself and see what you think

Click to expand...

This is good! Thanks.

I don't know if they have been posted before, but the AZ jury instructions might also be helpful for some:

Arizona Jury Instructions: Section 11.05 First-Degree Premeditated Murder

The crime of first-degree premeditated murder requires proof that the defendant:
1 caused the death of another person; and
2 intended or knew that [he] [she] would cause the death of another person; and
3 acted with premeditation.
“Premeditation” means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and that after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first-degree murder from second degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.]
Source: A.R.S. § 13-1105 (statutory language as of August 12, 2005.)
Use Note: Use Statutory Definition Instruction 1.056(b) defining “knowingly.”
Use Statutory Definition Instructions 1.056(a)(1) and 1.056(a)(2) defining “intent” and “intent — inference.”
If the court gives both the first-degree premeditated murder instruction and first-degree felony-murder instruction, the court should include the following in the instruction:
You must unanimously agree that the State has proven “first-degree murder” beyond a reasonable doubt before you may find the defendant guilty of “first-degree murder.” However, all of you do not have to agree on whether it was “premeditated murder” or “felony murder.”

Arizona Jury Instructions: 11.052 First-Degree Felony Murder

The crime of first-degree felony murder requires proof that:
1 The defendant [and another person] [and other persons] committed or attempted to commit [insert one of the offenses listed in A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2)]; and
2 In the course of and in furtherance of this crime or immediate flight from this crime, the defendant or another person caused the death of any person.
Source: A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2) (statutory language as of August 12, 2005).
Use Note: A.R.S. § 13-1105(B) provides that this offense “requires no specific mental state other than what is required for the commission of any of the enumerated felonies.”
The court will need to instruct the jury on the predicate felony.
If the court gives both the first-degree premeditated murder instruction and first-degree felony-murder instruction, the court should include the following in the instruction:
You must unanimously agree that the State has proven “first-degree murder” beyond a reasonable doubt before you may find the defendant guilty of “first-degree murder.” However, all of you do not have to agree on whether it was “premeditated murder” or “felony murder.”

Nosey Parker said:

My mind rolls in and out of the fog of testimony, especially while doing dishes.

1. Arias testified the fog lifted in the desert, when she pulled over and found her hands bloody.

2. When Juan asked her if she was still in a fog when she was on top of Ryan Burns, she answered "Yes."

3. Samuels testified that she reported to him she came out of her fog after the checkpoint at the Hoover Dam, when she found 'she was covered in blood.'

Take your pick!

Click to expand...

It fits with how Samuels is saying that no matter what she did at any given point in time, be it rational or not, be it in a fog or not, be it contradictory to evidence/logic or not, etc., that there is some sort of amnesia or PTSD-related excuse that will explain it.

He might as well have said, "PTSD is not a get out of jail free card ... but my 'expert' testimony is a get out of jail for $250/hr card."

kscornfed said:

i don't think you can prove the ammo is the same----anyone can walk in and buy a box of bullets for a .25. they'd be the same as hers.

as for the gun, i'm sure they did look for it. but since she's a liar, they don't even know for sure where she was when she got rid of it. i wouldn't be surprised if she gave it to matt to dispose of. and i would think if she could prove that gun wasn't her grandfather's, she would have told her DT where it was long ago.

Click to expand...

I don't think the police report reflected that it was ammo belonging to the grandfather just the same caliber ammo as the gun which was stolen. It's possible the parents removed the ammo from the house after the gun was reported stolen for their own reasons. It does not appear the police had an issue with it.

I also think that if her finger had been broken a doctor would have been on that witness list. She would have been examined by a doctor at the jail so JM could have had access to the records. This would be a good reason for DT not to inquire about having it done. Not sure JM can force her to have it x-rayed. jmo

LambChop said:

You stated the ammo from the 9mm was found in the parent's home.

Click to expand...

No, what I said was I thought it was more likely, given the timing and the association with the Hi-Point Jodi Arias purchased and had in her possession, that it was 9mm ammunition.

The very moment someone produces the evidence list or police report that .25 caliber ammunition was found in the mother's house, I will think .25 caliber ammunition was found in her mother's house. Whether that in and of itself is significant is another story.

The police report stated 9mm was found in the car and the ammo from the gun that was stolen was found in the mother's home.

Click to expand...

Correct about the 9mm.

Can you cite the police report?

That is what is reported.

Click to expand...

Link?

A search warrant was issued on the parent's home. The 9mm ammo was part of the court record as JM asked questions directed to Jodi in court. Your original post was about the ammo found in the parents home not about people posting the incorrect size of the ammo.

Click to expand...

No, my original post can be summed up as ".25 mm ammo, what the heck are you talking about?"

I appreciate all the research you did on pointing out the difference in the size of the ammo which I'm sure required some time. Ammo is ammo to me and the only concern for me was addressing the fact that Jodi had ammo in the trunk of her car which was for the 9mm gun, not the ammo for the gun Travis was shot with.

Click to expand...

That she had ammo for a gun she just purchased doesn't seem that surprising.

That would mean the parents had that ammo which even we could figure out if it were never reported.

Click to expand...

Well, let's say there was .25 caliber ammunition in the house. So what? Do you know it was the ammo used? Was it the same lot as the ammo one can assume came from the grandfather's house?

I know for a fact that between my firearms, the firearms my Great Uncle gave me that are now at my parent's house, the 9x18 Makarov on permanent loam to my Dad, that my .45 1911A1 was kept in their house for a while and the fact that we are related and there's a lot of back and forth and I've gone shooting with my Dad, that there's ammo of mine down there. Some of the original ammo for my Great Uncle's .308 is on the sling and the rifle is in my Dad's gun case. However, I have the rest of the ammo in a box in my closet. I have to take that stuff down to re-unite them this Easter.

So the fact that the same caliber (no necessarily the same make and lot) of ammo can be found in the home of the daughter of the person who owned the gun, that is, the grandfather's daughter being Jodi Arias' mother, doesn't strike me as particularly damning until someone does neutron activation analysis to establish that the .25 ammo at the murder scene is related to the ammo found.

What do you think it means? Let's assume it's even the same lot. What's the significance? How do you know that the ammo wasn't there prior to the murder or even the gun theft. If the Grandfather has the .25 in a dresser as a self-defense gun (because, let's face it, that thing would be no fun to shoot), perhaps somewhere along the way the ammo was left in the mother's house and no one cared.

In the trunk of Jodi's rental the day she was arrested was a box of books that contained two knives and ammo for the 9mm gun. The gun was later found in the engine compartment of the rental car. Jodi was caught while she was packing her car to leave by LE who then served a search warrant on her home. A search warrant was also issued for the parents home. Jodi's mother, at no time, was able to get the gun, the knives or the ammo out of Jodi's car.

Click to expand...

Ah, there we are. The importance in this is to establish Jodi's Mother as an accessory after the fact. Okay. Establishing that isn't so important that I'm going to gloss over references to ".25mm ammunition" and take the word of talking heads as gospel regardless of how wrong they are, and say "okay" when people pull the "Well, it's in the record and really easy to find and I've seen it and so should you but I'm not going to provide a citation because it's for your own good" gambit.

Again, this goal of establishing the mother as complicit is far more important to you than to me and, quite frankly, I don't think it has any bearing on the murder per se.

Again, show me the police report that .25 caliber ammunition was found so I can say "so what"? and then the forensics that proves it is the same .25 caliber ammunition which, based on what I just said about wandering ammo, I will still say "so what?"

If you have proof it was otherwise then please post away. I'd love to see it. Trust me. If there was an error of posting about this it would have been caught by some of the best WS's here. And I agree with you about the media and that is one reason I do not watch them. They always seem to get it wrong. Also, I do have a life and I do not always read every single post here so if you pointed this ammo info before I just did not read it and was using someone else's post to jump off from. You see, size just does not matter to me other than what was found in the parents home and how it relates to the crime. jmo

Click to expand...

Every reference to ".25mm ammunition" being found was an error. Because there's no such thing.

Mykeru said:

You realize from that point on the rest of your life is bonus time? By the way, Did you ever find the safety on that revolver?



I will repeat: Just because the .25 caliber (developed in 1905) is an inferior round, mostly due to the power of the shell and not the caliber of the bullet itself, doesn't mean it's a joke.

25ACP Winchester 50gr FMJ vs Ballistic Gelatin - YouTube

There's no such thing a bullet that won't kill you. Especially when it it is acting on something soft and squishy in a confined space like brains in a skull.
Even the rubber kind can kill someone if they are hit in the chest or the head from the right distance. John Eric Hexum, an actor, was killed by a blank round that drove a plug of his own skull into his brain.

Click to expand...

Here's something from Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi:

Officer Thomas Drynan testified that when he arrested Susan Atkins outside Stayton, Oregon, in 1966, she was carrying a .25 caliber pistol. "I asked Miss Atkins what she intended to do with the gun," Drynan recalled, "and she told me that if she had the opportunity she would have shot and killed me."

. . . On cross examination [attorney] Shinn asked Drynan about the .25 caliber pistol.

Q: "The size is very small--it looks like a toy gun--is that correct?"

A: "Well, not to me."

Laceybug said:

Travis Alexander: The Friend I Never Met

http://kensblog2013.blogspot.com/2013/03/travis-alexander-friend-i-never-met.html?zx=16eadf351c7534ca

Click to expand...

:goodpost:This is just beautiful.:tyou:

I think Jodi Arias is trying to direct the show with her defense team. Nurmi looks like he can no longer stomach her either. I wonder if Nurmi wanted to argue "crime of passion" and Arias, being Arias, knew it all and shot that down? Perhaps if Jodi admitted crime of passion, then in her mind--she would have revealed being upset about Cancun, being a stalker after all and cared far more for him, than he did her. Jodi has to appear in control at all times...why would her defense or the DT be any different? The sex doctor got the finger from her for giving an answer she didn't care for.

Nancy Grace Visits Jodi Arias Jail: It Is ‘Far Better’ Than She Deserves!
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/03/jodi-arias-nancy-grace-jail-visit-far-better-she-deserves/

ElleElle said:

A couple of days ago I posted the only thing Doc Samuels got right was Jodi had low self esteem.

The reasons I believe are: she had been cheated on, called many names (*advertiser censored*, 3-hole wonder, evil, sociopath). The "rubber band" effect - men puling away once a woman gets too attached or needy.

Over time, this makes one feel inadequate and want to please the one that calls them these names, but yet can say they are the most beautiful woman in the world- it's confusing for them, The texts dictate this also. I re-read them all and Jodi appears apologetic all the times Travis got upset.

The narcissistic, person is full of rage and eventually snaps, hence the "fight or flight".

Jodi chose to "fight" and this probably was not controlled by as it is a biological response.

I am not defending her actions, just sayin' .

I've been there also. :twocents:

Click to expand...

I think the straw for her may have been "sociopath". Jodi had been sexually active since the age of 13. I don't think references to her sexual experience would have upset her. And I think Travis mention of *advertiser censored* had to do with him claiming she sounded like one with her statement to another male not that she was one. I really don't think the sex part bother her, nor the "*advertiser censored*" remark by the roommate because she continued to see Travis. The word "sociopath" however could bother someone who actually is a sociopath. jmo

LambChop said:

I think the straw for her may have been "sociopath". Jodi had been sexually active since the age of 13. I don't think references to her sexual experience would have upset her. And I think Travis mention of *advertiser censored* had to do with him claiming she sounded like one with her statement to another male not that she was one. I really don't think the sex part bother her, nor the "*advertiser censored*" remark by the roommate because she continued to see Travis. The word "sociopath" however could bother someone who actually is a sociopath. jmo

Click to expand...

When someone asked her (Flores?) how she felt being called a "sociopath", she responded "I've been called worse things". Maybe this was during her 10000 day on the stand testimony I don't remember, just remember noting it. I think for a sociopath a more insulting insult would be something like "stupid" or "ugly". jmo :seeya:

PS I did NOT appreciate that soy stew photo (whoever posted it) before I've had my breakfast...blech!

When I first heard about this case, the first thing that came to mind is was: rage and crime of passion.

However, after following more closely (thanks to WS) ; the killing was so brutal <<crime of passion>> but yet there is evidence suggesting <<premeditation>>.

Schuby said:

I've been thinking about why this case is so captivating when, boiled down to its essence, it really is a routine case of domestic homicide.

Click to expand...

Schuby said:

I've been thinking about why this case is so captivating when, boiled down to its essence, it really is a routine case of domestic homicide. Here is what I have come up with:
Both victim and perpetrator were very attractive, people always take more interest when this is the case.
The brutality, especially at the hands of a woman.
It's a DP trial.
Jodi's media tour from jail didn't hurt either.
The photos, the sex photos, the shower photos, the accidental photos, when has there ever been a case of a victim's last minutes alive, with their murderer, preserved on film?
Finally, and this may seem out of left field, the travel aspect has something to do with it. Someone flipping out and driving 15 minutes to a have a showdown with their ex isn't really headline news. But to make this long distance trip, one so meticulously planned, it's so diabolical.

I'd be interested to hear ant additions other WS'ers may have to. This list.

Click to expand...

What "hooked" me in to this trial really was seeing he 48 Hrs. interview of Jodi herself. At that time Iknew virtually nothing about Travis but I watched her strange glib demeanor telling Maureen Maher such obviously crafted lies with such ease and almost delight...I thought "what IS this monster?" (and I've seen monsters). I rewound my dvr, went to the beginning and watched it all over again as it was blowing my mind.

I saved it and would occasionally watch this show (also knowing it occured in my backyard basically) at times over the years until it went to trial. Of course since then I've gotten to "know" Travis, attended the trial, gotten to know his family and it's gotten much deeper. But the "freak of nature" aspect of Jodi Arias is what sucked me in. In some ways she's very ordinary and in others the most evil thing I've ever seen.