Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[wasnt_me]

There is a picture of him prior to getting into the shower? What's the time stamp on that one? How much time passed between him being out of the shower and the first picture we see of him in there?

There are two times when people would't be covered in soap - right as they get in, and right before they get out.

I have no clue whether or not he was really posing, and ultimately it's irrelevant to me. I am just saying that there could be legitimate reasons, other than posing for the camera, that he wasn't covered with soap.

But, yea, I didn't know there were shots of him right before he got into the shower.

It appears that his hair has not been wet in this photo. Do you think? It's spikey and appears not wet yet to me. But let me know what you see.

To me, his hair seems not wet on purpose in the first photo and wet on purpose in the second. So it seems to me this is the first time he wet his hair. So it seems from the photos that he hadn't showered before the slideshow shower--unless he avoided his hair beforehand and decided to wet it for the pictures.

What's more likely? That he showered beforehand or this is the first "shower?"

ETA: if this is his first shower and he actually just had sex or was cleaning the house, it's weird that there is not soap suds. JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

What I am assuming molly333 is getting at , is that an organized offender is a pre-meditating offender. A disorganized offender did not premeditate and hence no murder one.

But what I'm getting is, is did JM--in open court--classify Jodi as either one?

I don't know how reliable this site is but they make my point in the first paragraph:

For the purpose of behavioral analysis, there are two distinct types of crime scenes: organized and disorganized. Each one presents unique insights into the psychology of the Unsub. Occasionally, a crime scene will present elements of both. As with any typing system, not 100% of offenders will fit 100% of the characteristics of the class they fall into. These categorizations are based on characteristics that present themselves in more than 3/4 of the criminals of each offender type. So...without further ado...

http://psychautopsy.weebly.com/organized-vs-disorganized.html

So I'm not sure why we have to hold any definition of classification to the highest degree of accuracy--even if the JM actually called Jodi this. Did he say this in open court?

 

[SMK]

You can only use what is proven in court. Did he prove she is a narcissist? Most people, outside of professionals, don't even know what a narcissist is, much less try to diagnose someone they have never met.

That's neither here nor there. I just am mentioning it to show you how you are not thinking like a jury. Because a jury member might think to themselves she is a narcissist, if they happen to know what that is, but unless that is proven in court, it won't enter into the mix.

I am talking about his case, not about what you think. The problem is there is the evidence in court, and then there's what the rest of us know about, and all the chatter back and forth, which is totally different from what is going on in court.

This is why everyone was blindsided by the Casey Anthony verdict.

IMO

I would agree that narcissism legally is a nowhere issue. It is irrelevant. Psychologically Jodi could be Miss Prissy in a Prom Dress and she could be a killer; conversely you can be a raging sociopath but not guilty of premeditated capital murder.

I think what you are proposing is that in order for there to be premeditation and intent, there has to be organization. Prosecutor Juan Martinez is bringing in much proof of a disorganized offender - which is contradictory to his original intent.

I believe the Casey Anthony verdict also was the result of Prosecutor Jeff Ashton being conflicted about what he really intended to prove. Time will tell.....

 

[BW0000]

I think you're entirely right about the threat implied in her plea negotiation, but I am convinced she would have "revealed" all of these "truths" about Travis in any case. She has shown no remorse for having killed him, despite the rivers of crocodile (or rather faux-crocodile, even worse) tears about how she loved him so and feels so terrible for having to reveal his "secret." This is all about a rage that she cannot control. She wasn't satisfied with simply killing him -- because it wasn't about killing him, it was all about punishing him for the humiliation she felt at having been cast aside as a potential serious interest. She is continuing to punish him now, via his family, the church, and any friend or remote acquaintance she can find to drag into her web.

That said, I think you and many others here are quite right about his being human and either unable or unwilling to resist Jodi's advances. I do not have any illusions about the young man's humanity, and I for one do not expect perfection regardless of religious credo. I think only Ms. Arias imagines that he "deserved" his fate.

s5

I agree every everything you said. Flores told the killer TA had none of these pictures because he deleted all of them. He was on his way! This memory stick was hers.

 

[geevee]

geevee


Thanks for your effort

Find the other one of her at 1:42:53 with braids laying in another position That one is better. You might have to black out depending where you get it.

Will do.

 

[molly333]

What I am assuming molly333 is getting at , is that an organized offender is a pre-meditating offender. A disorganized offender did not premeditate and hence no murder one.

That's very close to what I'm saying. You could have a disorganized offender who premeditated murder but that is not who he is presenting us with to prove premeditation.

He is presenting us with a highly organized offender who is premeditating murder with a gun who then becomes highly disorganized when she commits murder with a different weapon.

[On the face of it, the highly disorganized crime scene in this case bolsters her claim of self defense. It looks impulsive, spur of the moment]

He says, I can prove to you she preplanned this murder because she stole a gun to kill him. And, more than that, liscense plates, cellphones, gas cans, receipts, lost receipts, everything fits to show a compulsively orgainized killer sneaking into Arizona to kill him in a premeditated fashion.

And then he turns around and says, I can prove to you that she used a knife to kill him and left behind a total mess.

well, he is trying to have it both ways. If she planned to kill him with a knife, prove it. If she planned to kill him with a gun, prove she killed him with a gun.

Is she organized? Disorganized? Planned? Spontaneous? What?

He's talking about two different perps.

IMO

 

[gitana1]

Read the next paragraph about the difficulty in classifying a scene. Trying to pigeonhole a scene into a category is putting the cart before the horse. jmo.

Yes, you're right.

 

[wasnt_me]

Mark Fuhrman thinks she brought the knife to degrade and humiliate him in death. He says he's seen that before in cases where one partner has decided to kill the other partner out of rage [he mentioned homosexuals for some unknown reason]. So he thinks she was planning to shoot him and then cut him after death. It just occurred to me, maybe dismember him to remove the body?

So, yes, I do think she might have brought the knife, but you can't prove it.

IMO

I like the idea of bringing the knife for dismemberment and it falls in line with the attempted decapitation. In terms of dismemberment, maybe she realized she couldn't possibly complete that and get out of the house in time not to be caught. Or that it was certainly not the right tool for cutting bone. I think I heard somewhere that you can dismember without cutting bone. Kind of like we pull a check leg away from the body, there's supposedly a way to do that with humans, but she might not know that.

 

[weather_lady]

That's very close to what I'm saying. You could have a disorganized offender who premeditated murder but that is not who he is presenting us with to prove premeditation.

He is presenting us with a highly organized offender who is premeditating murder with a gun who then becomes highly disorganized when she commits murder with a different weapon.

[On the face of it, the highly disorganized crime scene in this case bolsters her claim of self defense. It looks impulsive, spur of the moment]

He says, I can prove to you she preplanned this murder because she stole a gun to kill him. And, more than that, liscense plates, cellphones, gas cans, receipts, lost receipts, everything fits to show a compulsively orgainized killer sneaking into Arizona to kill him in a premeditated fashion.

And then he turns around and says, I can prove to you that she used a knife to kill him and left behind a total mess.

well, he is trying to have it both ways. If she planned to kill him with a knife, prove it. If she planned to kill him with a gun, prove she killed him with a gun.

Is she organized? Disorganized? Planned? Spontaneous? What?

He's talking about two different perps.

IMO

It doesn't matter which weapon the jury believes was planned, or even whether the entire jury believes it was planned with the same weapon. The legal standard requires only that they find that TA's death was planned by JA. Nor do they have to find that JA was organized about it, or that she planned it days ahead of time, or that her plan didn't change mid-way through, or that TA didn't do anything to muck up the plan or the scene that resulted. All they have to find is that at some point prior to killing TA 3 times over, JA made the decision, "I am going to kill him." That's it.

Even very well-planned and carried-out murders tend to make a terrible mess. That has absolutely no bearing on the burden of proof in this case, or the elements of premeditated murder.

 

[wasnt_me]

That's very close to what I'm saying. You could have a disorganized offender who premeditated murder but that is not who he is presenting us with to prove premeditation.

He is presenting us with a highly organized offender who is premeditating murder with a gun who then becomes highly disorganized when she commits murder with a different weapon.

[On the face of it, the highly disorganized crime scene in this case bolsters her claim of self defense. It looks impulsive, spur of the moment]

He says, I can prove to you she preplanned this murder because she stole a gun to kill him. And, more than that, liscense plates, cellphones, gas cans, receipts, lost receipts, everything fits to show a compulsively orgainized killer sneaking into Arizona to kill him in a premeditated fashion.

And then he turns around and says, I can prove to you that she used a knife to kill him and left behind a total mess.

well, he is trying to have it both ways. If she planned to kill him with a knife, prove it. If she planned to kill him with a gun, prove she killed him with a gun.

Is she organized? Disorganized? Planned? Spontaneous? What?

He's talking about two different perps.

IMO

I disagree that he hasn't shown this and from the post I wrote earlier, I put in a quote to explain that no category of "organized" or "disorganized" contains people that match it 100%.

JM has not say she planned to kill him with a gun or a knife. He said she used the knife to kill him. I think you're taking mental leaps in what he said and as they keep objecting to in this case, you are "characterizing the testimony."

 

[MeeBee]

It doesn't matter which weapon the jury believes was planned, or even whether the entire jury believes it was planned with the same weapon. The legal standard requires only that they find that TA's death was planned by JA. Nor do they have to find that JA was organized about it, or that she planned it days ahead of time, or that her plan didn't change mid-way through, or that TA didn't do anything to muck up the plan or the scene that resulted. All they have to find is that at some point prior to killing TA 3 times over, JA made the decision, "I am going to kill him." That's it.

Even very well-planned and carried-out murders tend to make a terrible mess. That has absolutely no bearing on the burden of proof in this case, or the elements of premeditated murder.

To add to this, another murder one qualifier is that the death was heinous or cruel and that the person suffered.

I think this has been well established by both sides.

 

[LambChop]

What I am assuming molly333 is getting at , is that an organized offender is a pre-meditating offender. A disorganized offender did not premeditate and hence no murder one.

If she never used the gun and stabbed him 29 times that is still premeditation. She didn't have to have a "things to do list" with her. At some point self defense would fly out the window with the amount of stabs in the back and his cut throat. She did, however, use the gun and at some point she switched weapons which required her to think about it and then act.

Jodi describes Travis after shooting him and the fact that he fell. There was no way she could not have gotten away from him. According to her he did not fall on her. She never claims the gun jammed but only that she does not know what happened to it.

jmo

 

[wasnt_me]

I find this thought process to be very naive, Mimi may have said he was gettin NONE, but Travis clearly thought he could for the lack of a better term, charm the pants off of her at some point during the vacation. I am a guy, I know how guys think.

I agree and I think it lends to his willingness to go along with Jodi. If he hadn't been getting any sex since she left, then it makes me think that's why he entertained her dropping by in the middle of the night. Also given that he wasn't certain he could actually get it from Mimi on the trip.

 

[molly333]

But what I'm getting is, is did JM--in open court--classify Jodi as either one?

I don't know how reliable this site is but they make my point in the first paragraph:

For the purpose of behavioral analysis, there are two distinct types of crime scenes: organized and disorganized. Each one presents unique insights into the psychology of the Unsub. Occasionally, a crime scene will present elements of both. As with any typing system, not 100% of offenders will fit 100% of the characteristics of the class they fall into. These categorizations are based on characteristics that present themselves in more than 3/4 of the criminals of each offender type. So...without further ado...

http://psychautopsy.weebly.com/organized-vs-disorganized.html

So I'm not sure why we have to hold any definition of classification to the highest degree of accuracy--even if the JM actually called Jodi this. Did he say this in open court?

No --he's not using the terms disorganized and organized.

He's showing you through the evidence--a very organized perp who commits a very disorganized murder, and then he calls it murder one because the organized perp premeditated it back when she stole the gun but, turned into a disorganized perp when she killed him with a knife and left a mess behind.

It's how he is developing his case.

But, the knife and that crime scene gives a Juror latitude to say, She didn't premeditate it, it looks to me like he attacked her, she spontaneously grabbed a knife to defend herself, and then she lost it. Murder two. [or whatever].

Unless he fixes his case.

IMO

 

[LambChop]

It doesn't matter which weapon the jury believes was planned, or even whether the entire jury believes it was planned with the same weapon. The legal standard requires only that they find that TA's death was planned by JA. Nor do they have to find that JA was organized about it, or that she planned it days ahead of time, or that her plan didn't change mid-way through, or that TA didn't do anything to muck up the plan or the scene that resulted. All they have to find is that at some point prior to killing TA 3 times over, JA made the decision, "I am going to kill him." That's it.

Even very well-planned and carried-out murders tend to make a terrible mess. That has absolutely no bearing on the burden of proof in this case, or the elements of premeditated murder.

And I think at some point the jury is going to believe that the person saying "Kill you" was not Travis but Jodi. I still say once she stabbed him or shot him he could have punched her in the face and she would have been out and he did not do that. Why???? We may never know. I would think he just was not a violent person and it shows because she certainly did not have a black eye when she showed up at Ryan's. jmo

 

[wasnt_me]

So this means the Mormons are just putting one over on us, with their vows of chastity until marriage.......:furious:

SMK, Christians have that as well. It's important to separate people from their religions because we can't ever know what they do behind closed doors while they claim to be one way to the outside world. That goes for being religious or anything else. Heck, that even goes for people saying they have a happy marriage, and then you learn later that one spouse killed the other over years and years of problems and cheating.

You never know what's behind the white picket fences.

 

[SMK]

It appears that his hair has not been wet in this photo. Do you think? It's spikey and appears not wet yet to me. But let me know what you see.

To me, his hair seems not wet on purpose in the first photo and wet on purpose in the second. So it seems to me this is the first time he wet his hair. So it seems from the photos that he hadn't showered before the slideshow shower--unless he avoided his hair beforehand and decided to wet it for the pictures.

What's more likely? That he showered beforehand or this is the first "shower?"

ETA: if this is his first shower and he actually just had sex or was cleaning the house, it's weird that there is not soap suds. JMO.

Yes, it's odd. Unless he is the type who uses very little soap.....He really was handsome, wasn't he?

 

[wasnt_me]

No --he's not using the terms disorganized and organized.

He's showing you through the evidence--a very organized perp who commits a very disorganized murder, and then he calls it murder one because the organized perp premeditated it back when she stole the gun but, turned into a disorganized perp when she killed him with a knife and left a mess behind.

It's how he is developing his case.

But, the knife and that crime scene gives a Juror latitude to say, She didn't premeditate it, it looks to me like he attacked her, she spontaneously grabbed a knife to defend herself, and then she lost it. Murder two. [or whatever].

Unless he fixes his case.

IMO

This is how you perceive the case. That doesn't mean it's what he's really presenting. Remember, not everyone sees this the same way, so to different people, he's doing very different things.

For example, the people who totally believe in Jodi's innocence believe that JM is doing nothing at all to prove anything, and that her defence team is doing a good job. So it's all about perception.

Maybe some of the jury sees it as you do, maybe some see it as I do, maybe some see it as the people who think Jodi is innocent sees it.

But I don't agree that he's shown the things you say. I don't find Jodi organized. If I were a juror, the knife wouldn't come into consideration under premeditation, as it shouldn't.

Again, say a serial killer abducted someone, took them to the desert to kill them, and had a knife in the car, a gun in the car, and some rope in the car. The victim is killed by a huge bolder the serial killer bashed on the victim's head.

Because the killer used the bolder, it's not premeditation any more?

 

[SMK]

SMK, Christians have that as well. It's important to separate people from their religions because we can't ever know what they do behind closed doors while they claim to be one way to the outside world. That goes for being religious or anything else. Heck, that even goes for people saying they have a happy marriage, and then you learn later that one spouse killed the other over years and years of problems and cheating.

You never know what's behind the white picket fences.

Yes, I agree. Everyone has posted me about this, along similar lines: People are weak, they don't always live up to their best ideals, etc. I DO understand this, and have NEVER been the type to judge anyone's indiscretions.

What I cannot seem to get across is that I had fallen for this "Mormon mystique"- whenever I heard that someone "was a Mormon" I felt a wave of awe come over me: For some reason , they struck me as mystical and superior, in a way that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. never did. I really don't know why. To me, the chastity thing was almost sexy. I cannot explain it. I am just disappointed to realize they are more run of the mill. Guess I have what they call "the ol' Mormon fixation".

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, it's odd. Unless he is the type who uses very little soap.....He really was handsome, wasn't he?

Oh yeah, he was a hottie.