long weekend break: discuss the latest here #102

[Novice Seeker]

I think she was probably dragging him by his feet too. His head was facing the bedroom. Why would she go to the trouble of turning him around? I think his position in the shower supports him being dragged by the feet. People say that one photo is a dragging photo. I think that is the killing in progress.

IIRC, there was forensic evidence and blood spattering that indicate she dragged Travis down the bathroom hallway back to the shower.

 

[MeeBee]

IIRC, there was forensic evidence and blood spattering that indicate she dragged Travis down the bathroom hallway back to the shower.

I know this...

?

 

[sammijo]

I think it's a reasonable precaution under the circumstances.

**Note - I'm NOT cheering for either side and don't really have a fully formed opinion about guilt or innocence. Just watching the trial and discussing ideas. ***

If Jodi Arias is aquitted (and that's a very real possible outcome in any trail) - there appears (to me anyway) an real issue for her safety and for the jury.

The general population seems to have lost the reality that all defendants on trial are innocent until proven guilty - by a jury and a court of law (not the press or the public).

I respectfully disagree.

The jurors have to withhold their judgment until all the facts have been presented, but the general public is under no such obligation. We aren't the deciders of her fate, so our opinions are strictly ours.

That being said, if I were a juror, I know how I would feel at this point after seeing the evidence that has been presented, hearing the prosecution's case, and having Jodi Arias lie right to my face, then have the defense team bring in a so-called psychological expert who obviously has ethical issues.

 

[BritsKate]

I respectfully disagree.

The jurors have to withhold their judgment until all the facts have been presented, but the general public is under no such obligation. We aren't the deciders of her fate, so our opinions are strictly ours.

That being said, if I were a juror, I know how I would feel at this point after seeing the evidence that has been presented, hearing the prosecution's case, and having Jodi Arias lie right to my face, then have the defense team bring in a so-called psychological expert who obviously has ethical issues.

If we were, I think there'd be a heck of a fight over who got to give the injection. :giggle:

 

[kayice]

That article from PinkPanther on the sex doctor is great, except he said Jodi is 37. Yeah, I know she is aging before our eyes. That's what happens when you manipulate people and they turn you finally. Jodi is now 32, correct?
This woman has cost the State of AZ so much money and will continue, but think of what she has cost people all her life with her narcissistic and psychopathic BS. If you read Travis' last entry in his blog, he knew...done with drama, gold digging
Jodi, always having to help fix problem$...he was lonely and wanted to settle down with a wife and kids. He was out-going and a motivational speaker. What did Jodi do? Try to cut him off from his family and friends, to own him...snuff that light out of him. As sick as it is, I wonder if Jodi tried to make a snuff film via pictures (and view it later). She was terribly nervous about the computers being checked, lies about both of theirs machines being broke. Psychopaths like that have no boundaries, Jodi projects a lot and I think Jodi is the sexual deviant, not Travis. Look who is representing her in court. Nurmi and the sex doctor.

 

[G&AMom]

Was this written on another THREAD........or "another" WEBSITE?????? Cause I have kept up pretty well and have not seen it on Websleuths. Just sayin'.

I've seen people on this website say they think it's manslaughter. I've seen a number of people say she should have pleaded insanity, people who think the prosecution should have offered a deal, people who think it's 2nd degree murder. Not a lot, but I have seen it.

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

From all that I've learned from the trial, those closest to TA and JA and the GREAT minds here, I've come to the conclusion that I don't believe ONE WORD of JA's statements before or during this trial. I've tried to come up with a scenario but I'm hitting a wall. I believe nothing she has said. I don't even believe she tossed the gun in the desert. The only way anyone can even begin to guess how this tragedy played out is to totally disregard everything she has ever said and JUST look at the incontrovertible evidence. I find myself slipping and believing bits and pieces of her story and then have to catch myself. I have no reason to believe her at all. I hope the jury has come to that conclusion individually too.

 

[gcharlie]

It's not that much of a mystery. The medical examiner believes the first stab was through the heart artery--the superior vena cava--which also punctured his lung. Let me look up Arishia's explanation for you:

Arishia wrote:

"I understand where you are coming from, but if the first stab happens as you are trying to get up from sitting in a small shower stall, and cuts through your superior vena cava, you would be immediately stunned and very weakened. Blood immediately fills your right lung space, then starts coming up your trachea out your mouth and you begin struggling to inflate your collapsed lung and move air past the blood, which is very irritating to airway tissues. You get light headed and primarily focused on getting your breath, though trying to also fend off your attacker. Acute respiratory distress is one of the most difficult problems for people to cope with, aside from burns. IMHO"

Like many others, I would like to understand what took place that day. It is hard to understand how something like this happened.

Dick did talk about the flight or fight response, but I think he failed to fully explain it. Others who have been in a serious flight or fight situation will probably back me up here. When in real danger, I froze first. I think that the body does this so that the mind has those nanoseconds to process the situation and then react by fleeing or fighting. Dick called it instinctual, but he fails to give credit to the amazing abilities of the human mind. That freeze time maps out a series of steps to take without having to go through the "if, then" process along the way.

It is entirely possible that JA showed a weapon with her eyes full of evil, as others have described her. Travis may have been stunned by the look in her eyes and frozen by fear of the weapon, which I believe was the knife. She had the element of surprise and thus was able to make the first stab, which was the probably the one described above.

 

[Foghorn]

Google Directions advises that the drive time from Mesa to the Hoover Dam by Route 93 (most direct) is four hours and thirty-four minutes.

The first cell phone ping on the evening of June 4th was 11:37 PM, twenty-seven miles south of the Nevada border, and the final photo was timed at 17:33:32. Subtracting the drive time, she had a good hour and a half spare. It would take mere minutes to wash the body in the shower, delete pictures and stuff the camera and towels in the washer, clean herself as necessary and be on the road.

I believe there was ample time for her to select a spot en route to dispose of the gun, knife, car mats and any other evidence somewhere along Route 93 under cover of darkness - well before the Hoover Dam checkpoint. Google Street View shows the road to be perfectly desolate.

I wonder why she chose that route (93) as opposed to the more direct route 89N? If she had taken the direct route, she would have been near Flagstaff at app. the same time her phone pinged north of Kingman.

Can anyone familiar with the area explain why she might choose one over the other? Why drive NW on 93 when 89N is a straight shot from Mesa to Utah?:waitasec:

 

[thefragile7393]

dbl post

 

[BeachGirlFromPA]

http://flagstaff-lawyer.com/news-blog/2011/01/flagstaff-lawyer-discusses-premeditated/


“Premeditation” means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew he 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.

Therefore, under Arizona law, a person can be sent to prison for life on a first degree (felony) murder conviction without ever having premeditation.

 

[katiedid2]

:waitasec: Are you confusing LaViolette with Arias' mediation specialist, or have I missed something?

No I'm just trying today that most times those on the defence expert lists bond with the defendant! Samuels did and some of Casey's team and experts.
Not all but some bond.

What the heck I think I am confused lol justice junkie ! Your right also!

 

[JRS_JD2L]

If we were, I think there'd be a heck of a fight over who got to give the injection. :giggle:

Oh, My Gosh! That's so debasing! I like it!

 

[Steely Dan]

Snipped by me as this responds directly to your request.

For the record, it was "...feel the wrath..."

Excerpt of the message sent from TA to JA on April 6 [no context]:

You'll find it here:

http://youtu.be/mnoqnKekmpc?t=39m33s

Thank you.

Your memory is correct. It's "feel THE wrath."

View attachment 31077



Can you explain how she would have transferred them to another device? My brain is foggy at the moment. But she wanted trophy pictures, I agree!

Thank you too.

I'm not a geek with this stuff, but I can transfer pictures from my digital camera to my computer. It might be possible to transfer them to a cellphone or iPad or some other smaller device that she could easily hide. JMO

Why would she keep asking to see the pictures during her police interviews then?

Nobody may know about that thing. It's definitely something she'd want to keep from the police. I think her asking to see the pictures during the police interviews just strengthens my point.

It's possible that MM may have made the device disappear. JMO

Did JW actually read out "my wrath"??? Here's the text, and it shows "the wrath":

http://s1352.photobucket.com/user/tabularasa6/media/169_zps94314fde.jpg.html?sort=3&o=111

IIRC, she did and then JM objected to it.

Steely Dan, as per an earlier comment today, speculates that TA is referring to the wrath of God.

To explain my theory a little more I'll say this. If TA meant HIS wrath then he most likely would have said MY wrath. We know that TA was religious and was a longstanding member of the Mormon church. I believe he felt that God would bring down his wrath upon her. I believe from his message that he was threatening to reveal all of the stuff she'd done to him to his friends. It sounds like he had been keeping them from his friends even though she'd gone psycho biotch on him.

I'm not sure who's information he wants, but maybe someone else does. She may have been flirting with the idea of killing him, but this text is THE reason she killed him, IMO. It seems she believed she could manipulate Travis the way she'd manipulated so many men in her life before. When she realized that he could easily ruin her life it sealed his fate.

YES, I just heard that again this morning. I was transcribing and I wrote ' MY wrath.'

I hope Juan picked up on that. Maybe Flores caught it. I see him watching closely and taking notes. Maybe we should point it out on the TA FB Page because I think someone from his office keeps up there.

I think there is a really big difference between 'MY wrath' and 'THE wrath.'

I believe he is talking about Universal KARMA, and not anything personal that he would threaten to do. And the DT is FALSELY saying that is personal threat by Travis.

I really want the jury to pick up on that deceitful thing the Defense is doing.

As I noted above I believe JM objected to it, but the damage had been done already. I'm not criticizing anyone on this board because a lot of people think TA wrote MY wrath instead of THE wrath. I'm hoping at least one juror picked up on that. It will be interesting to see if they ask for those texts during deliberations.

I think it's fairly obvious that the defense wants people to believe he said MY wrath instead of THE wrath. It really changes things. MY wrath can't be interpreted any other way. THE wrath could mean, as I think it does, THE wrath of God. JMO

 

[rhondavous]

A can of wasp spray will work just as well, and has a nice long range on it

Aerosol sunblock could temporarily blind a person as well. Hmmm isn't aerosol sunscreen also flammable?

 

[spcagrl]

She claimed it was foreign exchange; therefore, probably not.

I don't know whether they've ever been asked about Costa Rica.

Yes, but WHEN did this happen since she dropped out of high school and she claims that Bobby Juarez was her first love and she moved out of her parents home at 17 and lived with Bobby? if you are not in school how do you get into an "exchange student" program. Or did she do this in Middle school or something. There is something hinky about that whole timeline, IMO.

 

[Novice Seeker]

No, I don't think they have made such a request. There should never be any speaking objections in front of the jury. The problem is that this judge has been allowing it to go on--on both sides.

IMO, all of the sidebars lately, requested by JW, have been more about, Oh shat, this is going to be bad, "Objection! Can we approach?!?" The goal of which is to 1) break up JM's flow and 2) to give Dr. Fog a queue that he's about to step in doo doo, and give him a chance to formulate a response. If you notice, most, if not all, of those objections were overruled in the end. More of a "time out" request.

The DT seems to be utilizing this manner to object to everything and while at the sidebar they're receiving suggestions on how to pose their questions. IMO, when an attorney is involved in a death penalty case they shouldn't be struggling with examining a witness, they shouldn't be reviewing exhibits as if it's the first time they have reviewed it, they shouldn't be exhibiting adolescence behavior such as giggling,rolling their eyes at the opposing attorney and arguing with, stomping their feet at the judge.:banghead: As for this judge, I wish she would get control of her courtroom, grow some gonads and start making some decisions without needing the attorneys going up to the sidebar to debate the issues.

 

[Tsunvirtual]

I respectfully disagree.

The jurors have to withhold their judgment until all the facts have been presented, but the general public is under no such obligation. We aren't the deciders of her fate, so our opinions are strictly ours.

That being said, if I were a juror, I know how I would feel at this point after seeing the evidence that has been presented, hearing the prosecution's case, and having Jodi Arias lie right to my face, then have the defense team bring in a so-called psychological expert who obviously has ethical issues.

I'm in total agreement with you. Why would any reasonable person refer to her as being innocent when she has already admitted to murdering Travis Alexander? At this point, it's a only a question of whether or not she has been proven to have premeditated the murder. We are definitely entitled to our own opinions and are under no obligations to keep them to ourselves.

 

[spcagrl]

I've seen people on this website say they think it's manslaughter. I've seen a number of people say she should have pleaded insanity, people who think the prosecution should have offered a deal, people who think it's 2nd degree murder. Not a lot, but I have seen it.

Another poster kindly linked back to the post where it was said. I stand corrected :blushing:

 

[Dmacky]

They're not genuine, but I don't think it's a full parody either. The original Casey Is Innocent site by the same people had an image of 'Casey' in the banner which was actually a *advertiser censored* image never proven to be Casey. So it makes you wonder, I think they're just using these sites once a case gets high publicity for fun, or for revenue.

The posters on there are probably genuine supporters though.

I wonder how many would be on there supporting Jodi if it was one of their brothers, uncles or newphews that she slaughtered?