Prosecutor Juan Martinez releases new book, February 2016 - #2

[TrialWatcher]

I'm thinking she might just be taking a break from this for a bit, I know for myself I haven't been discussing much lately either. Hopefully when she finishes the book, she will return with her views which mirror mine for the most part. I still say... no sex on June 4th. And I didn't see "arousal" in those pics of Travis, did I miss a few of them? But I suppose arousal is in the eyes of the beholder. Lol. TTYL.

Juan Martinez details that Travis was aroused in one of the pics. He states so in his book. The pic of her seconds before indicate sexual interaction - all the pics do. They are time stamped (exceptions sequentially sensible) and date stamped. Neither prosecution or defense dispute sexual contact took place. Yet some here are disputing the very evidence that got her convicted. Everyone is entitled to theories but in face of very strong evidence, the no sex one doesn't stack up.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Yet when Dworkin was going over Exhibits #413,414,415 and 417 pulled from JA's Canon(which also had no internal memory and the power was dead) memory card, we were given pretty detailed info about what data was available for them.

ie. - the first three only had file information and no exif but were dated May 10,15 &17/08, while #417 had both, exif and file and showed it had been taken July 12/08.
- 413 had arrived on the memory card 05/10/08 without exif data and although he could not confirm it had not just been added to the memory card the file info showed it had been Last Accessed 05/10/08, File Create 05/10/08, and Last Written 05/10/08.
- 414 the same as 413 but dated 05/15/08.
- 415 the same as 413 and 414 but dated 05/17/08.
- 417 had exif data that showed it had been taken and digitized to the card on 07/12/08 at 10:25:15.

My point is that only some of the bedroom pics pulled from TA's camera allegedly had any kind of file info, some had nothing. Who's to know without being shown what all the data was that was pulled, that perhaps the partial file info was being read incorrectly? Yes I'm beating a dead horse around here but at this point I think we will just have to agree to disagree, unless someone can come forward with more info. As we were told, the camera will print whatever date/time it has been set to and we also know that exif info can be manipulated... and pointing out a couple of KY bottles doesn't convince me that they were taken on June 4/08.

I don't understand why you keep returning to Dworkin's testimony on Arias' camera when it was proven that the sex pics were time and date stamped by Travis' camera. The clusters were dealt with and the two without time stamps were in line with the sex activities on that day. Detective Flores stated that the memory cards between Travis and Jodi's cameras were not interchangeable.

As for agreeing to disagree, I did come forward with more info. I pointed out that (you were unaware of it) the sex pics time and date stamps were in fact covered in court. Exact exhibit numbers were given. Juan carefully went through each one. Until you can provide clear evidence that contradicts what Juan and the evidence showed, I think you are beating a dead horse.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Now...the shower pics...those have meaning. Those are pre-murder escalating to murder photos and I am still convinced he did not know they were happening at first. He soon became aware of her standing there with the camera but I don't think he was intending to pose for her. He may have done so to humor her but I think he was hoping she'd just leave already! !

Do you think she may have used the shaving pic excuse to lure him from there to the shower? Or into the bathroom then forced him into the shower after shaving? Her flip-flopping around the shaving issue and her lack of clarity with how the post-sex time went intrigue me. What really happened then?

 

[Hope4More]

I'm thinking she might just be taking a break from this for a bit, I know for myself I haven't been discussing much lately either. Hopefully when she finishes the book, she will return with her views which mirror mine for the most part. I still say... no sex on June 4th. And I didn't see "arousal" in those pics of Travis, did I miss a few of them? But I suppose arousal is in the eyes of the beholder. Lol. TTYL.

I didn't see it either. I also think JM misinterpreted what was happening in the Flores interrogation when the said they'd done a video that day. JM writes-- wow, she told us something LE didn't even know! And the only explanation he could think of was that she and Flores had "shared a moment.

The other explanation is that the had been settting up that tied to a tree video story since the last week of April, and when confronted with the pics, saw an opportunity to stir it into her lies.
There was no video.

I'm getting the sense that JM didn't investigate very far into possible forged/manufactured electronic evidence. He didn't even examine the Helio until after the trial, so couldn't have been trying to figure out if the sex tape was spliced or what emails/texts he might have sent to herself in TA's name.

It worked just fine for JM to run with sex on June 4, and when Flores saw the pics first and showed them to JM, and even after the interrogation, neither had the slightest clue the lengths she'd gone to all along to create a false electronic trail.

I entirely understand, CayleeA, that you don't believe they had sex that day, and why. The photo evidence is not 100% conclusive, no matter the assertions otherwise.

And IMO it is a misreading both of the evidence and of what can be known about TA to think he reacted to his despised stalker surprising him in his own house by shrugging his shoulders and saying- hey, why not?

 

[TrialWatcher]

The tempted versus not about having sex is one of those entirely subjective points that IMO, without evidence, always rest on what peeps believe or understand about psychology.

I don't believe he was tempted, and beyond everything else I've said to explain why not, for me the photos speak for themselves on that point.

I don't see even a glimmer of happiness or fondness or playfulness or any other positive emotion in those photos. Both of them look grim, IMO, and the pics of her whatnots? There's no way to see those as meant to be erotic , IMO. I've always seen them as hostile. Travis was taking pics of the 3 hole wonder, and there was nothing remotely sentimental about how he saw those holes.

This is a quote from Conviction by Juan Martinez:

"Flores then showed me the other five photographs that had been taken during the same afternoon session. One, snapped at 1: 44: 00 P.M., was a close-up shot of Arias’ anal and vaginal areas. Another, taken by Arias fifty seconds later, showed Travis naked and on his back, exhibiting his erect penis. In the foreground of that photograph was a bottle of KY personal lubricant. This photo confirmed that the other participant in the sexual activity that day was indeed Travis. There was now no disputing that Arias had been there on June 4, on the day of the murder, contrary to her protestations to Detective Flores during their June 10 phone call. A fourth photo, taken at 1: 47: 14, was also of Travis. He was on his back and looking at the camera, with his right arm extended, as if motioning Arias to come over to him. The personal lubricant had been moved so that it was now closer to the head of the bed. The next photo, which did not have a time stamp, showed Arias, propped up on her elbows, turning her body to the camera as if to show off her breasts and vaginal area, her left pigtail cascading over her shoulder onto the bed, the right one lying between her breasts. The last of these six pictures showed Arias’ legs spread to display her pubic area.".

I can't bear to look at the pics again but a degree of arousal was shown. He is naked. He didn't have to be naked if he only wanted incriminating shots of her. Also, the pictures are graphic in the extreme and it would be risible for him to have to take some of those pics to prove Arias was not a pure Mormon.

 

[Hope4More]

This is a quote from Conviction by Juan Martinez:

"Flores then showed me the other five photographs that had been taken during the same afternoon session. One, snapped at 1: 44: 00 P.M., was a close-up shot of Arias’ anal and vaginal areas. Another, taken by Arias fifty seconds later, showed Travis naked and on his back, exhibiting his erect penis. In the foreground of that photograph was a bottle of KY personal lubricant. This photo confirmed that the other participant in the sexual activity that day was indeed Travis. There was now no disputing that Arias had been there on June 4, on the day of the murder, contrary to her protestations to Detective Flores during their June 10 phone call. A fourth photo, taken at 1: 47: 14, was also of Travis. He was on his back and looking at the camera, with his right arm extended, as if motioning Arias to come over to him. The personal lubricant had been moved so that it was now closer to the head of the bed. The next photo, which did not have a time stamp, showed Arias, propped up on her elbows, turning her body to the camera as if to show off her breasts and vaginal area, her left pigtail cascading over her shoulder onto the bed, the right one lying between her breasts. The last of these six pictures showed Arias’ legs spread to display her pubic area.".

I can't bear to look at the pics again but a degree of arousal was shown. He is naked. He didn't have to be naked if he only wanted incriminating shots of her. Also, the pictures are graphic in the extreme and it would be risible for him to have to take some of those pics to prove Arias was not a pure Mormon.

Yes, and the date and time stamped May 2 rape fantasy text from TA to was also taken at face value and accepted by JM all of trial #1.

 

[Hope4More]

This is a quote from Conviction by Juan Martinez:

"Flores then showed me the other five photographs that had been taken during the same afternoon session. One, snapped at 1: 44: 00 P.M., was a close-up shot of Arias’ anal and vaginal areas. Another, taken by Arias fifty seconds later, showed Travis naked and on his back, exhibiting his erect penis. In the foreground of that photograph was a bottle of KY personal lubricant. This photo confirmed that the other participant in the sexual activity that day was indeed Travis. There was now no disputing that Arias had been there on June 4, on the day of the murder, contrary to her protestations to Detective Flores during their June 10 phone call. A fourth photo, taken at 1: 47: 14, was also of Travis. He was on his back and looking at the camera, with his right arm extended, as if motioning Arias to come over to him. The personal lubricant had been moved so that it was now closer to the head of the bed. The next photo, which did not have a time stamp, showed Arias, propped up on her elbows, turning her body to the camera as if to show off her breasts and vaginal area, her left pigtail cascading over her shoulder onto the bed, the right one lying between her breasts. The last of these six pictures showed Arias’ legs spread to display her pubic area.".

I can't bear to look at the pics again but a degree of arousal was shown. He is naked. He didn't have to be naked if he only wanted incriminating shots of her. Also, the pictures are graphic in the extreme and it would be risible for him to have to take some of those pics to prove Arias was not a pure Mormon.

Logic missing some factual and motional/psychological context. She went there to manuever him into the shower to kill him and is going to say, take naked pics of me but no need to take off your clothes?

The part of your scenario I agree with is that he might have thought the taking of pics on his camera could serve as insurance, whether or not, for that matter, the killer had even suggested the idea.

 

[TexMex]

I didn't see it either. I also think JM misinterpreted what was happening in the Flores interrogation when the said they'd done a video that day. JM writes-- wow, she told us something LE didn't even know! And the only explanation he could think of was that she and Flores had "shared a moment.

The other explanation is that the had been settting up that tied to a tree video story since the last week of April, and when confronted with the pics, saw an opportunity to stir it into her lies.
There was no video.

I'm getting the sense that JM didn't investigate very far into possible forged/manufactured electronic evidence. He didn't even examine the Helio until after the trial, so couldn't have been trying to figure out if the sex tape was spliced or what emails/texts he might have sent to herself in TA's name.

It worked just fine for JM to run with sex on June 4, and when Flores saw the pics first and showed them to JM, and even after the interrogation, neither had the slightest clue the lengths she'd gone to all along to create a false electronic trail.

I entirely understand, CayleeA, that you don't believe they had sex that day, and why. The photo evidence is not 100% conclusive, no matter the assertions otherwise.

And IMO it is a misreading both of the evidence and of what can be known about TA to think he reacted to his despised stalker surprising him in his own house by shrugging his shoulders and saying- hey, why not?

Martinez was 100% convinced of the photo evidence. It's metadata was verified by his investigations and expert. IMO to suggest he glanced at a photo and "ran" with it is incorrect.
It is also misreading the evidence of TA's pattern of behavior to suggest that one chat out of 80,000 communications over 20 months would reveal how Travis would react when Jodi showed up. His pattern of behavior shows the opposite, IMO

 

[lleblanc1]

I'm not sure if it was in Juan's book, or in an interview he said he didn't order an xray of JA finger as he didn't know she would say TA previously broke it. My question is if JA got a new trial (don't believe she will), wouldn't the prosecutor order her to get one and then use those results (she cut herself during the murder) to prove she has no problem lying under oath and impeach her testimony?

 

[b_lab7410]

Her Mormomism was just a ruse as you say. When the female detective was interrogating her the detective spoke of Jodi's "spirituality" and "faith". Jodi just sat there looking at her as if she had three heads. The Mormon baptism was just to try and marry Travis. After that failed it became a way to manipulate her next target into believing she would be a candidate to be his proper Mormon wife.

I personally think she got a kick out of referring to herself as "witch." By witch, I do not mean Wiccan.

Was not Bobby, a 'goth?' I think she picked up quite a bit of stereotypes to emulate during those earlier years...

She's a self-prophesying type, aggrandized sense of self. I would think she'd have fit into a cult, if not for the fact that cult leaders are usually male...

 

[TrialWatcher]

Logic missing some factual and motional/psychological context. She went there to manuever him into the shower to kill him and is going to say, take naked pics of me but no need to take off your clothes?

The part of your scenario I agree with is that he might have thought the taking of pics on his camera could serve as insurance, whether or not, for that matter, the killer had even suggested the idea.

The logic that is missing is suggesting against all the evidence that they didn't have sex that day. My 'scenario' is that they did have sex that day. Juan Martinez' and the file extractor presented evidence that they had sex. It's undisputed by Arias. I saw no jury from either trial dispute the evidence they has sex. Nor the family.

Juan Martinez stated that the sex pictures helped him charge her and that they were vital in that process. Some people on this forum dispute the sex pic evidence that placed her there on the day. Others disagree and have the right to place counter arguments.

My suggestion is that Travis was unaware of her coming to Mesa and wanted nothing to do with her. My guess is that she used an excuse (perhaps check, perhaps being very sorry, perhaps offering a final sex session - a goodbye - as they both moved on). She may have promised a *advertiser censored* session - with the insurance that the pics would safely be on his camera. His right to delete afterwards. Poor Travis didn't know he would be brutally slaughtered first.

I brought up the point about Travis not needing to be naked for 'insurance' sex pics as you think the insurance part is viable but not that they had sex. You think that is logical. I disagree.

 

[TrialWatcher]

I'm not sure if it was in Juan's book, or in an interview he said he didn't order an xray of JA finger as he didn't know she would say TA previously broke it. My question is if JA got a new trial (don't believe she will), wouldn't the prosecutor order her to get one and then use those results (she cut herself during the murder) to prove she has no problem lying under oath and impeach her testimony?

I saw that question asked about the X-Ray - was it Jen's Trial Diaries? That was the best interview I've yet seen. He said that they could have asked for a medical examination but didn't learn until quite late that she would allege Travis broke it. This might be one for the excellent lawyers on the forum, re appeals or new trial evidence. Have you seen the ask the lawyers section? It might be worth posting there too.

 

[Hope4More]

Martinez was 100% convinced of the photo evidence. It's metadata was verified by his investigations and expert. IMO to suggest he glanced at a photo and "ran" with it is incorrect.
It is also misreading the evidence of TA's pattern of behavior to suggest that one chat out of 80,000 communications over 20 months would reveal how Travis would react when Jodi showed up. His pattern of behavior shows the opposite, IMO

1. The 80,000 number is the total of all TA's emails and texts, not the number he exchanged with JA. The number of texts he exchanged with her from Dec 07 through June 08 number in the hundreds, not even a thousand.

2. I am very much looking at his pattern of behavior, not a single chat or a single anything. It is precisely the change in his pattern of behaviour that is my point.

3. Every other time he got angry with her, he apologized, accepted responsibility, and there was no real break in their communication.

4. There was an absolute break in their communication from May 22 forward. Regan asked just before that how his confrontation with the "psycho" had gone. His reply was that the psycho had of course denied what she'd done (masquerading as Maria M, and as Maria trying to send him on a wild goose chase to meet up with him in Utah).

That he had told her he never wanted to see or hear from her again unless she told him the truth about what she'd done, but that he doubted it would be as easy as that (to make her either be truthful or to leave him alone).

3. Travis didn't back down. He told JA to tell the truth and put it in writing. He didn't respond to her attempts to engage him from the 22 through the 25.

4. He tried one last time to get her to tell the truth, on May 26, and when she didn't and lied about other stuff he knew to be lies, he let lose and tore her apart.

5. He did NOT apologize to her afterwards.

6. He did NOT contact her.

7. He did NOT respond to most of her attempts to engage him after the 27th, and when he did it was with one line dismissals.

8. The only time he spoke with her between May 26 and June 2 is on the morning of June 2 after she had tried incessantly for hours, and I suspect the only reason he did then was she said she had something she needed to tell him and he assumed it was related to whatever she was holding over his head.

Not one chat. A pattern broken. Conversations with friends who convinced him at last she was psycho, "mentally ill," " really disturbed."

She'd isolated him enough that it wasn't til early April he began reality testing with his friends. It took him forever to get to the point where he believed what they were saying about her, and knew he could believe his own gut.

That she had made him doubt his own sense of reality was the source of a great deal of his rage on May 26, IMO, as well as the fact he had lied to his friends, and especially painful, to Lisa, in order to cover up for her.


I can't say it any better than that. Don't need anyone to agree with about it either, but would prefer that the basis for what I'm saying be presented accurately. Pattern.

 

[Hope4More]

The logic that is missing is suggesting against all the evidence that they didn't have sex that day. My 'scenario' is that they did have sex that day. Juan Martinez' and the file extractor presented evidence that they had sex. It's undisputed by Arias. I saw no jury from either trial dispute the evidence they has sex. Nor the family.

Juan Martinez stated that the sex pictures helped him charge her and that they were vital in that process. Some people on this forum dispute the sex pic evidence that placed her there on the day. Others disagree and have the right to place counter arguments.

My suggestion is that Travis was unaware of her coming to Mesa and wanted nothing to do with her. My guess is that she used an excuse (perhaps check, perhaps being very sorry, perhaps offering a final sex session - a goodbye - as they both moved on). She may have promised a *advertiser censored* session - with the insurance that the pics would safely be on his camera. His right to delete afterwards. Poor Travis didn't know he would be brutally slaughtered first.

I brought up the point about Travis not needing to be naked for 'insurance' sex pics as you think the insurance part is viable but not that they had sex. You think that is logical. I disagree.

You've misunderstood. I said a few days ago (?) that I had reconsidered and do believe they had sex that day. BUT. That the circumstances of why that happened matter.

Again, given how he felt about her at that point, and given that she had to have surprised him in his own house, I think only 2 scenarios are possible :

1. They did not have sex.
2. They had sex, but it was NOT because Travis was feeling horny, forgave her, trusted her, believed her, or because he wanted one last chance to go spelunking in her special caverns.

The only reason IMO that fits in the larger context and in the context of that day (including the grim look on his face in every pic) is that he may well have fallen for / been convinced by her that sex pics on his camera were his insurance against exposure by her.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Hope4More:
"8. The only time he spoke with her between May 26 and June 2 is on the morning of June 2 after she had tried incessantly for hours, and I suspect the only reason he did then was she said she had something she needed to tell him and he assumed it was related to whatever she was holding over his head."

The pattern is broken right here. Above. Your theory that he would have nothing more to do with her barely lasted seven days, from your reply. There was no room to judge for how long (or if) he would banish Arias for because she slaughtered him days later. TexMex points out that he usually forgave her. Even after strongly suspecting she slashed his tires - he gave in to sex.

On June 4, regardless of the intensity and nastiness of the argument in May the prosecution evidence showed Travis had sex with her. So, within eight days of his resolution, he broke it - for whatever reasons. Do I think he wanted anything to do with her beyond June 4? No. The sex session was a goodbye. He thought she was moving on to Ryan Burns and that they had ended things in a more civilised way. That is merely my opinion, nothing more. I don't think anyone is misrepresenting what you are saying. Some disagree with some of your posts, agree with others. Seems very fair to me.

 

[TexMex]

1. The 80,000 number is the total of all TA's emails and texts, not the number he exchanged with JA. The number of texts he exchanged with her from Dec 07 through June 08 number in the hundreds, not even a thousand.

2. I am very much looking at his pattern of behavior, not a single chat or a single anything. It is precisely the change in his pattern of behaviour that is my point.

3. Every other time he got angry with her, he apologized, accepted responsibility, and there was no real break in their communication.

4. There was an absolute break in their communication from May 22 forward. Regan asked just before that how his confrontation with the "psycho" had gone. His reply was that the psycho had of course denied what she'd done (masquerading as Maria M, and as Maria trying to send him on a wild goose chase to meet up with him in Utah).

That he had told her he never wanted to see or hear from her again unless she told him the truth about what she'd done, but that he doubted it would be as easy as that (to make her either be truthful or to leave him alone).

3. Travis didn't back down. He told JA to tell the truth and put it in writing. He didn't respond to her attempts to engage him from the 22 through the 25.

4. He tried one last time to get her to tell the truth, on May 26, and when she didn't and lied about other stuff he knew to be lies, he let lose and tore her apart.

5. He did NOT apologize to her afterwards.

6. He did NOT contact her.

7. He did NOT respond to most of her attempts to engage him after the 27th, and when he did it was with one line dismissals.

8. The only time he spoke with her between May 26 and June 2 is on the morning of June 2 after she had tried incessantly for hours, and I suspect the only reason he did then was she said she had something she needed to tell him and he assumed it was related to whatever she was holding over his head.

Not one chat. A pattern broken. Conversations with friends who convinced him at last she was psycho, "mentally ill," " really disturbed."

She'd isolated him enough that it wasn't til early April he began reality testing with his friends. It took him forever to get to the point where he believed what they were saying about her, and knew he could believe his own gut.

That she had made him doubt his own sense of reality was the source of a great deal of his rage on May 26, IMO, as well as the fact he had lied to his friends, and especially painful, to Lisa, in order to cover up for her.


I can't say it any better than that. Don't need anyone to agree with about it either, but would prefer that the basis for what I'm saying be presented accurately. Pattern.

I specified the 80,000 was total communications.

There absolutely was communication between them post May 26...all the way up to June 3.

On May 30 she texts him. Hey, I saw I missed your call. I'm at work. Let's talk tonight.

There are more texts after that, some of which refer to setting up further phone communication

We do not know if he apologized or not in one of the calls.

The photos they took for whatever purposes suggest that, in fact, Travis had fallen back into the pattern of anger then forgiveness and friendship (with benefits).

June 2, 2008:


Phone records show several calls between Arias and Alexander in the early morning hours:

Arias called Alexander four times between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.

These calls were all very short, the longest 17 seconds.

Alexander called Arias twice during the 3 a.m. hour:

The first call was just under 18 minutes,

the second about 41 minutes.

Arias called Travis at 4:03 a.m. The call lasted 2 minutes, 48 seconds.


June 3


A 17-second call at 12:57 p.m.

A 2-minute, 50-second call at 1:51 pm

At 8:16 p.m., Arias calls Alexander. The call lasted 2 minutes, 9 seconds.


At 8:34 p.m., Arias calls Alexander again and the call lasts 49 seconds

She'd manipulated him into communicating again and instead of calling the police when she arrived they tragically went upstairs.

 

[TrialWatcher]

You've misunderstood. I said a few days ago (?) that I had reconsidered and do believe they had sex that day. BUT. That the circumstances of why that happened matter.

Again, given how he felt about her at that point, and given that she had to have surprised him in his own house, I think only 2 scenarios are possible :

1. They did not have sex.
2. They had sex, but it was NOT because Travis was feeling horny, forgave her, trusted her, believed her, or because he wanted one last chance to go spelunking in her special caverns.

The only reason IMO that fits in the larger context and in the context of that day (including the grim look on his face in every pic) is that he may well have fallen for / been convinced by her that sex pics on his camera were his insurance against exposure by her.

You've misunderstood. I said a few days ago (?) that I had reconsidered and do believe they had sex that day.


OK, I see that your theory has changed to that they did have sex that day, perhaps for 'insurance' purposes. He had to be aroused just to have the sex. All the claims about him not being aroused didn't make sense - especially when they defied the photographic evidence and Juan asserting otherwise.

Whatever reasons they had sex can't be proven. I felt strongly that Juan did enough in court to prove they had sex. So did the jury. That's why I have countered the arguments otherwise.

 

[Wing Ding]

From his very first question to Jodi he let her know he'd be the one in charge. "Ma'am, take a look at Ex. 413. You recognize that exhibit correct? That's a picture of you here and right there is your dumb sister, Angela".
JA that's my sister she's not dumb
Do you recall in a recorded conversation you called her "dumb"?
JA. I called her dumb and stupid

Did I asked you if you called her stupid? I asked you if you called her dumb.

That exchange was a thing of beauty. Juan's control tactics quickly and effectively set the tone for what lay ahead for her and every defense witness to follow.

It makes me question whether Knurmi or Jennifer Wildebeest ever warned their witnesses not to mince words with Juan. Great lawyers that they are... probably not! lol

 

[TrialWatcher]

TexMex:

That's why I like this forum. No matter how much you think you know, someone always knows ten times more or has a faster, clearer recall - meaning that looking things up is not always a necessary chore. We can all disagree on theories, have different opinions but that fast access to evidence is unrivalled.

 

[TexMex]

That exchange was a thing of beauty. Juan's control tactics quickly and effectively set the tone for what lay ahead for her and every defense witness to follow.

It makes me question whether Knurmi or Jennifer Wildebeest ever warned their witnesses not to mince words with Juan. Great lawyers that they are... probably not! lol

A few minutes later he used the same picture against her

She had testified the pic was taken in May. He asked her to recall that testimony then showed her that her left ring finger he had her display to the jury again was perfectly fine and could have not been injured by Travis in January as she had testified to on direct. That the injury had to have been from June 4. He also played back her Flores interrogation where she said the female ninja had cut her hand during a struggle

The guy is good