Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 3

[LinasK]

I'm still undecided on this. I am sure that Arias was armed with both the gun and the knife. She did not have time to go get a knife after shooting him once. I am inclined to believe that she had planned on using both the gun and the knife. She needed that gun to control and overpower Travis. She could not have forced Travis to sit down in the shower if she had had only a knife. A standing Travis would have easily defended himself against a knife (only) wielding Arias. The gun gave Arias a tremendous advantage. She did use the knife as well as she clearly wanted to make Travis suffer. Also, in her mind, two murder weapons = two murderers.

I'm sure this video has been posted but I'll do so again as it's interesting. The guy is quite opinionated though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlb5WYupMhg

I don't see how the gun-shot first theory makes the murder any less barbaric. Shooting the victim first and then stabbing him to death is just as cruel.

She definitely brought the gun and had the knife handy. The defense is trying to say that if she shot him first, he'd be unconscious and wouldn't have felt the pain of the stabbing/throat slitting (Gee, how humane Jodi!) Thing is, he escaped from the shower, so he wasn't unconscious. But more importantly, the bullet casing on top of the pool of blood establishes that the shot came last.
And why all the overkill? She had to kill him 3 different ways? That's not an abused woman/self defense, that's rage. No abused woman drives 1,000 miles to see her abuser. An obsessed stalker/psychopath does.

 

[LinTX]

I firmly believe the gunshot was last because of the location of the exit wound, but the sequence didn't matter re: especially cruel. That aggravator was proved back (2009?) when Flores first testified that it came first. Nurmi appealed (2013?)once Horn/Flores changed sequence, trying to get the DP off the table. The judge said that especially cruel was correct either way, because it was about the suffering and the timing of the gunshot didn't change the fact that since he was conscious while being stabbed, TA suffered.

 

[Tiger09]

About the art: to me, it's similar to when one is in art class and has to paint a bowl of fruit or a model or something of the like. Also, art is subjective. Imo, some are going to like her art and some won't. I see budding talent. Too bad she threw it away. Had she chosen to do what most artists do and throw her emotions into art, rather than murder and stalking and other illegal behaviors, who knows what she'd have been? Many artists start out painting copycat art. She's mostly beginner, but could have nurtured her talent had she not made her bed and laid in it. So really, going back and forth about the art is pointless imo. It's not like she did the Mona Lisa and called it an Arias original.

Regarding the weapon. I wonder if she intended on shooting him or threatening him with the gun. It was a small caliber. By itself, could it really have done a lot of fatal damage? Also, Travis was healthy. I'm sure he could have fought her off with only the small gun. I think she came with the intent to rob him, blackmail him, and perhaps get more stuff from him. She's a succubus. She literally has sucked the soul from everyone she's been around. I believe she attempted sex to control him, when that didn't work and he said no i want my money, no you're not getting more money, no we are never ever getting back together, or no period- girl snapped hardcore. I think when he said in that text "You are the worst thing that ever happened to me", that was Travis cutting her out of his life. So therefore when her tricks didn't work, she literally cut him out of existence. The shooting was just overkill to punish him further. Maybe he said no you won't shoot me.

 

[MeeBee]

About the art: to me, it's similar to when one is in art class and has to paint a bowl of fruit or a model or something of the like. Also, art is subjective. Imo, some are going to like her art and some won't. I see budding talent. Too bad she threw it away. Had she chosen to do what most artists do and throw her emotions into art, rather than murder and stalking and other illegal behaviors, who knows what she'd have been? Many artists start out painting copycat art. She's mostly beginner, but could have nurtured her talent had she not made her bed and laid in it. So really, going back and forth about the art is pointless imo. It's not like she did the Mona Lisa and called it an Arias original.

Regarding the weapon. I wonder if she intended on shooting him or threatening him with the gun. It was a small caliber. By itself, could it really have done a lot of fatal damage? Also, Travis was healthy. I'm sure he could have fought her off with only the small gun. I think she came with the intent to rob him, blackmail him, and perhaps get more stuff from him. She's a succubus. She literally has sucked the soul from everyone she's been around. I believe she attempted sex to control him, when that didn't work and he said no i want my money, no you're not getting more money, no we are never ever getting back together, or no period- girl snapped hardcore. I think when he said in that text "You are the worst thing that ever happened to me", that was Travis cutting her out of his life. So therefore when her tricks didn't work, she literally cut him out of existence. The shooting was just overkill to punish him further. Maybe he said no you won't shoot me.

BBM: That's like saying plagiarizing someone's research paper is the same as quoting a well-known saying. They're not the same at all.

 

[LinasK]

About the art: to me, it's similar to when one is in art class and has to paint a bowl of fruit or a model or something of the like. Also, art is subjective. Imo, some are going to like her art and some won't. I see budding talent. Too bad she threw it away. Had she chosen to do what most artists do and throw her emotions into art, rather than murder and stalking and other illegal behaviors, who knows what she'd have been? Many artists start out painting copycat art. She's mostly beginner, but could have nurtured her talent had she not made her bed and laid in it. So really, going back and forth about the art is pointless imo. It's not like she did the Mona Lisa and called it an Arias original.

Regarding the weapon. I wonder if she intended on shooting him or threatening him with the gun. It was a small caliber. By itself, could it really have done a lot of fatal damage? Also, Travis was healthy. I'm sure he could have fought her off with only the small gun. I think she came with the intent to rob him, blackmail him, and perhaps get more stuff from him. She's a succubus. She literally has sucked the soul from everyone she's been around. I believe she attempted sex to control him, when that didn't work and he said no i want my money, no you're not getting more money, no we are never ever getting back together, or no period- girl snapped hardcore. I think when he said in that text "You are the worst thing that ever happened to me", that was Travis cutting her out of his life. So therefore when her tricks didn't work, she literally cut him out of existence. The shooting was just overkill to punish him further. Maybe he said no you won't shoot me.

See I think she asked him again after sex if she could still go to Cancun with him, and when he said, "No"(whether he mentioned Mimi or not) her plan was finalized. She didn't snap, she planned this back in Yreka before she stole the gun.

 

[Tuba]

We know a knife or knives plus a gun is the killer's preferred means of arming herself. She made sure she had both in her getaway car.

 

[Tiger09]

I think she began her plans the moment Travis said or texted "You are the worst thing that ever happened to me" that and the fact that she just could not change his mind kinda put her in a rage.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think she began her plans the moment Travis said or texted "You are the worst thing that ever happened to me" that and the fact that she just could not change his mind kinda put her in a rage.

I think that's probably pretty accurate.

You know, I keep going back 'n forth on whether I personally think this is a DP case. I mean, yes, I know according to AZ law it sure is. And it is for sure a terribly heinous murder. But (putting on Kevlar suit) when I think of other DP cases I'm not sure this particular murder rises to what I think of as "the worst of the worst." Factors that make me consider this might not rise to the level to meet a DP sentence (and not counting what the Alexander siblings want or AZ law):

- crime not committed against a minor
- 1 victim (ie. not a multiple killing or mass murder)
- obviously a rage killing with emotional connection to the victim (i.e. not done for financial profit)
- no prior felony convictions by the killer

I know this is not how AZ determines it and that in AZ it is "mitigating factors" to save a killer from receiving a DP after a jury has determined a murder to be especially cruel, but I'm not on the jury, and I don't live in AZ.

That said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. If the jury votes for the DP then fine. If the jury votes for LWOP then fine. If this case were happening in my state (NC) and if I were on the jury, I think I would vote for LWOP because of the factors above. But the rules are different in NC and I am aware of that.

 

[magpie]

I'm still undecided on this. I am sure that Arias was armed with both the gun and the knife. She did not have time to go get a knife after shooting him once. I am inclined to believe that she had planned on using both the gun and the knife. She needed that gun to control and overpower Travis. She could not have forced Travis to sit down in the shower if she had had only a knife. A standing Travis would have easily defended himself against a knife (only) wielding Arias. The gun gave Arias a tremendous advantage. She did use the knife as well as she clearly wanted to make Travis suffer. Also, in her mind, two murder weapons = two murderers.

I'm sure this video has been posted but I'll do so again as it's interesting. The guy is quite opinionated though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlb5WYupMhg

I don't see how the gun-shot first theory makes the murder any less barbaric. Shooting the victim first and then stabbing him to death is just as cruel.

Great video, thanks very much. I've always wondered if the gun misfired after only one shot. The gun might not have been properly cleaned and maintained. Just a thought.

 

[Madeleine74]

To me the order of the injuries is not important. The defense is trying to claim it is important because somehow that would mean less suffering, but I think it's a strawman argument. The scene shows that it took a minute or more for the entire sequence to play out. Movement of Travis is obvious and if he could move he was conscious. Therefore it doesn't matter because he did try to get away and he did have at least some awareness of what was happening. Trying to say the crime wasn't quite as bad as the state said does little to nothing to help a jury make a decision.

 

[daisydomino]

BBM: That's like saying plagiarizing someone's research paper is the same as quoting a well-known saying. They're not the same at all.

Right! Not the same. Definitely not a bowl of fruit in an art class. These photographs she copied were made by advertising agencies who paid art directors, creative directors, designers, models (Natalie Portman for one) in addition to the photographers. The agencies were in turn paid by their clients. These were not works of art she copied, they were commercial ads. It's one thing to copy an ad as practice drawing; it's another to sell it as original work for hundreds of dollars. I don’t understand how Guess Jeans and Dior Perfume have not gone after her a$$, but they haven't, to my knowledge. Whatever.



She can draw better than I can, so I won't comment on talent.

ETA: Someone said she's stopped copying stuff. I hope that's true.

 

[MeeBee]

Right! Not the same. Definitely not a bowl of fruit in an art class. These photographs she copied were made by advertising agencies who paid art directors, creative directors, designers, models (Natalie Portman for one) in addition to the photographers. The agencies were in turn paid by their clients. These were not works of art she copied, they were commercial ads. It's one thing to copy an ad as practice drawing; it's another to sell it as original work for hundreds of dollars. I don’t understand how Guess Jeans and Dior Perfume have not gone after her a$$, but they haven't. Whatever.

She can draw better than I can, so I won't comment on talent.

I agree with you.

But I don't think they'll ever go after her. She's just a very small fish in a pond of issues. And what she's making is pennies compared to what they make. I'm sure they just either don't think it's worth their time or they don't even know about it.

 

[MeeBee]

I think that's probably pretty accurate.

You know, I keep going back 'n forth on whether I personally think this is a DP case. I mean, yes, I know according to AZ law it sure is. And it is for sure a terribly heinous murder. But (putting on Kevlar suit) when I think of other DP cases I'm not sure this particular murder rises to what I think of as "the worst of the worst." Factors that make me consider this might not rise to the level to meet a DP sentence (and not counting what the Alexander siblings want or AZ law):

- crime not committed against a minor
- 1 victim (ie. not a multiple killing or mass murder)
- obviously a rage killing with emotional connection to the victim (i.e. not done for financial profit)
- no prior felony convictions by the killer

I know this is not how AZ determines it and that in AZ it is "mitigating factors" to save a killer from receiving a DP after a jury has determined a murder to be especially cruel, but I'm not on the jury, and I don't live in AZ.

That said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. If the jury votes for the DP then fine. If the jury votes for LWOP then fine. If this case were happening in my state (NC) and if I were on the jury, I think I would vote for LWOP because of the factors above. But the rules are different in NC and I am aware of that.

I think you'd make a good juror in this retrial.

 

[ElleElle]

I used to think so when I heard Det. Flores say it, but it can't have for two important reasons: 1) The bullet casing is lying on top of a large pool of congealed blood. It would've been covered in blood if he was shot first. 2)If he was shot first he never would have made it out of the shower. He would've been unconscious/incapacitated.

The bullet casing could have been tossed around during the fight. I just don't understand how Flores originally missed the bullet on top of conjulated blood.

I also don't believe Travis was completely incapacitated from the gunshot. I think he was stunned and still capable of crawling down the hall until he was getting closer to the exit.

 

[ElleElle]

ETA: If she had planned on simply shooting Travis to death then she could have done so earlier in the evening...when Travis was sleeping or even when Travis was shaving in the bathroom. Why did she wait till Travis was in the shower? She was prepared for a 'bloody' murder. The shower was the perfect place to corner/torture/stab Travis and the perfect place to wash off the blood/DNA.

I think Jodi had her money on Travis taking her back. He rejected her one last time, after a day of sex and pictures. She knew darn well he was in the shower, she cornered and he met up with pure evil.

 

[cindymac]

<modsnip>

When I read the descriptions provided by the source sites, at no point did I read anything that described other people's beliefs or imaginations as the legal test. Everything I read that involved either forgery or plagiarism (and plagiarism is often about the written word in academic settings) had to do with taking someone else's work or written words and then passing them off as one's own. From what I read it is not definitive that making a drawing based on a photograph, which is what Arias does, is either forgery or plagiarism. In fact each source I referenced said it may or may not be. Someone else thinking, believing, or assuming a pencil drawing is conceived in the mind of the artist and is not based on anything else or any other art the artist may have seen is not necessarily plagiarism, no matter how much the "artist" is despised. It all depends on the situation and is something that would be decided by a judge. That's what I was able to find when I did some research.

ETA: And your definition of an artist is quite limited in scope, and certainly not what represents reality. I have a cousin who makes her living as an artist, displays all over the country and teaches at the university level. Her medium is painting and she likes to do landscapes as one area of subject matter. She will use a photograph as her inspiration. She'll also travel to see various landscapes, take pictures and then paint using photographs as inspiration or to provide context in lighting or the colors she saw.

My example of what other people might think of Arias' art was intended primarily as an example of why people think she's a good artist - they think she's responsible for the imaginative ideas and concepts, which she isn't. However, plagiarism is exactly that - presenting someone else's ideas and work as your own, and accruing to oneself the benefits of such. Such benefits ranging from mere admiration to financial gain - sometimes to the detriment of the originator of the work.

What's more, plagiarism is not confined to the legal arena - it exists first and foremost outwith the legal arena and typically only enters it if and when it has a negative impact on the originator of the work in question. I seriously doubt that Arias tracing and coloring their work has had a substantive negative impact on the original photographers, designers, illustrators, et al, serious enough to warrant a court case - hence no legal action (that I'm aware of). But it's still plagiarism nonetheless. Just not litigated plagiarism.

It seems that you misunderstand this, and think that plagiarism is not plagiarism unless it involves involve legal action. It's the concept that defines it - presenting the creative ideas and products of someone else's mind as one's own.

As for your cousin, I'm very pleased that she's very successful with her landscapes - and more than happy to accept that my idea of a "good artist" may be limited, which is why I prefaced my idea with, "to my mind", to make it clear that it's simply my personal opinion. Luckily, there's an infinite diversity of artists, to satisfy everyone's personal tastes.

 

[jbc]

The bullet casing could have been tossed around during the fight. I just don't understand how Flores originally missed the bullet on top of conjulated blood.

I also don't believe Travis was completely incapacitated from the gunshot. I think he was stunned and still capable of crawling down the hall until he was getting closer to the exit.

As logical as it may be to shoot first at a protective distance, rather than move in with a knife in close quarters, and with a certain degree of reluctance to believe, I now feel convinced that the shot was last. If Travis was shot first in the shower, I think that he would be too stunned to make all of those defensive moves with his arms and hands, even though he might eventually be able to get up and walk around. Travis tried hard to stop the knife and was able to move fast with his hands, which I imagine occurred while he was still sitting. (correct me if I am wrong, please).

Also, Jodi has an obsession with knives - after all, why take both the gun and the knives as she packs up post-murder to escape Yreka? If you have a brand new, working gun, that should be sufficient to defend yourself against future attackers, yes?

 

[LinasK]

I think that's probably pretty accurate.

You know, I keep going back 'n forth on whether I personally think this is a DP case. I mean, yes, I know according to AZ law it sure is. And it is for sure a terribly heinous murder. But (putting on Kevlar suit) when I think of other DP cases I'm not sure this particular murder rises to what I think of as "the worst of the worst." Factors that make me consider this might not rise to the level to meet a DP sentence (and not counting what the Alexander siblings want or AZ law):

- crime not committed against a minor
- 1 victim (ie. not a multiple killing or mass murder)
- obviously a rage killing with emotional connection to the victim (i.e. not done for financial profit)
- no prior felony convictions by the killer

I know this is not how AZ determines it and that in AZ it is "mitigating factors" to save a killer from receiving a DP after a jury has determined a murder to be especially cruel, but I'm not on the jury, and I don't live in AZ.

That said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. If the jury votes for the DP then fine. If the jury votes for LWOP then fine. If this case were happening in my state (NC) and if I were on the jury, I think I would vote for LWOP because of the factors above. But the rules are different in NC and I am aware of that.

Considering she killed him 3 different ways(overkill) and especially slitting his throat nearly decapitating him and making sure he saw her, I think she well qualifies as the worst of the worst.

 

[cubbeegirl]

Considering she killed him 3 different ways(overkill) and especially slitting his throat nearly decapitating him and making sure he saw her, I think she well qualifies as the worst of the worst.

If she doesn't then that is a scary thought !

 

[cindymac]

The bullet casing could have been tossed around during the fight. I just don't understand how Flores originally missed the bullet on top of conjulated blood.

I also don't believe Travis was completely incapacitated from the gunshot. I think he was stunned and still capable of crawling down the hall until he was getting closer to the exit.

Why do you think there was a fight? And, why do you think he was just stunned?