Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that he refused to let her take photos of him shaving earlier in the day, and that she said at trial she didn't think Travis "had ever shaved that day "suggests to me that he waited to shave until before he showered, and that she wasn't in the bathroom yet when he did shave, which supports the scenario that she entered the bathroom later on, unexpected.

I think she was there when he was shaving talking him into the Calvin Klein shower scenario. Juan kept going back to the "it took a lot of convincing prior" statement. She tried to play it off as prior back in January. Juan clearly thought it was prior to the shower itself. I usually shower after shaving (or shave in the shower).
 
I've always thought that, that she must have put on the plate upside down after the dam, and I've even thought she might have done so on purpose, to invite being pulled over to have "proof" of being lost someplace along the route she was supposed to be driving/getting lost in.

But...TA's tag? If after the dam, what tags was she switching around? Or...maybe TA's tag is meaningless, she didn't have other tags, she went through the checkpoint then turned her rear tag upside down on purpose. For whatever reason.

Although unusual for him, I tend to think his crooked tag is probably meaningless - if she did have another plate with her she maybe did remove the front one and replaced the back one at Starbucks (granted she never seems to need a reason for long, detail-rich lies) but what was the point of the screwdriver-carrying skateboarders if she didn't do something with the rental plate then? Then switched back to the rental plate before getting into SLC, or at least after the Dam, and it wouldn't surprise me if she put it on upside down for just the reason you mention, to get noticed being in the 'right' place for her alibi.
 
I think she was there when he was shaving talking him into the Calvin Klein shower scenario. Juan kept going back to the "it took a lot of convincing prior" statement. She tried to play it off as prior back in January. Juan clearly thought it was prior to the shower itself. I usually shower after shaving (or shave in the shower).


What makes you think JM believed the convincing was prior to TA getting into the shower?

He kept going back to the convincing thing, IMO, because she said during interrogation that she had to convince him, but told a different story while on the stand.

He also specifically caught her in a lie about Travis and shaving....or maybe not. She said TA hadn't shaved prior to having sex, and that in fact TA hadn't shaved that day at all.

Maybe she had never noticed that TA was clean shaven in the shower photos, and didn't know he had shaven because she wasn't there when he did.
 
What makes you think JM believed the convincing was prior to TA getting into the shower?

He kept going back to the convincing thing, IMO, because she said during interrogation that she had to convince him, but told a different story while on the stand.

He also specifically caught her in a lie about Travis and shaving....or maybe not. She said TA hadn't shaved prior to having sex, and that in fact TA hadn't shaved that day at all.

Maybe she had never noticed that TA was clean shaven in the shower photos, and didn't know he had shaven because she wasn't there when he did.

That was his point. That she convinced him to let her take the shower pics prior to shower, when he was shaving. He pointed out Travis looked freshly shaved. Reinforced that fact by Jodi saying he had not shaved prior to sex at 2pm and he's fresh shaven at 5:11

She refused to admit it and stubbornly argued she really meant it took a lot of convincing for him to agree to the prior January shaving pics (pic was on FB or MySpace)

They argued this way for 20 minutes, Juan playing back the clip many times
 
The fact that he refused to let her take photos of him shaving earlier in the day, and that she said at trial she didn't think Travis "had ever shaved that day "suggests to me that he waited to shave until before he showered, and that she wasn't in the bathroom yet when he did shave, which supports the scenario that she entered the bathroom later on, unexpected.

Agreed. But she did have defensive BS on the shaving stuff during the interrogation, so something must have been up.
 
Although unusual for him, I tend to think his crooked tag is probably meaningless - if she did have another plate with her she maybe did remove the front one and replaced the back one at Starbucks (granted she never seems to need a reason for long, detail-rich lies) but what was the point of the screwdriver-carrying skateboarders if she didn't do something with the rental plate then? Then switched back to the rental plate before getting into SLC, or at least after the Dam, and it wouldn't surprise me if she put it on upside down for just the reason you mention, to get noticed being in the 'right' place for her alibi.

or one of the roommates could have just bumped it going in and out of the garage, taking the trash out, wheeling a bike in; or just to be manipulative.
 
I'm still stuck on that full face pic and her saying 'He hates it' - present tense, long after she murdered him, yet a pic that was taken two minutes before she began her attack. It just eats at my brain....when could he have expressed an opinion about it? Why would she even mention it knowing full well it's time stamped right before the slaughter began? Look at her face when she says it - she's remembering, not thinking up another stupid, pointless lie. Arrrggg she drives me wild.
 
That was his point. That she convinced him to let her take the shower pics prior to shower, when he was shaving. He pointed out Travis looked freshly shaved. Reinforced that fact by Jodi saying he had not shaved prior to sex at 2pm and he's fresh shaven at 5:11

She refused to admit it and stubbornly argued she really meant it took a lot of convincing for him to agree to the prior January shaving pics (pic was on FB or MySpace)

They argued this way for 20 minutes, Juan playing back the clip many times


I think you're missing my point. ;) Remember she also said she didn't think he shaved that day at all.

I've watched that piece of trial video more than many times, same with that piece of the original interrogation tape, and have all but memorized the tape transcript.

I don't hear what you hear, or we don't interpret in the same way what we both hear.

I hear that what JM keeps repeating is the convincing part, because it's the convincing part that's relevant to him. Yes, the tries to connect the convincing part to when he was shaving months before. The shaving part of the convincing isn't what JM is focused on, IMO. He just uses the shaving part to discredit what else she's said, including about sex.

In that piece JM played she says- no, you're right, he was uncomfortable at first. He stood there and said...I feel gay. That's while IN the shower.

(Also in that tape, easier to catch in the transcript, she says, trying to extricate herself from her mangled and revealing replies on the topic of shaving and convincing and consent--yeah, they (the shaving photos) didn't work out so good, and I " WAS GOING TO DO THEM AGAIN LATER.."
 
I think you're missing my point. ;) Remember she also said she didn't think he shaved that day at all.

I've watched that piece of trial video more than many times, same with that piece of the original interrogation tape, and have all but memorized the tape transcript.

I don't hear what you hear, or we don't interpret in the same way what we both hear.

I hear that what JM keeps repeating is the convincing part, because it's the convincing part that's relevant to him. Yes, the tries to connect the convincing part to when he was shaving months before. The shaving part of the convincing isn't what JM is focused on, IMO. He just uses the shaving part to discredit what else she's said, including about sex.

In that piece JM played she says- no, you're right, he was uncomfortable at first. He stood there and said...I feel gay. That's while IN the shower.

(Also in that tape, easier to catch in the transcript, she says, trying to extricate herself from her mangled and revealing replies on the topic of shaving and convincing and consent--yeah, they (the shaving photos) didn't work out so good, and I " WAS GOING TO DO THEM AGAIN LATER.."

It's in his book as well. His position is she was upstairs when he shaved, convincing him into a shower photo session, like she said during interrogation. He reminds her of her testimony about his rough face at 1:30 sex then after shaving/shower prep for his phone conference he's clean shaven in the shower pics, so it was her who did the convincing (premeditation), not some mutual spur of the moment thing.

No way she leaves and comes back. She drove 1,000 miles to kill him so she's gotta keep her eyes on the target. IMO
I think they slept after she arrived. She'd been up almost 24 hours, having driven from Matt's to Darryl's, arriving for breakfast and before his son got on the bus. Might be risky to attack him while exhausted. I think she resigned herself to being later than planned to Ryans, knowing she could make up a being lost story and he'd buy it.
I
 
I'm still stuck on that full face pic and her saying 'He hates it' - present tense, long after she murdered him, yet a pic that was taken two minutes before she began her attack. It just eats at my brain....when could he have expressed an opinion about it? Why would she even mention it knowing full well it's time stamped right before the slaughter began? Look at her face when she says it - she's remembering, not thinking up another stupid, pointless lie. Arrrggg she drives me wild.


I've always thought that statement one of the most evil she's ever made, right up there with how if she murdered him she would have done so "humanely."

I agree, that she was remembering the moment, and couldn't help herself from laughing as she said she couldn't imagine why Travis didn't like it, Travis never having seen it, but at that moment, IMO, being threatened with a gun and understanding in a flash that she had come there to kill him, and that everything she'd said and done that day was a lie.
 
JM's book, please age 102:

" She said they went back upstairs, where Travis shaved before he took a shower. AS HE STOOD IN THE SHOWER she convinced him to allow her to use his newly purchased camera to photograph him."
 
It's in his book as well. His position is she was upstairs when he shaved, convincing him into a shower photo session, like she said during interrogation. He reminds her of her testimony about his rough face at 1:30 sex then after shaving/shower prep for his phone conference he's clean shaven in the shower pics, so it was her who did the convincing (premeditation), not some mutual spur of the moment thing.

No way she leaves and comes back. She drove 1,000 miles to kill him so she's gotta keep her eyes on the target. IMO
I think they slept after she arrived. She'd been up almost 24 hours, having driven from Matt's to Darryl's, arriving for breakfast and before his son got on the bus. Might be risky to attack him while exhausted. I think she resigned herself to being later than planned to Ryans, knowing she could make up a being lost story and he'd buy it.
I


She hadn't been up for 24 hours. She slept at Matt's house June 2, and had hours in Pasadena on the 3rd to take a nap, which I suspect she did.

No way did she arrive at TA's house and promptly go to sleep. Too much snooping to do, too much exhilaration to feel at the prospect of killing Travis within a few hours.

And, Mister, I can, have, and will change my mind about many things that may have happened that day, but I'm never going to believe TA expected her, was awake when she arrived and happy to greet her, or that he just fell into old patterns with her.

Nothing in the evidence supports any of that, and none of that makes the slightest bit of psychological sense to me.
 
The nudes are darker than the other pics, maybe partly because they were thumbnails - if you look at the last pic of Travis the bedroom walls look lighter than the one before it - maybe she didn't use a flash until the last one? None of her nudes look like a flash was used.

That doesn't explain imo how different the contrast is between the colour of the bedroom walls in the two pics of TA. As I marked in these, when you compare the walls to the closet door, in the first pic the walls are the same as in the crime pic of the bedroom, whereas in the second one they look like the same colour as the office walls. Argh, sure wish we had the originals/exifs et al.
TAbdrmWalls2.jpg
 
I'm still stuck on that full face pic and her saying 'He hates it' - present tense, long after she murdered him, yet a pic that was taken two minutes before she began her attack. It just eats at my brain....when could he have expressed an opinion about it? Why would she even mention it knowing full well it's time stamped right before the slaughter began? Look at her face when she says it - she's remembering, not thinking up another stupid, pointless lie. Arrrggg she drives me wild.
I wouldn't stress-out over it if I were you, geevee. I honestly doubt Travis even saw that full face shot of himself that was taken while he was sitting down in the shower. I mean, as it is, she's got the granny gun trained on him with one hand and is holding the camera with the other hand, right? Is she really able to maintain eye contact with TA and still whirl the camera around 180º with one hand and press all kinds of buttons in the menu on the back of the camera with just her right thumb to preview a pic for him? All that with one hand using a camera she's vaguely familiar with and also keep her eye on Travis so he doesn't lunge out at her (or be prepared if he did)? Because if so, she really missed her calling as a blackjack dealer in Vegas. Actually, Vegas would have been the perfect place for her to live and work. Lots of deep pockets there for her to glom on to. Not to mention added income from upscale hooking on the side. So I've heard. From a friend.
 
Here's my version...

Travis wanted out of his life for good. had no idea how receptive he would be of her when she showed up. 'He was happy to see me' was a bald faced lie. The friendly over-12 hours of togetherness- lying storyline is even more egregious and totally inconceivable to me. Once her presence was known, she had to kill him soon after. He might tell. Murder 101.

The ' single biggest concern on June 4th would have been- What if someone saw her near T's house on the way in, or on the way out. She had a backup plan. She would plant the sex photos in T's camera before Travis woke up. In case she was seen, she would simply admit she was there and lie they had sex.

-Some time while Travis was sleeping (doesn't matter when she did the transfer under this scenario) : She transfers the sex photos with altered dates to T's camera. It really is a simple process. No cables necessary. She does need her laptop with the pre-June 4th nudes saved on it. She will also need a card reader which Travis would already own as he was using the memory card for his camera. ex) A photo taken on March xx, 2008 1:44 pm would be changed to June 4, 2008 1:44 pm. And that's the date Det Melendez got later on. When I did the experiment, my computer let me change the date, but not the time.

-She snoops to her heart's content in the office. She could shoot him while he sleeps but she preferred to use the knife while he takes a morning shower.

-About 10 am Arizona time (~5 pm GMT camera time): Travis wakes up. Finds her in the office. Finds his camera nearby her.
He finds and deletes the sex photos, gets disgusted with her.
She starts sweet talk- I was just waiting for you to wake up, I stopped by to do x y and z.
He ignores her, begins to set up floor cleaner, says thanks for stopping by, tells her be gone by the time he finishes his shower. He goes up. Shaves.
She is mad. She sneaks in the bathroom and starts to take photos.
She kills him.

She begins to stage the scene.
Texts Chris, showers, deletes shower photos, puts on makeup, eats...
Sleeps in his bed, starts laundry- sheets and duvet first, then bloody clothes and towels next.
Uses T's computer.
Spends a loooooooooooong time admiring her work(she just couldn't leave the bathroom even though it was time for to go), says I beat you brat over and over.
Total time spent together including getting killed - less than an hour. No long gap time (interaction-wise).

Phew, I've rejected all evidences presented at trial and utterly rejected all of the ' testimony.:eek:

PS, I have the utmost respect for JM and his strategy used in this trial. I'm in awe of him.
 
Here's my version...

Travis wanted out of his life for good. had no idea how receptive he would be of her when she showed up. 'He was happy to see me' was a bald faced lie. The friendly over-12 hours of togetherness- lying storyline is even more egregious and totally inconceivable to me. Once her presence was known, she had to kill him soon after. He might tell. Murder 101.

The ' single biggest concern on June 4th would have been- What if someone saw her near T's house on the way in, or on the way out. She had a backup plan. She would plant the sex photos in T's camera before Travis woke up. In case she was seen, she would simply admit she was there and lie they had sex.

-Some time while Travis was sleeping (doesn't matter when she did the transfer under this scenario) : She transfers the sex photos with altered dates to T's camera. It really is a simple process. No cables necessary. She does need her laptop with the pre-June 4th nudes saved on it. She will also need a card reader which Travis would already own as he was using the memory card for his camera. ex) A photo taken on March xx, 2008 1:44 pm would be changed to June 4, 2008 1:44 pm. And that's the date Det Melendez got later on. When I did the experiment, my computer let me change the date, but not the time.

-She snoops to her heart's content in the office. She could shoot him while he sleeps but she preferred to use the knife while he takes a morning shower.

-About 10 am Arizona time (~5 pm GMT camera time): Travis wakes up. Finds her in the office. Finds his camera nearby her.
He finds and deletes the sex photos, gets disgusted with her.
She starts sweet talk- I was just waiting for you to wake up, I stopped by to do x y and z.
He ignores her, begins to set up floor cleaner, says thanks for stopping by, tells her be gone by the time he finishes his shower. He goes up. Shaves.
She is mad. She sneaks in the bathroom and starts to take photos.
She kills him.

She begins to stage the scene.
Texts Chris, showers, deletes shower photos, puts on makeup, eats...
Sleeps in his bed, starts laundry- sheets and duvet first, then bloody clothes and towels next.
Uses T's computer.
Spends a loooooooooooong time admiring her work(she just couldn't leave the bathroom even though it was time for to go), says I beat you brat over and over.
Total time spent together including getting killed - less than an hour. No long gap time (interaction-wise).

Phew, I've rejected all evidences presented at trial and utterly rejected all of the ' testimony.:eek:

PS, I have the utmost respect for JM and his strategy used in this trial. I'm in awe of him.


Good work, sidestepping ALL the evidence presented at trial, AND all her lies. ;)

But really....

Do you really find it impossible to believe that the determined sociopath couldn't have manipulated Travis just enough, one more time?

For all we know, she told him something on June 2 related to whatever she'd done to make him so angry on May 26, perhaps removed a threat she had made, maybe, for example, telling him she had found her cellphone with the sex tape on it, and had erased it.

Not enough to make him like her or trust her, but enough that he no longer felt threatened by her. And, reinforced by all the "peace" offerings she probably told him she'd mail, but then brought in person, items that were extremely important to him, including his handwritten book chapter, perhaps even his 2 journals that he had told her he considered his legacy, precious to him beyond words.

Admitting that she had these things would have been to give him the confession from her he had demanded, and more.

Again, not enough to make him forgive her or like her, but maybe enough that he felt he could let go of his hatred of her. And that , IMO, would have been all she needed to get in the door and to stay there long enough to manipulate him enough to be able to kill him.
 
Here's my version...

Travis wanted out of his life for good. had no idea how receptive he would be of her when she showed up. 'He was happy to see me' was a bald faced lie. The friendly over-12 hours of togetherness- lying storyline is even more egregious and totally inconceivable to me. Once her presence was known, she had to kill him soon after. He might tell. Murder 101.

The ' single biggest concern on June 4th would have been- What if someone saw her near T's house on the way in, or on the way out. She had a backup plan. She would plant the sex photos in T's camera before Travis woke up. In case she was seen, she would simply admit she was there and lie they had sex.

-Some time while Travis was sleeping (doesn't matter when she did the transfer under this scenario) : She transfers the sex photos with altered dates to T's camera. It really is a simple process. No cables necessary. She does need her laptop with the pre-June 4th nudes saved on it. She will also need a card reader which Travis would already own as he was using the memory card for his camera. ex) A photo taken on March xx, 2008 1:44 pm would be changed to June 4, 2008 1:44 pm. And that's the date Det Melendez got later on. When I did the experiment, my computer let me change the date, but not the time.

-She snoops to her heart's content in the office. She could shoot him while he sleeps but she preferred to use the knife while he takes a morning shower.

-About 10 am Arizona time (~5 pm GMT camera time): Travis wakes up. Finds her in the office. Finds his camera nearby her.
He finds and deletes the sex photos, gets disgusted with her.
She starts sweet talk- I was just waiting for you to wake up, I stopped by to do x y and z.
He ignores her, begins to set up floor cleaner, says thanks for stopping by, tells her be gone by the time he finishes his shower. He goes up. Shaves.
She is mad. She sneaks in the bathroom and starts to take photos.
She kills him.

She begins to stage the scene.
Texts Chris, showers, deletes shower photos, puts on makeup, eats...
Sleeps in his bed, starts laundry- sheets and duvet first, then bloody clothes and towels next.
Uses T's computer.
Spends a loooooooooooong time admiring her work(she just couldn't leave the bathroom even though it was time for to go), says I beat you brat over and over.
Total time spent together including getting killed - less than an hour. No long gap time (interaction-wise).

Phew, I've rejected all evidences presented at trial and utterly rejected all of the ' testimony.:eek:

PS, I have the utmost respect for JM and his strategy used in this trial. I'm in awe of him.

This brought up a sick idea to me. Does anyone think that the "clean up" might have been a deliberate "non-cleanup"? Think of the mess she left undisturbed, like the blood spatter in the bathroom, on a sink where she could easily wash it out. I've always wondered about why she didn't wipe that area up post-slaughter, especially since one of her hairs could have fallen in while she was preening herself. She could have smeared the blood where she cut his throat, but aside from the wildebeest stampede she made while killing him, she left a pool of his blood.

I'm thinking she deliberately left signs of the magnitude of the slaughter, how protracted and torturous it was, how almighty victorious she was, while trying to remove evidence that might implicate her. To maximize his humiliation and exaggerate her gloating.
 
Good work, sidestepping ALL the evidence presented at trial, AND all her lies. ;)

But really....

Do you really find it impossible to believe that the determined sociopath couldn't have manipulated Travis just enough, one more time?

For all we know, she told him something on June 2 related to whatever she'd done to make him so angry on May 26, perhaps removed a threat she had made, maybe, for example, telling him she had found her cellphone with the sex tape on it, and had erased it.

Not enough to make him like her or trust her, but enough that he no longer felt threatened by her. And, reinforced by all the "peace" offerings she probably told him she'd mail, but then brought in person, items that were extremely important to him, including his handwritten book chapter, perhaps even his 2 journals that he had told her he considered his legacy, precious to him beyond words.

Admitting that she had these things would have been to give him the confession from her he had demanded, and more.

Again, not enough to make him forgive her or like her, but maybe enough that he felt he could let go of his hatred of her. And that , IMO, would have been all she needed to get in the door and to stay there long enough to manipulate him enough to be able to kill him.

Exactly. His religion commands forgiveness, as does mine. Seven times seventy. You must forgive. She...being a sociopath plays on this....has been doing it since Sept 2006 when they met.
She also knows he's --in his own words-- addicted to the relationship they shared. The relationship went through many changes but one thing that never changed was their sexual connection.



I tried to stay away this time.
But you called
And you made sure I heard your voice
U knew that would be enough
Not how many infractions
You just kill me
Every time
And I keep taking you back
I have come to terms with it
I am in partial addicted to you
The positives
If all you were is positive
Or your good facad that is in fact an act
I'm addicted to it
But it is ********
Yet I'm addicted to it
And you know it
And you know I will take you back
You always know
You know I'll get pissed but I'll take you back

--this knowledge was all she needed.

An apology (begging forgiveness he's spiritually commanded to grant)
a phone call (he phoned her June 3 speaking to her for an hour).

Travis was correct:

He was addicted
She knew he'd take her back into his bed and that's all she needed this time. She'd bed him then kill him.
 
ANOTHER HATCHET JOB ON JM, THIS TIME IN A SERIOUSLY FLAWED HARVARD “STUDY” ABOUT THE DP AND “OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTORS.”

Link to article about the "study," direct link is in article.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...tudy-rips-maricopa-county-prosecutors-8563756


(Check out the author's statement that JM (and 2 others) aren't even qualified to handle misdemeanor cases, "much less cases involving life or death.")

-------------------------------------
The key numbers provided in this “study:”

** 28 DP sentences imposed in Maricopa County between 2010-2015.

**61 DP cases reviewed by the ASC since 2006 (direct reviews).

(Note--apples and oranges, jury imposed sentences versus direct reviews of DP sentences by the Arizona Supreme Court (ASC), especially given the different time frames for each category.)

** JM was one of 3 prosecutors who won 21 out of those 61 DP convictions reviewed by the ASC from 2006-2016.

(Note: Over zealous? 21 cases? That’s an average of 7 DP cases per prosecutor reviewed, spread out over 10 years, or fewer than 1 direct appeal per year, per prosecutor { DP sentences in Arizona go automatically and directly to the ASC for appeal}.

This during the period when the entire court system in AZ (Superior Court on up to the ASC) was overwhelmed to the point of crisis by the sheer number of DP cases being pursued by DA Thomas).

**The ASC made findings of “improper BEHAVIOR (note: not improper CONDUCT) in 8 of those cases.”

(Note-I assume the author is referring to the 21 cases handled by the overzealous 3, not the total of 61 cases, but it’s unclear, especially given the graph in the “study” that says the percentage of (DP) cases with misconduct found (all cases, all prosecutors?) was 21%.

Eh?? on that math. And for shame, the author conflating improper behavior with improper conduct. The former is meaningless, ethically and legally. The latter, improper conduct, is not, though there is quite a range of conduct included in that term, most of it also quite meaningless to the bottom line of any trial or appeal- did the improper conduct prevent a defendant from receiving a fair trial?

And here’s the key smear of JM, premised on the author’s cute little intentional distortion of equating “improper behavior” with “improper conduct”:

“The ASC has called out JM by name during oral argument, and found that he committed misconduct in at least three capital cases.”


NOT, AND NO, AND UNTRUE. And perhaps unsurprising, since the author of this Harvard “study” used Michael Keiffer articles about JM as references.


To follow, for the interested or the simply masochistic, a synopsis of the AZC’s rulings relating to JM for each of those 3 cases (presumably) the author of this “study” mentions but (doesn't cite) as "evidence" of how overly zealous and unethical JM is.

(BTW, prosecutors for the State don't get to decide whether or not to pursue the DP for any of the cases assigned to them. That decision is made by the DA (aka as the "County Attorney" in AZ).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,109
Total visitors
2,194

Forum statistics

Threads
601,008
Messages
18,117,102
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top