Hi, Nobodyzgirl; in my mind, your remarks on her sentencing hit the mark on the head. I've long been in favor of the mandatory life sentence, rather than the death penalty, because I think that it shows both the culprit, his victim, and society that their act will have repercussions for days, months, years, and decades. To me, the life sentence is a life and death sentence, whereas the death sentence is often just a quick fix.
Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias - What do you believe?
- Thread starter gaia227
- Start date
New Posts
-
Arizona girl, 2, left in car by father on 109-degree day and is found dead
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
- Status
Hi, Nobodyzgirl; in my mind, your remarks on her sentencing hit the mark on the head. I've long been in favor of the mandatory life sentence, rather than the death penalty, because I think that it shows both the culprit, his victim, and society that their act will have repercussions for days, months, years, and decades. To me, the life sentence is a life and death sentence, whereas the death sentence is often just a quick fix.
nobodyzgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,403
- Reaction score
- 48
I completely agree with you, and I really think that's why Jodi would prefer the death penalty, because it is definitely the easy way out for her. I live in Canada, where there is no death penalty, so our criminals know, once convicted they are spending their days behind bars, which is fine by me! I'm sure life in prison is not pleasant (nor should it be). That's the main reason that I'd like to see her suffer in jail for the rest of her delusional life, because in my eyes it's a tougher sentence for her to deal with. I can hardly wait until the trial and see her face when she's told life in prison with no chance of parole! (hopefully that is the way it plays out).
I must admit that I'm fascinated by Jodi's interviews. They are far different from the very restricted, set-pieces orchestrated and carefully monitored by high price lawyers.
In fact, her appearances aren't really aimed at a defense strategy, even a bad defense strategy. Jodi isn't so much trying to get her story out (in fact, that changes from interview to interview as she learns more about the evidence); instead, she is trying to present herself as a rational, humane, and likeable woman. (Which, this obsession aside, I suppose she is and was.)
Such open-ended pre-trail interviews are very rare and Jodi's performances show that she, and not her lawyers, was directing everything. This will undoubtedly endanger her already frail case. Under normal conditions, she and her attorneys would be able to assess the evidence against her, cobble together a defense (self-defense or weak forensics, perhaps) and probably, by necessity, put her on the stand. (Or, of course, they could plead guilty, but that doesn't seem to be in offing.) But Jodi's fluctuating statements and strange behavior have made her a target of choice under cross examination. How can she present a new story when she has already presented several false ones?
In fact, her appearances aren't really aimed at a defense strategy, even a bad defense strategy. Jodi isn't so much trying to get her story out (in fact, that changes from interview to interview as she learns more about the evidence); instead, she is trying to present herself as a rational, humane, and likeable woman. (Which, this obsession aside, I suppose she is and was.)
Such open-ended pre-trail interviews are very rare and Jodi's performances show that she, and not her lawyers, was directing everything. This will undoubtedly endanger her already frail case. Under normal conditions, she and her attorneys would be able to assess the evidence against her, cobble together a defense (self-defense or weak forensics, perhaps) and probably, by necessity, put her on the stand. (Or, of course, they could plead guilty, but that doesn't seem to be in offing.) But Jodi's fluctuating statements and strange behavior have made her a target of choice under cross examination. How can she present a new story when she has already presented several false ones?
nobodyzgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,403
- Reaction score
- 48
ITA Chanler, though I'm sure she will try and present a new story if her counsel allows her to take the stand and I'm only basing that on past interviews where things changed each and every time she heard some new piece of information.
RIP~Travis
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
Hello, I did not know Travis but ever since watching the 48 hours episode in March 2009 I have been comsumed with this case. I happened on this site and after reading thru all 13 pages and following the various links, I just wanted to say you all have made very interesting points and shared alot of information. With that being said, I had to join in on your discussions. =)
I think Jodi must be guilty especially after viewing the crime scene photos. What intruder in their right mind would walk Jodi down the hall to the bedroom and leave her there without being tied up or anything. Why didnt she just "grab her purse" and run out of the room then? And lets explore her story a little bit. The male intruder led her to the bedroom and left her there. If he left, where did he go? If he didnt go back to the bathroom he would have exited out the master bedroom doors or went into the closet. And if she is stating the intruders purpose was to kill Travis cause to her knowledge "nothing was taken" then why would the male intruder be snooping around the house and leave the female intruder to handle the notably strong Travis? None of it adds up.
Then after her miraculous escape, she grabs her purse but none of her other belongings were left at the house after spending the night there? OK, she had been on a road trip so if that had been me, I am sure I would have brought in a suitcase for a change of clothes, personal hygiene, ect. Especially someone as concerned with their appearance as Jodi. But nope, police placed her there based on her DNA and not material things. I find this very strange. It makes alot more sense to me that nothing was left behind because Jodi was the last to leave the crime scene.
Also I was wondering where was Travis's dog? If intruders broke in, I would think the dog would have tried to protect Travis. But Napoleon knew Jodi. And I am not sure how the care of the dog was handled in the house but wouldn't Travis's roommates have been suspicious that Napoleon went unfed or let out to the bathroom during the time before they discovered Travis's body? I would imagine that even if the roommates came and went at different times and didn't actually see Travis all the time, they could tell whether or not he had been taking care of the dog. I guess it would depend on where the dog was kept in the house and maybe this is a resposibility they all shared on a regular basis, just thinking out loud.
Well I could go on and on, but those are a few of my thoughts.
I think Jodi must be guilty especially after viewing the crime scene photos. What intruder in their right mind would walk Jodi down the hall to the bedroom and leave her there without being tied up or anything. Why didnt she just "grab her purse" and run out of the room then? And lets explore her story a little bit. The male intruder led her to the bedroom and left her there. If he left, where did he go? If he didnt go back to the bathroom he would have exited out the master bedroom doors or went into the closet. And if she is stating the intruders purpose was to kill Travis cause to her knowledge "nothing was taken" then why would the male intruder be snooping around the house and leave the female intruder to handle the notably strong Travis? None of it adds up.
Then after her miraculous escape, she grabs her purse but none of her other belongings were left at the house after spending the night there? OK, she had been on a road trip so if that had been me, I am sure I would have brought in a suitcase for a change of clothes, personal hygiene, ect. Especially someone as concerned with their appearance as Jodi. But nope, police placed her there based on her DNA and not material things. I find this very strange. It makes alot more sense to me that nothing was left behind because Jodi was the last to leave the crime scene.
Also I was wondering where was Travis's dog? If intruders broke in, I would think the dog would have tried to protect Travis. But Napoleon knew Jodi. And I am not sure how the care of the dog was handled in the house but wouldn't Travis's roommates have been suspicious that Napoleon went unfed or let out to the bathroom during the time before they discovered Travis's body? I would imagine that even if the roommates came and went at different times and didn't actually see Travis all the time, they could tell whether or not he had been taking care of the dog. I guess it would depend on where the dog was kept in the house and maybe this is a resposibility they all shared on a regular basis, just thinking out loud.
Well I could go on and on, but those are a few of my thoughts.
nobodyzgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,403
- Reaction score
- 48
Like Boyz_Mum, I hadn't thought about the dog either, and it makes a lot of sense. Travis' dog would be familiar with Jodi.
nobodyzgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,403
- Reaction score
- 48
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3925571.pdf
The Court has received Defendant’s Request for Additional Discovery Relating to any and all Forensic Examinations Conducted upon any and all Electronic Media.
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on November 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. in this division, to be heard in conjunction with the Capital Case Management Conference.
Wonder what Jodi et.al are looking for in the discovery?
The Court has received Defendant’s Request for Additional Discovery Relating to any and all Forensic Examinations Conducted upon any and all Electronic Media.
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on November 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. in this division, to be heard in conjunction with the Capital Case Management Conference.
Wonder what Jodi et.al are looking for in the discovery?
Hi, RIP Travis, a great post. As for the dog: Travis was about to go on a trip, so I assume that he made provisions for the dog.
The timing of Travis's trip, I've always thought, strengthen the case again Jodi for a premeditated homicide. If she knew that his friends would not expect him to be around, she would also know that his absence would not be missed so soon. By the time, his murder was discovered; she was already long since gone. Which is exactly how it worked.
SheStartedIt
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
I too, am curious to what the, "Additional Discovery" might be?... Could be a number of things.. The leg in the picture that was taken during the attack?... Maybe emails she had sent Travis and or that girl, Marie?
SheStartedIt
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi there, RIP~Travis.
You made a lot of interesting and very valid points, that hadn't even crossed my mind! There was not a single piece of her personal property left there.. There is a VERY slight chance that she could have packed everything in the car, before the initial attack? (that would also go hand in hand with the fact that it was pre-meditated) But still, you'd at LEAST think there would be SOMETHING left behind, if she did indeed had to escape, and leave in such a panicked state.
I too have seen the crime scene/autopsy photos, so everything you said made sense to me.. And I also agree with you on the fact of, why would the man be the one who took her aside and left the female accomplice to, "finish the job".. I'm sure the state that Travis was in at that point, they wouldn't have even needed to return to him.
I just want this trial to start already. There are so many theories that I've read of.. And I can see how a lot of them, make a lot of sense.
nobodyzgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,403
- Reaction score
- 48
Chanler, ITA about the timing of Travis' trip and Jodi's visit, especially because Travis was going with someone else and not her.
Does anyone remember when Travis was supposed to go on that trip? I'm just wondering if the dog would have already been with whomever was watching him, or if he would have still been in the house when Jodi showed up.
Hi, Nobodyzgirl, always nice to see your moniker. I'm working from memory here, but I believe that Travis was leaving the next day; hence, some of the urgency about the afternoon or evening telephone conference that he missed. It seems unlikely that the dog was present at the murder scene, because if he/she were, we would probably heard about forensics.
My guess is that Travis would leave the dog with a woman with pet experience, rather than with his male roommates.
In any case, Jodi would obviously want to see Travis on her trip and it would have been only natural for the two of them to communicate about their itineraries beforehand.
Hi, SheStartedIt. All your suggestions are probable, I think. The defense is really playing catch-up here. In addition to the forensics and the photos, they must contend with emails to, from, and about Jodi that run counter to the picture that she has painted of a relatively casual, open, stabilized relationship.
Juries want narratives and I suspect that the prosecution will be able to present a chronology that shows that Travis was pushing Jodi's buttons (to borrow her phrase) until she decided to pull the plug.
SheStartedIt
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3944479.pdf
9:33 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference at the request of counsel for the State.
Pursuant to stipulation of counsel, the following shall be deposed in California and the deposition will be tape recorded:
October 27, 2009 at 8:30 p.m.: Detective Rachel Blaney
October 28, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.: Detective Nathan Mendez
October 28, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.: Sergeant Mark Hilsenberg
October 28, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.: Detective Chris Rees
October 28, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.: Deputy Bob Buker
October 28, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.: Crime Scene Investigator Dave Young
October 28, 2009 at 12:00 p.m.: Officer J. Potter
9:33 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference at the request of counsel for the State.
Pursuant to stipulation of counsel, the following shall be deposed in California and the deposition will be tape recorded:
October 27, 2009 at 8:30 p.m.: Detective Rachel Blaney
October 28, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.: Detective Nathan Mendez
October 28, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.: Sergeant Mark Hilsenberg
October 28, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.: Detective Chris Rees
October 28, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.: Deputy Bob Buker
October 28, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.: Crime Scene Investigator Dave Young
October 28, 2009 at 12:00 p.m.: Officer J. Potter
Hi, SheStartedIt. What strikes me about this list is the number of the professionals LE that were on the scene. In the face of such a line-up, I suspect that jurors' doubts will likely evaporate.
Knox
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 30,389
- Reaction score
- 193,454
We are talking about LE from Yreka correct? These LE people were those that were part of Jodi's arrest and extradition.
Hi, Knox, you're right; at least some of these people are California LE. My first assumption was that they were present at the crime scene. It would be interesting to see what they came up with Yreka.
nobodyzgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,403
- Reaction score
- 48
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3944527.pdf
The Court has received State’s Objection to Defendant’s Request for Additional
Discovery Relating to any and all Forensic Examinations Conducted upon any and all Electronic Media.
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on November 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. in this
division, to be heard in conjunction with the Capital Case Management Conference.
The Court has received State’s Objection to Defendant’s Request for Additional
Discovery Relating to any and all Forensic Examinations Conducted upon any and all Electronic Media.
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on November 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. in this
division, to be heard in conjunction with the Capital Case Management Conference.
- Status