weekend break: discuss the latest here #125

[Novice Seeker]

Hello, Sleuths! Reading here is so much more than other boards. So informative, respectful, funny, and well, just more depth than others. So happy I was able to join.

Welcome aboard!:seeya: Some of us bite, some spit and slobber all over the place, some are prejudicial to skanks and there are a few animals that get loose but they're harmless.:blushing:

 

[Ships]

Ships: Welcome is there much interest in this case down under?

Thanks - there's definitely some interest from me, mate!

There hasn't been a huge amount of press, not compared to say, Amanda Knox. But I've noticed a few Aussie's on this board, and I guess the Justice for Travis FB page is run by an Australian (I think).

I'm not aware of any sleuthing community that mirrors this one.

 

[Sleuth5]

Do you think JA is guilty of first degree murder?

Yes. Having heard the evidence thusfar (including a good deal not available to the actual jury), I have no doubt about that. Were I able to vote, I would vote guilty of premeditated murder, as the defense has failed to prove self-defense under any definition.

The operative phrase, of course, is "having heard the evidence." This is why we have trials. You have stated that you will not assume a defendant innocent until they are thus proven; thus you assume them guilty a priori. There is a difference. The difference is that the jury still has the duty to hear the case and make their own decision, laying the burden squarely upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You would reverse that process. There would be no need for a prosecution's case beyond a simple reading of the charge. The defendant would then need to prove innocence of that charge.

:cow:

 

[panthera]

Oh, and one more thought -- remember when her Dad said in the interview that "she was gonna marry him"? I think she might have been telling family (and limited friends) that that was going to happen -- and after Travis' rant and the arranged trip to Cancun, that was obviously never going to occur. Not that she should have known sooner, mind you -- just that the fact that her Dad said that immediately suggests to me she had concocted quite a tale for everyone else (just like the fantasy journals) about the "relationship" and was about to have to face the music, including eating a lot of humble pie. I think her narcissism couldn't take that. Narcissistic rage, my bet.

:cow:

Exactly. She couldn't go back and say they broke up. She would never admit they weren't going to be married. She couldn't face him being with someone else either. So she murdered him.

MOO

 

[LambChop]

Do you see steam on the glass? It's because the door is open. Do you see water running down glass? No, because the door is open. In the whole 8 minutes, did you see him use any soap? No, because he's in there specifically to pose, not to shower. Do you see all the different angles Jodi was standing to get pictures of him from left to right to center? She can't get those angles in that oddly shaped bathroom without him seeing her there.

Here, I don't believe we see silver frame going along the top of this picture to show that the door was closed. Lack of steam and streaking water indicates the door was open the whole time. The water droplets in the air in front of his face on that one picture are frozen in time as the fall from the shower head because the shower water is still running.

You wouldn't expect to see steam on a shower door in June. Many do not take hot showers in the summer when it's 105 outside. It's not cold water, just not steamy hot. Those droplets are on the door. The other pictures under were with the door open while he is sitting. I don't have a bar of soap in my shower either. There is liquid soap and it's on a shelf. So I see nothing wrong with him not having shampoo or soap in his hands. There was time in between so he could have used it in between the shots. If Jodi wanted to give the impression these were pictures for a photo op I don't think she would have taken a picture with him using soap. I don't think Travis would have bought that either if that is what she wanted to tell him. jmo

 

[Nhic]

I know JA is guilty as hell and will be found guilty. But, in the U.S. everyone is entitled to representation. I'd much rather live in a society that looked at everyone as innocent until proven guilty than the other way around.


If we all looked at everyone as innocent until proven guilty, nobody on this board would have the opinion that JA is guilty of first degree murder because all of the evidence hasn't yet been presented.

Just because she confessed she killed Travis, doesn't mean at this point that she's guilty of first degree murder.

For the record, I believe she IS guilty of first degree murder and don't have to see any more evidence to support that belief.

 

[ElleElle]

Thanks for that. For the sake of argument, maybe Travis was not taking a cold shower. I mean it is June in AZ, right?

The soap theory is a good one. There is no soap... :what:

Do you see steam on the glass? It's because the door is open. Do you see water running down glass? No, because the door is open. In the whole 8 minutes, did you see him use any soap? No, because he's in there specifically to pose, not to shower. Do you see all the different angles Jodi was standing to get pictures of him from left to right to center? She can't get those angles in that oddly shaped bathroom without him seeing her there.

Here, I don't believe we see silver frame going along the top of this picture to show that the door was closed. Lack of steam and streaking water indicates the door was open the whole time. The water droplets in the air in front of his face on that one picture are frozen in time as the fall from the shower head because the shower water is still running.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Nurmi has defended sex offenders. Now before anyone jumps down my throat, I know JA is guilty as hell and will be found guilty. But, in the U.S. everyone is entitled to representation. I'd much rather live in a society that looked at everyone as innocent until proven guilty than the other way around.

Law Offices of L. Kirk Nurmi
Have you been accused
of committing a sexual offense?
Call me now 24/7 (602) 285-6947
I can provide you with aggressive representation against
any accusation that you committed a sexual offense.
Sexual Assault • Sex Conduct with a Minor • Indecent Exposure
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor • Sexual Abuse • Molestation of a Child

At the Law Office of L. Kirk Nurmi we understand that you do not have to commit a sexual offense to be accused of being a sex offender. We understand that innocent people can be accused of sex crimes such as sexual assault, sex conduct with a minor or sexual exploitation of a minor, or any sex offense with very little evidence. We also understand that being accused of committing such a crime is devastating and daunting. However, we also understand that the legal consequences are very serious and that if you are accused of a sex crime you need an attorney who has the experience and knowledge needed to provide you with an aggressive defense. Our results speak for themselves:

Sex Assault – not guilty
Sex Assault / Unlawful Imprisonment – not guilty on all counts
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (10 counts) – not guilty on all counts
Sex Conduct with a Minor, Sexual Assault – all counts dismissed

Call (602) 285-6947 Today

So if you find yourself accused of such a crime and you seek competent aggressive representation call our office at (602) 285-6947 for a Free Telephonic Consultation.

Law Offices of L. Kirk Nurmi
2314 E Osborne Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 285-6947


and Wilmont trains trail laywers

 

[katiedid2]

I imagine a team of psychiatrists flown in from Vienna could examine this chick for 44 hours each and she would never crack.

She's crazy for coco puffs.

 

[TartLemon]

IMO, Jodi did the flat tire herself to make an excuse for not being at the funeral where she was definitely not welcomed anyway. Jodi knew immediately after Travis was found she was ultimate on the list of suspects.

 

[Nhic]

Yes. Having heard the evidence thusfar (including a good deal not available to the actual jury), I have no doubt about that. Were I able to vote, I would vote guilty of premeditated murder, as the defense has failed to prove self-defense under any definition.

The operative phrase, of course, is "having heard the evidence." This is why we have trials. You have stated that you will not assume a defendant innocent until they are thus proven; thus you assume them guilty a priori. There is a difference. The difference is that the jury still has the duty to hear the case and make their own decision, laying the burden squarely upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You would reverse that process. There would be no need for a prosecution's case beyond a simple reading of the charge. The defendant would then need to prove innocence of that charge.

:cow:

No, I would not reverse that process. What I am trying to convey is what any cop and any prosecutor prosecuting a case knows - the suspect/accused is guilty. Perhaps I have the mind of a cop. IDK :what:

You have said you would convict her of premeditated murder, despite not having heard all of the evidence yet. What is the difference between your position and mine?

 

[panthera]

Yes true, it's only coming from her.

As far as I am aware, though I don't know if it was actually verified in court, that Travis complained to a friend that Jodi was hacking into his accounts. You would think it would have come out that they had previously exchanged passwords then, if that were the case. We have only heard her version... which is eminently questionable...

And in terms of the abuse thing, yeah I guess that makes sense too. Because that only came out wayyy after the arrest.

:welcome5:

Agree, it is only her version of events, and there is no way I will believe Travis gave her passwords to his accounts, then accused her of hacking into them. I cannot see him giving that information to anyone, let alone her.

MOO

 

[ElleElle]

Shower door appears open in this one, no?

 

[Ships]

IMO, Jodi needed to portray the image that all was well and forgiven between the two of them. She was aware that others knew about her hacking into his accounts and needed to portray that Travis had not only forgiven her but that he was willing to trust Jodi again and offered up his passwords to her as a token of that trust.

Certainly, Novice Seeker. And thanks.

I guess my point was, that as an outsider, when looking at her entries that this type of retrospective explanation - to her journal could be viewed as evidence for her manufacturing her story. I mean, why explain to your own journal something that surely would have come up before? A little moot since we don't have access to her whole journal, but anyway, just thought it relevant.

It's not that I don't see what her motives would be for doing so. On the contrary. Just that it looks like actual evidence of doing it to me.

 

[wasnt_me]

She needed the gun to control him and ask him to sit down. If she used only a knife to order him to sit then no way Travis would have done what she wanted. A grown man would be able to fight the opponent off. She had the gun. He was powerless in that situation.

I disagree that she couldn't have gotten him to sit down with a knife. We don't know what was in his mind. Maybe he sat down and tried to reason with her to get her to put it down, all the while looking for his chance to grab her wrists.

 

[shane13]

Law Offices of L. Kirk Nurmi
Have you been accused
of committing a sexual offense?
Call me now 24/7 (602) 285-6947
I can provide you with aggressive representation against
any accusation that you committed a sexual offense.
Sexual Assault • Sex Conduct with a Minor • Indecent Exposure
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor • Sexual Abuse • Molestation of a Child

At the Law Office of L. Kirk Nurmi we understand that you do not have to commit a sexual offense to be accused of being a sex offender. We understand that innocent people can be accused of sex crimes such as sexual assault, sex conduct with a minor or sexual exploitation of a minor, or any sex offense with very little evidence. We also understand that being accused of committing such a crime is devastating and daunting. However, we also understand that the legal consequences are very serious and that if you are accused of a sex crime you need an attorney who has the experience and knowledge needed to provide you with an aggressive defense. Our results speak for themselves:

Sex Assault – not guilty
Sex Assault / Unlawful Imprisonment – not guilty on all counts
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (10 counts) – not guilty on all counts
Sex Conduct with a Minor, Sexual Assault – all counts dismissed
Call (602) 285-6947 Today

So if you find yourself accused of such a crime and you seek competent aggressive representation call our office at (602) 285-6947 for a Free Telephonic Consultation.

Law Offices of L. Kirk Nurmi
2314 E Osborne Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 285-6947


and Wilmont trains trail laywers

BBM Well that is strange in that there's no indication of how many accused of those crimes he was successful with.

 

[Sleuth5]

No, I would not reverse that process. What I am trying to convey is what any cop and any prosecutor prosecuting a case knows - the suspect/accused is guilty. Perhaps I have the mind of a cop. IDK :what:

You have said you would convict her of premeditated murder, despite not having heard all of the evidence yet. What is the difference between your position and mine?

Did I miss part of the defense case? This was their last witness, as far as I know. I don't need to hear the cross of ALV or JM's rebuttal. I suspect many of the jurors feel the same way.

:cow:

 

[Novice Seeker]

I have been here from the beginning and have read close to 100% of the posts. So I am going to say can someone give me a reason for the overkill in this case. I don't care what the two experts say, why was TA stabbed 27 times, his throat cut, and he was shot in the face. There is nothing anyone has said that explains this. This is the crux of the case and all the rest is fluff. This was a horrific murder and no one has explained the horror of it. This is what I want to know. jmo

A sociopath had been discarded, confronted and threatened of being exposed and stood to loose everything she was determined to achieve, husband,home,wealth,status and security. The number of stab wounds, near decapitation and shot to the head reflect the extreme rage and contempt Jodi felt toward Travis. She wanted him to suffer badly for every rejection and insult he had given to her.

 

[Nhic]

Does anyone know of JA's grandparents were interviewed by Det. Flores or any member of his team?

 

[kaRN]

Hopefully you are correct. The penalty phase I do expect to take longer, but the guilt/innocence is a no-brainer.

Wouldn't it be a slap to the DT if they jury did return a verdict in a very short time only to emphasize what a strong case Juan Martinez had?



MOO

Considering their defense, I think a good slap is in order.

I may have to take up drinking for the penalty phase. :fence: Can you imagine weeks and weeks of...............
Jodi was such a shiny baby(best mitigation ever!!) and she grew the best pot. She only kicked us when we really deserved it and even then we didn't bruise all that much. She hardly ever robbed us and when she did it was only to steal stuff she needed to kill her ex. She knows how to make a bazillion Margaritas each shift. She didn't kick our dogs too often and not at all after they ran away. She never ever ran after them to kick them again. She only de-edified me once. :great: