Jodi Arias Trial: In Her Own Words.. How I Killed Travis Alexander With HIS Gun and HIS Knife
Photo Courtesy AP Pool
Phoenix, Arizona- In today’s highly anticipated morning testimony, Jodi Arias finally “gets there”.
After weeks of what can only be described as the dog ate my defense testimony led by Kirk Nurmi, Jodi Arias explains the events leading up to and during the murder of Travis Alexander.
Arias describes an irate and menacing Travis who bounds from the shower, causing her to drop his new camera and pouncing on her, knocking her to the wet tile floor.
“ A five year old can hold a camera better than you.” Arias stated Alexander screamed at her among other threatening expletives while she struggled to break free.
She then ran to the master bedroom closet and apparently using the Spiderman techniques she absorbed via osmosis from the alleged Valentines gift, retrieved a gun she claimed Travis owned over two feet out of her reach while he was sprinting behind her.
She pointed the gun at him, did not realize it went off and then Travis, still coming at her, stumbles to his knees on the now bloody tile beneath him. ( Editors Note: As I have always said, I believe the order of this injury is true and is important to the charges against her)
Enter gratuitous memory gap.
“I have no memory of stabbing him.” – Jodi Arias
Although Arias admits to having flash backs, she states she cannot remember any other details with the exception of her crouched in the bathroom covered in blood and drops a knife she believes was upstairs used by Travis to cut ropes he used to tie her up to the bed.
She did however, have the presence of mind to grab the ropes, the gun, apparently removes and loses her shoes and has no idea what happened to the knife she used to stab Alexander 29 times and slit his neck from ear to ear.
Next memory she is driving in the desert with the gun she alleges was Travis’s when she pitches it out the window at a random location, then puts the ropes in a dumpster behind a gas station and washes blood off her hands.
Pause for Arias innocuous driving babble and road scenery.
“Why didn’t you call 911 and tell them what happened?” Kirk Nurmi asks his sniffling but tearless client.
” …He attacked you, why did you feel You messed up pretty badly?”
“This time it was different, he had done it before and nothing happened, it was heightened.” Responded Arias.
While approaching a check point in Utah, she feels like she will be apprehended there.
Arias decided to do a “whole bunch of things” to cover up she was ever there.
So .. “I called his phone to leave a voice mail”. For nearly 16 minutes she says she tried numerous times to leave a cheery voice mail to ask as if she was not present in Alexander’s home.
“I just thought they would be listening to his voice mail, so I just thought it would throw the scent off for a while.”
– Jodi Arias
Yes, she actually said that on the stand. Defense Attorney Kirk Nurmi was observed writing a note to co-counsel Jennifer Wilmott to send an assistant out to Sam’s for an industrial size supply of Tums.
I made that part up. Testimony continues following jury lunch break.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
2,253 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Just throwing this out there- but do we think if there is a hung jury or an acquittal in this case we would still be in support of how the prosecution argued their case in chief and tactics used in cross? Or would we blame the jury like was done in the CA case?
B
———————————————————————-
Well…..I do think that JM has gone a bit to far at times. AND I did not see this trial from the beginning. I am just not faulting him for being him. As for blame in the CA case, they came to a quick decision, and the juror that did speak out said they could not connect the dots or something like that. That outcome made absolutely no sense to me and jurors are supposed to use their common sense. To answer your question, right now based on the questions coming from the jury, I have more faith in them than the CA jury. Blame may not even come into play, even though we all would do things differently (and make sense of things differently)
Lol, not an answer to my question.
Will rephrase:
Assume the jury hangs or worse, an acquittal. How do you think your perception will change since you personally believe Arias to be guilty as charged?
B
I watched the Day 8 testimony again (the rental car owner) and figured out the “smoke smell” was noted before she ever took the car. It had nothing to do with Jodi, just noted so she wouldn’t be held liable for smoking in the vehicle.
Are you saying that their was testimony on the smoke smell?
B
No, Blink, and that’s probably why the smoke smell wasn’t even mentioned, she rented a car that already smelled like smoke and it was noted on the rental receipt when she picked it up so she wouldn’t be fined for it. They skipped over it entirely in court and now I see why. Two receipts were brought into evidence, the day she rented and the day she returned it, both stating smoke smell. I wondered before if it had been an oversight on Martinez’ part, but I didn’t make the distinction at the time. They didn’t bring it up because it wasn’t relevant to the case.
And the notation on the mats? The Kool aid?
ps- I am making a point on assumptions at your expense friend, I know you can take it
B
Blink, I understand the charges in the indictment:
“Count 1: First degree murder, a class 1 dangerous felony (Premeditated Murder) (Jodi Ann Arias) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE First Degree Murder, A CLASS 1 Dangerous Felony (Felony Murder) (Jodi Ann Arias).”
When this case goes to jury deliberations what might their instructions be, i.e. could there be any lesser charges the jury can consider other than what is stated in the indictment?
Standard Jury Instructions but to include any instructions that have been developed throughout the case. (By motion or stipulation- I could see this coming in light of juror #5- but again, sealed.)
B
How does Mr. Martinez determine his line of questioning. For instance with this ALV. He takes notes, listens to watches her testimony and establishes questions from that? Does he have a team that he bounces off his theories, his “gotcha” moments, his doubts. He just seems like such a lone island in that courtroom. Hope he’s taking advantage of whatever resources he has available and is willing to listen to others.
I totally agree he is understaffed for this trial, absolutely. Obviously given his first day of testimony, Flores is not consulted whatsoever in strategy, and rightly so. I know someone from his office is/was fielding daily calls or texts with feedback from the courtroom- but for me- while that is important, the case in chief is already predetermined going in.
To his defense ( pardon the pun) I have seen veteran prosecutors lately that are absolutely not current with their knowledge and utilization of social media as it relates to evidence development or trial influences. This is a fat mistake, in a high profile case I believe JM is learning as he goes. Maybe just in time- time will tell.
B
I think the jury has demonstrated their attention to the case via the many questions presented.
The defense case is all about trying to mitigate the death penalty for Jodi. They are using strategy of dragging everything out so that something important is covered by all the minutia. Will that sway any of the jurors? Maybe.
The large amount of forensic evidence possible with this case was IMO not properly presented. Why could that not be super important? Is there something in that evidence that would lead one to believe the self defense theory? We don’t know since all of it was not presented.
Why is the state using only one prosecutor? A backup person could be very helpful to the case.
Depending on what JM is able to get during a cross examination of AL and what he is able to present during closing arguments is all that is left from the states case. Will it be enough?
IMO the final cross of AL will be the key in making the decision for the jurors. We should be able to get some idea when the jury’s questions are presented.
B asks assuming no conviction will our opinion change about JM or will jury be blamed
Well, my opinion won’t change. Being charged is not a David v Goliath battle..it is David v Goliath +Philastines + their army. A defendant is seriously outmatched, even a wealthy one. You may be innocent and so no worry, hire an attorney, explain your side and all is good. Instead, you have just entered one of Dante’s circles of hell.
This is a truly heinous murder and yet the court laughs out loud AT him ? And then he exits the front to be adored by his fans and signs autographs?
This is his case to lose and he’s doing a wonderful job. It will not and never is “the jury’s fault”. The state just simply has way more resources, even one as devastated as Arizona.
Off topic Blink but do you think he has ADD?
Oh wow Blink that sums up a lot.
Overall conclusion: the prosecution presented just enough blood evidence to establish their case as charged, and it is limited enough for the defense to maintain it’s defense and hope it is obvious to the jurors looking at the overall scene that there was a struggle.
Oh wow Blink that sums up a lot.
B
******
Things that the jury know…Travis is dead….Jodi did it….there was a struggle, a big big struggle. It all comes down to what started that struggle and what happened in that struggle. Anything before or after that can be looked at differently by different people. You have to show the jury how it happened and not leave it up to them to guess. Could it be a struggle that was murderously carried out, a struggle of defense of oneself and which one, or perhaps a pure accident of teasing with a gun or knife and slipping or some such nonsense. This jury has shown that they are willing to ask questions. They want to know and consider and not just take somebody’s word as truth. My hope is that rebuttal for the prosecution is allowed and that the crime scene is the major focus. Interesting when watching some of the opening statements yesterday was that blood was found both under the bathmat and under the scale.
Lol, not an answer to my question.
Will rephrase:
Assume the jury hangs or worse, an acquittal. How do you think your perception will change since you personally believe Arias to be guilty as charged?
B
______________________________________________________________________
LOL I knew that and after attempts to answer the rephrased question (which was quite lengthly lol) computer went all wonky when I hit the submit comment button.
Juror #5. For someone not wanting to distract from the trial, she seems quite eager to chat with the media. IMO I think she spells trouble. See the video on FB.
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis
Ain’t nobody got time for that.
Totally agree. This was over for me before it started.
B
Blink, I hope you allow this photo of the handcuff necklace. I think we should chip in and get on for Sue and you!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/help-nancy-grace-find-her-handcuff-necklace_b171654
You know me. Just can’t resist a bit of researchy fun.
I guess NG accuses AC in the case of the missing cuffs.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/21/ridiculist-nancy-graces-missing-handcuff-necklace/
Ridiculist.
“Assume the jury hangs or worse, an acquittal. How do you think your perception will change since you personally believe Arias to be guilty as charged?
B”
—————————————————————-
The trial has been a circus; if there is an acquittal it’s because the 1.5 million dollar 5 year old overcharged case has been overprosecuted overdefended and overhyped by the media. The worn out jurors are ready to take vacations and a once smiling JM will not be signing autographs.
Just throwing this out there- but do we think if there is a hung jury or an acquittal in this case we would still be in support of how the prosecution argued their case in chief and tactics used in cross? Or would we blame the jury like was done in the CA case?
B
If I understand correctly, juror #5 was giving JA non-verbal signals on how to respond to questions. Aren’t juries told not to discuss the case with anyone, and does that not mean especially with each other?
So did juror #5 just perceive how JA might be coming across to the other jurors, or has there been some communication about the case? I’m sure the judge is satisfied that the problem was contained to #5, but she also has more than a $million$ reasons to try to push this trial through. I think JA + defense was all smiles about this issue because they definitely have an appealable issue now, which if the DA is lucky now, could result in the original plea.
All that said about the jury…
My immediate family gets a nightly dose of the JA trial, and I try to watch when I can, so I’m no expert here. Before the trial, I had little to no exposure. The gut reaction of my family (all males), is that the crime scene is too disorganized and messy for premeditation. I realize some of the evidence says otherwise, but it has not been clearly proven as to why the DA believes this is a capital case.
The prosecutor is so aggressive, that if he is not doing this as some sort of strategy (like I’ve been abusive to witnesses this entire trial, but it doesn’t give them a right to kill me), then he is just displaying arrogance and a demanding and demeaning nature. JA was someone that would have accepted a 2nd degree plea deal. So it is the job of this prosecutor to explain to the jury why this case rises to beyond that.
He cannot do that by demanding a jury enter his legalese world. He is supposed to guide them through the TA world, and clearly show evidence of how JA premeditated his murder. He’s not effectively doing that, because if he were, someone ignorant, like me, would have a better grasp on how JA accomplished a capital murder. My take away so far is a stolen gun and some gas cans. Incriminating in the big picture, maybe, but still circumstantial, and room for reasonable doubt.
The DA is spending too much time focusing on JA being a liar. People who don’t want to be charged with murder lie. Move on. I haven’t got a clue about the forensic evidence, because so much of it seems disputable. One thing is clear, there was a copious amount of rage involved in TA’s murder. Who plans that?
I would blame the DA for not getting the message across. But then I blamed the DA in the CA trial. I think these prosecutors have to take better control of their cases and bring charges appropriate to what the evidence supports, even if it comes up short of what they really believe happened. All JMO.
With much respect and ample angst- I blame the prosecution for the verdict in the CA trial, for cause.
B
http://www.change.org/petitions/create-travis-alexander-s-law-stop-allowing-highly-prejudicial-claims-against-murder-victims-without-evidence
There has ben discussion that the State did not sequester the jury in order to save money. Has Martinez’ case been compromised by lack of funds that would allow access to outside expert analysis of crime scene and evidence? I can’t form an opinion about how he has handled this case without knowing that.
OKAY, moving on, THIS IS going to be long, I APOLOGIZE UPFRONT.
I believe that due to lack of clear cut presentation of sequence of events in crime scene, ALV has become the crucial witness and the verdict is dependant on their opinion of ALV .
This is why:
I believe that ALV took this case because it furthers her larger cause- correcting the imbalance of power between men and women. Others have focused on inequality and abuse of power in the work place, ALV has focused on inequality and abiuse of power in intimate relationships. I feel her goal is to further define and extend the boundaries of domestic abuse ,-which will, in this case, move the behavior of Travis from being considered immoral, to being considered illegal in the sense that deragatory statements said in anger, multiple sex partners, sexual relationships without commitment, cheating and calling names is tantamount to the kind of battering that alters a woman’s perception of imminent danger, thereby justifying a claim of self defense in a homicide in which the woman is not under direct attack.
If you google definition of domestic abuse, the majority of the responses include the words ” harm to a family or household member” I could finding only one site that stretched this idea to include ANYONE who is in an intimate relationship.
If ALV can convince the jury that Travis’s behavior was abusive, she will have succeeded in the including what others may call “bad behavior” as a true form of abuse, and confirmed her theory that psychological abuse is every bit as potent as physical abuse. – and done so in a court of law.
In the high profile cases where the battered woman defense has been used, the women had the following in common: at least some corroboration of years of physical and psychological attack by their partner. Financial enmeshment. Children.
ALV knows she cannot prove that Travis choked Arias or broke her finger, or slapped her in a car. But she can cite emails , language used by Travis, other interviews , and info from Arias to support her theory that even this scant evidence ( compared to other cases where battered woman defense was used) is to be included in what constitutes domestic abuse.
The phrase in the book she co-authored reflects her mission..” It can happen to anyone” is ALV’s cri de coyer- and a noble one. But I can’t shake my feeling that her theories , when applied to Arias’s case, do not negate pre-meditated murder. If the jury votes for anything less than guilty, it is a huge victory for the ALV, and will put her in a position of authority in domestic abuse sector that she has not acheived to date.
I do think that Martinez succeeded in making a very important point, that is, IF the jury was listening objectively through the derisive laughter.
To sum up what I consider the key exchange:When ALV asked Martinez if he was angry at her, he responded by asking if her perception of his anger would alter her opinion. She ultimately said no.
I hope that the jury will not be negatively affected by his style. I hope that the jury will see the inappropriateness of a witness trying to ” outsmart” the prosecutor by refusing to answer yes or no
or calling him to task because she thinks she knows what he is getting at before he has gotten there. Arias did much the same thing, but did not have the power of ALV’s user friendly face or personality. It is possible that ALV touched the jury’s heart in the way the defense had hoped Arias would.
I wish Martinez could have just passed on this witness, but she was on the stand too long and did succeed in focusing everything on the issue of domestic abuse and her personal anecdotes. In order to move away from THIS imbalance, i feel he has to show that her testimony is irrelevant. The short cut to doing so is to attack her credibility period, the long way is to dissect every decision she made in forming her opinions, and show i she has jumped to conclusions which have nothing to do with this case.
Destroying ALV’s credibility is a formidable challenge do when an expert witness has possibly touched the hearts of a jury, and when the same witness is set on conveying the prosecution’s heartlessness.
“Financial enmeshment. Children.” Isn’t that at least a part of what splits her practice on all fronts into a mini-pie?
Well researched and penned post.
B
Part 1
Blink says-
“Here’s my thing. After 3+ months of testimony and evidence, NOBODY can say for sure how this June 4th massacre of Travis Alexander happened. My issue with that is there is more than enough physical evidence from the scene to tell that story and for reasons I can only guess about, the state is not.”
“I personally believe after hearing the questions the jurors have been asking that this jury is going to be thorough, and as you have heard me express concerns about the ‘CSI effect”, analyze forensic evidence and findings. So, to that end, I also believe without reservation that they will conclude there indeed was a struggle between Travis and Jodi.”
“REGARDLESS OF WHO STARTED WHAT it then becomes a fill in the blanks game and I am so uncomfortable with that, I can’t tell you.
B”
–
Blink I agree that most juries want it played out like they see on tv.
And in that regard JM has given them what they seek-
How is that? Respectfully, if that were true, how do you account for the hundreds of questions that clearly spell out “miles to go before we sleep around here Mr. Martinez, and then some.” This is my oversimplified response.
He has made the courtroom exciting anything but mundane
He has used experts – science and
facts.
On a limited amount of evidence, I agree there has been testimony that could in some cases be interpreted loosely as expert. My point is – are you aware of how much was processed v how much has been submitted as evidence?
Did the prosecution go over each and every blood drop? No
Keep It Simple Stupid
They have supplied enough blood evidence and enough expert testimony as well as supplying enough of a “story” for the jury to follow to the logical end -yet did so without laying out every single detail thereby risking loosing them.
Again, I say I refer to juror questions as a litmus test. One of which was to ask why certain items were not submitted to fiber and trace for testing. That is a huge red flag for me. Reminder- I am discussing my perspective from the position of “this needs to align 12 people” to verdict.
Sometimes short stories are much better than epic novels-
Think of it as Stephen Kings “the Body” or “The Cycle of The Werewolf” compared to some of his later rather long drawn out works
All are good stories but some were overran with too many words and details- Most just dont have the time/attention span to follow along when the same long story, if good will make it to an hour long movie of just the “good parts”
Better yet- think of it as my posts compared to others- i lose alot of readers cuz i go over each and every detail- where those who are better able to self edit-can get the same point across without so many words.
LOL, I would not have you any other way m’lady. That said, the point of my earlier comment is really just that. Focus on the forensics in the case and there is no need for the “extended release” of the drink me potion. ( I know, not Snow White)
Sometimes adding too much just obscures the truth of the very easy to follow facts
Cont Part 2
Blink request to please fill in any “holes with appropriate citations.”
Mamere says: how about this?
AV is recognized DV expert
Instead of questioning her qualifications and previous “you tube” lectures, make her qualifications work to the state’s advantage.
JM: you are indeed very recognized as expert in the field of DV, correct?
AV: yes
JM: Are you, then, acquainted with the typology and differential DX. of the different types of stalking?
Hopefully, she answers yes and then he asks her various questions concerning Mullen’s research into Forensic Evidence In Stalking.
One of those categories is “Intimate Partners” which usually is non violent but can turn extremly violent at point of separation.
He recognizes and applaudes her wonderful work in this fairly new field (Mullen just recently published in 2001).
But brings this back to Jodi Arias and tire slashing , driving to confront x-boyfriend’s new girlfriend ( if that is legally permissible), threats of exposing TA to his church ( does NOT get into whether threats have any basis in fact) but keep focus on JA’s stalking as Mullen clearly defines different stalker traits,propensity for violence, treatment modalities, medical, and forensic issues in clear easy to understand charts.
As to blood and hair, hopefully the lack of her blood ( she only had one or two small cuts and just one hair strand ) would boost JM’s argument this was a violent attack from a particular category of Stalker as recognized by the defense’s OWN EXPERT.
I found this literature in a five minute google search under how does psychiatry classify domestic violence. It is now under PTSD but that is not going to play well. So another google search under “forensic research in domestic violence” brought me to Mullen & Collegue book.
Part 2
The jury has enough to reasonably conclude what happened without having to subscribe to every point of fact- or to a rigid-sequence of events –what you describe as holes Blink, may just be areas where the prosecution is comfortable allowing the jury to infer rather than forcing them to see it all rigidly “his” way -
This is where the CA prosecution messedup- the jury needed a story to believe in but not necessarily the one the Prosecution presented-
Chloroform poisoning-
Heres the thing- the CA jury was bombarded with facts computer info timelines- chloroform/trunk -witnesses etc
the simple truth was lost
JB countered it all with CA “was a good mom” who made up imaginary friends grieved ugly was abused by her father and her beloved daughter, the true victim, well she “accidentally” died in the swimming pool Gpapa took her after threatening poor mommy… —
and the dumping of that little baby… well she was lovingly placed like a pet …-if you believe for an instance it was CA, or the baby was in Moms trunk then youre a fool because George did it, and that smell and that stain it was just trash rotten cheese and salami in that trunk and greasy pot binge papertowels left inside see the bags? and that Chloroform computer crap, well that was Cindy…and thankfully Cindy and Co willingly helped CA get off-
Cont part 3
Mamere says. Here is link ( hopefully it’s blued)http://books.google.com/books?id=YC3AL7RvGYoC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=how+is+domestic+violence+categorized+by+psychiatrist&source=bl&ots=5kP22nk6j0&sig=s7VBA6Wu6H405TU2Zh3ek7IbFUw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEBgUbj-MIPW9QTDyIGICg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=how%20is%20domestic%20violence%20categorized%20by%20psychiatrist&f=false
Ok brb
Prat 3 Everything now and before is AJMO
There is blood evidence in this case hair evidence-print evidence and a lying defendant that FINALLY admitted to killing the victim although now her story is self defense-
Regardless if one chooses to believe the stories of DV previous- it matters not because by the defendants own telling she had a choice-
She was not deathly afraid that day-
She chose not to eave not to get out
she chose to take the time and get the gun-and then wait for him to exit the closet- …. she didnt run back through to the exit holding him back with the gun if he made a move to stop her
She never warned him
she never said stop or let me go or I have a gun
I will shoot
she never warned him off
Once she had the gun a loaded gun
she waited
holding it steady with both hands -a gun which she had taken then released the safety then cocked it waiting
she then chose to shoot Travis- aiming it not at the ceiling- not at his feet not a his legs not anywhere but directly at his head-
Then she tells us she lost the gun when travis fell on her- saying kill u bitch
she was able to release herself- without injury- she was able to stand- she was able to move away from his reach
and then what did she do? Well she says she cant remember-
but we know she chose not to leave -not to go get help -not to hide- she chose to get a knife & stab him 27 times including in the heart- in the abdomen- on his head – in his back then she slit his throat-
Cont part4
Part 4
What does the blood evidence tell us?
It tells us that Travis was trying to get away from her- that he turned his back on her that he was at the sink bleeding it tells us he was most likely crawling away thru the hallway- and those spatters high up could be nothing more than cast off as she repeatedly stabbed away at him…
On what blood evidence are you basing the fact that you have concluded a scenario where Travis is crawling down the hallway?
I vehemently disagree that what you are referring to as “spatters high up” are cast off. The trajectory of blood spurt from the throat slit from both sides map out. Arterial spurts do not resemble cast off whatsoever.
hall, after most of the blood had drained from his body..-and it tells us she dragged him back to the bathroom…back to that shower
and the placement and cleaning of his body in that shower tells us she had no remorse- she washed him not lovingly but inorder to clean away evidence and that watered down blood throughout the scene- it tells us she attempted to destroy all evidence of herself at the scene
She attempted to destroy all evidence and yet the place is a bloodbath with many blood patterns undisturbed. I would agree she may have attempted and aborted attempts to clean up. I personally do not believe she had any remorse, but I do not agree that is interpretable by the crime scene.
And there being 1 bloody print with her blood tells us she received 1 injury that day not more-and it was due to her use of the knife in the killing-not in selfdefense but in cold blooded murder-
She may have only received that injury- I am inclined to agree with you, but if you think it was due to her use of a knife ( again likely was) what is your explanation as to why the knife was sharp enough to inflict the wounds it did, and yet resulted only in a singular deposit of her blood in that area? It is just not reasonable that is the case. Are you clear that I do not feel Arias killed Travis in self defense although I believe the evidence points to a struggle? You nor I can say how that wound left evidence at the scene without proper DNA swabbing and analysis. It is absolutely protocol to know whose blood is whose. Why don’t we?
and the evidence tells us that the cut was not that big of a deal- why because she needed only some bandaids to stop the flow- and what does TA defensive wounds and the LACK of defensive wounds to JA tell us?- that he was not the aggressor that there was never any real danger to JA in this “struggle”—and the evidence at the scene supports this-
I completely agree she was the aggressor. Imo opinion Travis fought for his life, in imminent fear for his life after already rendered incapacitated by a bullet. That said, as I stated previously- no real way to know that without the typing from the scene. We can make general assumptions, yes. That is not what I am after, I am trying to piece the chronology to the incident, to the evidence.
AJMO
2bcont
Hopefully, this is linkhttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/3/206.full
And the notation on the mats? The Kool aid?
ps- I am making a point on assumptions at your expense friend, I know you can take it
B
That I can (heheh), but there has not been a single word (nor did I see any rental notations) about the damned Kool-aid stains. Grape? Lime? Lemon? or something red, I s
till cannot believe one of the attorneys didn’t press Columbo about the color of the stains. Jodi also shook her head “no” when he said the cars went out with mats, she brought that car back with all mats missing and we all know if Jodi says it, it must be true…
I did wear my brain out trying to explain that smoke smell, though, and am glad to know that it had nothing to do with Jodi. Lord, she has enough crap heaped upon her without messing with Mormon teachings against smoking and another 6 days of defense s l o w l y trying to claim Travis sneaked out to her car on June 4th and puffed his uber-religious brains out to further abuse Jodi. Hope I don’t sound bitter, but another day of Nurmi or Wilmott and their repetitive molasses-like questioning might just put me over the edge.
You can take it and give it Elizabeth- that is a compliment.
But my point is, you are making the assumption the “heavy smoke smell” was noted prior to the rental, it is on both receipts- so how are you arriving at that conclusion? There are no notations on the receipt about the kool aid stains or missing mats- e only learned that via testimony. I do agree that it is POSSIBLE the heavy smoke smell could have been present- I am simply saying we cannot exclude it had something to do with Jodi’s activities. Sometimes evidence is absolutely non-evidence- happens.
B
Part5
How does the evidence at the scene etc support that there was no real danger to JA there was no real struggle?s
Look at the sink only one area of one sink shows any disturbance which is blood- and an open door cabinet- all items are upright all items are pristine- the closet same except for the blood… look at the wastebasket it is upright with trash inside…look at the scales they are not broken – look at the bath tub- all items are upright not turned over- look at the toilet roll not bloody- look at the robe it is hanging undisturbed—
There was blood on and underneath the scales. The clear scale was taken into evidence- not presented. The wastebasket contents, marked for evidence- not presented. Two separate and distinct carpet extractions- both taken into evidence, neither presented.
If you analyze the pics from the crime scene, are you able to see where the latent group stops their “survey”?
You simply cannot say without typing whose blood is whose, and all the transfer physical evidence from the scene alone, there was no struggle.
and look at the pictures/towels on the wall in the bathroom first they are not askew none are covered in blood… the pics are not broken- not knocked off in the struggle- the shower door is not broken it is not askew- look at the blinds in the bathroom they are not torn they are not out of place they are not hanging askew they are not full of blood …
then look at all the pictures hanging in that hallway- all are not laying on the floor they are not askew they seem totally undisturbed- look at the closet- the picture on the shelf is not disturbed- it did not fall from the shelf it is not broken—
I feel like any response I have to these comments about what is not disturbed will come across as snark, not at all my intention, but in the context of a very bloody and evidence-rich crime scene, I am not understanding how you see pictures on a wall where there is voluminous blood several feet below them as an example, leads anyone to believe anything other than this assault took place below them , thus leaving them un-bloodied and undisturbed. Not uncommon.
Look at the carpet there are no bloody footprints anywhere past the edge- look at the bedroom besides the bed there is nothing askew- the camera bag is upright- the nightstand stuff is not disturbed and the picture is not down the things on the dresser are not broken lying on the floor-
Past what edge? What footprints are you seeing? I am not aware of footprints from the carpet being introduced as evidence.
There is no evidence of a struggle in the bedroom outside of what clearly occurs beginning in the bathroom. I have not heard of one expert or other suggesting that the assault initiates anywhere but the bathroom.
Where did this DV struggle BETWEEN the two of them take place?
It didnt-
The only struggle that was going on in that house was the struggle of Travis trying disparately to get away from the brutal attack and Jodi unwavering pursuit of him-
The chronology was not laid out by the prosecution or the defense- the tafts of hair the blood being mixed or not- the roots etc none of it matters why not because JA refuses to tell the truth of what happened and evidence is telling something completely different
You seriously just said that the chronology does not matter because JA refuses to tell the truth? You are saying the prosecution and the defense have equal motivation for not “laying it out”?
the scene was altered but what we do have above all else is the fact that TA had selfdefense wounds which included an almost severing of his thumb –
Not following your point here at all
JA IF there is more blood came only from that slice to her finger which is evidence of slippage not defense-
- if she lost some hair at the scene then that also plays into TA’s self defense NOT Jas
I agree that TA was in self defense mode while being attacked- thus the term “struggle” so I expect to see that. When you say slippage – you are not referring to the pathology term of post mortem skin slippage, correct?
Again she walked away unscathed- went merrily on her way to the love seat with Ryan and dinner with friends and then back home to live life to its fullest-
Travis he lay dead butchered brutally stuffed in a shower-
God rest his soul he did. But parts of Travis in terms of his attack are all over that hallway and bathroom, they did not got there that way because there an attack that he did not attempt to save his own life- which is all I am saying should absolutely be part of the states case.
AJMo
2B cont
Part 6
the end-
jeni says:
April 6, 2013 at 8:15 am
When this trial started, it looked to me like well,she admitted to doing it,why are they even having a trial and why,oh why, are they televising it. Martinez is so good and Jodi’s lawyers aren’t bad either, considering the facts they have to work with. However, after hearing Samuels, for me 1st degree murder was off the table This was a crime of passion. Now after hearing ALV I’m starting to have reasonable doubts that maybe this was self-defense and,most importantly, after hearing the list of women Travis was involved with(at least 1 of whom was married) there could be a lot of other people who had reason to harm him Even that Ninja story is starting to make sense I know,I’m gullible. Something somewhat similar happened to me years ago when I was the outsider in a town in a different state and someone introduced me to the local charming ‘predator’ Luckily no one got hurt .Some things are better left unsaid This case is so sad. What a waste of such a promising young life(Travis’) and Jodi’s too I’m glad I’m not young anymore -everything is much better now
Jeni- thanks for weighing in- took courage in this room, lol.
Here’s the point- what are the chances out of 18 there are more than one or two juror mirroring Jeni’s sentiment?
B
—
Hi Jeni thanks for weighing in glad to have ya here-
Blink-
There is a chance that at least 1 person on the jury will mirror Jenis sentiments but if they base their thought process like this then they are not understanding self defense-
It matters not if one chooses to believe ALV and lying Jodi without so much as an iota of physical abuse perpetrated by TA it matters not that TA may have grabbed her wrist and stopped her to apologize which is the DV that supposedly spurred JAs actions-
what JA herself claims went through her head and prompted her to run in the closet… was this event no other
It is only selfdefense if a reasonable person can conclude that jodi acted that day those moments in selfdefense when she killed him and a reasonable person can not get there-
A reasonable person would have to believe that JA entered the closet to get away from TA-grabbing her wrist and stopping her from exiting…TA who by Jas own account never made it to the closed Cdoor until she was dropping from the shelf gun in hand…
A reasonable person would have to believe that JA got the gun not to shoot not to kill but to just hold it out in front of her believing it was empty uncocked saftey on ready-
never warning TA stop I have your gun,…and somehow this gun was loaded and it accidentally just went off as it was cocked and ready safety off
A reasonable person would have to believe that somehow all this accidentally occurred and somehow JA by some luck of the gunslingers just happened to shoot him directly in the head execution style while TA was in motion in somekind of balancing football dance of the marionettes-
premeditation-
By Jodis own account it was premeditated- without even bringing in the texts the revenge the trip the gas cans the gun stolen from grandparents the saving of the gas receipts- etc-
Premeditation occurred the moment Jodi Arias chose to get the gun- it occurred when she did not warn off Travis-
it occurred when she released the safety when she cocked the gun when she pointed it at him with both hands after choosing not to run to the exit but instead wait in the middle of the bathroom she was not cornered
she chose to aim point and shoot the gun directly at his head- She did this even after being raised to never point a gun at a person nomatter what – because it leads to death- and STILL she chose to wait in the middle of the bathroom instead of running toward the exit–
Premeditation occurred again when Travis fell onto her after being shot- and she rolled away- got up heard what he said as he lay on the floor-and she chose to get a knife instead of running away instead of picking up that scale and hitting him on the head throwing it at him instead of spraying him in the eyes with that cleaner or hairspray under the sink-
She got the knife and she stabbed him- OVER and OVER and OVER again- and between each stab she could have stopped ran away but she didnt she stayed at it and still was not satisfied until he was dead she made sure he was dead with one final act of premeditation she slit his throat deliberately- gruesomely finally from ear to ear—-
B you asked
Assume the jury hangs or worse, an acquittal. How do you think your perception will change since you personally believe Arias to be guilty as charged?
First I would have to hear the juries reasoning because I do believe that the case of premeditation was proven if only by JA herself-
and I do believe the case of self defense was disproved by the lack of injuries to JA and the horrendous injuries of selfdefense TA suffered
in addition to no injuries that point to HIS attacking her- no abrasions on his hands- no bite marks no scratches on his body- ALL definite signs of a woman trying desperately to defend herself against an attacker
I believe the only way that the jury will come back hung or with an acquittal is IF they choose to disregard the facts and evidence based on sympathy for a killer-
cont
AJMO
Final thought
“To his defense ( pardon the pun) I have seen veteran prosecutors lately that are absolutely not current with their knowledge and utilization of social media as it relates to evidence development or trial influences. This is a fat mistake, in a high profile case I believe JM is learning as he goes. Maybe just in time- time will tell.
B”
This I agree with wholeheartedly- it was proven in the CA case that the defense went over and beyond utilizing the web the blogs etc- they were able to capitalize on the one area they needed to to supply doubt- (still dont believe it was reasonable) they capitalized on the publics hatred of the Anthonys specifically George and they capitalized on Georges creep factor- they also were able to capitalize on the talk of perhaps there being an accident that was covered up- they did it well-
The prosecution as you know chose not to scourer the web for helpful hints to where they needed to focus their case- and ran from any info that was offered because I guess they didnt want to risk having to be embarrassed over who developed it… but did make the mistake of having a nice Det join in on a blog- sad but true.
I hope JM is learning as he goes too B, and that is why I am thankful for you and your team and for posters like Jeni
AJMO
Peace
Mamere says: maybe 3rd time is the charm
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/3/206.full
Excellent abstract. Hope it’s clickable.
I totally agree that further and contemporary study should be in the process- if it is not. That article is 13 years old, and if that is coming up in recent search, it is certainly a concern. Sadly, this is a very real issue.
B
Not sure how many of you are watching the trial on YouTube (or live) but I happened to catch this snippet posted on YouTube. LV walks over and hugs Nurmi after the trial. I was appalled!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPG4jBugKbA
One more thing. Take away all the blather going on in that courtroom right now with the battered woman syndrome (or whatever you want to call it). The bottom line: shooting, stabbing 27-29 times, and slitting someones throat does NOT constitute self defense. Nothing else matters. Stick just to those facts…you cant make it sound, look, or feel like self defense. If you can, someone explain it to me cause I dont get it.
Now, try to say it wasnt premeditated:
Drive from another state in a rented car
Dye your hair a different color
Turn your license plates on the rental car upside down
Shut your cell phone off so it’s not pinging in the state at all while you are there
Buy gas in other states but never in the state where you kill someone
Be sure to tell your parents (when asked) “I cant tell you where Im going” when they ask where you are going
Bring a gun and a few knives with you on the trip to the state where the man killed just happens to be shot and stabbed to death
Be certain to put the dog gate up so the dog cant come upstairs where the murder takes place
Make certain you act completely normal when you drive to another state and make out with that person like nothing ever happened. Because, well, that’s how we all act after we’ve just brutally defended ourselves against a horrible (accused) pedophile and Jodi abuser .
And if you want to be sure people believe this was self defense, make sure you dont hurt or injure the person you are defending yourself against enough to get away from them, make sure you slaughter them. I mean, a person who’s throat isnt slit from ear to ear is bound to keep coming after you. 27 other stab wounds and a gunshot definitely are not going to be enough.
Oh, be sure to string out the testimonies for as long as possible. Hey, maybe you can make the state go bankrupt and then they wont be able to afford to keep you in prison for LIFE. Either that, or maybe with some luck the trial will go on for so many years they will forget you ever committed Premeditated Murder and let you go. The jury will be asleep, so who will notice?
I think Ive just gone over the edge into cuckoo land!
I stumbled upon this analysis of the trial tonight. I have no idea who these women are. I found it interesting and I agree with most of what they are saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O8HtT4l0dEc#!
@NaNa
There is enough evidence to convince me it was premeditated. I’m placing my faith in the jury because the evidence presented speaks for itself. So, we’re both in cuckoo land.
lol, y’all are gonna need a bigger nest.
B
In the police interogattion when Arias was firsttalking about Travis being killed, she did mention that if she would do something like that she would have at least worn gloves. This si not a direct quote but absolutely an accurate summation of what she said , that she would wear gloves.
Within the interview after Arias came up with the ninjas story, continuing interview, Arias showed Flores her finger, saying it was injured when the ninjas attacked. Flores said it was the kind of a wound that could happen when a knife slips through your fingers.
It is worth knowing what a cut or broken finger looks like in various stages of healing, because they had her in custody six weeks after the murder. Kinda wish they would have x-rayed her finger then and there.
But again, Arias clung to the ninja story for YEARS, didn’t she? Maybe they were believing there was a slight possibility that there were other people involved until she said there weren’t?
Whether he was stabbed first or shot first. I beleive he was caught unaware, and that the struggle was a result of him fighting for his life.
question about the camera
is there any way to tell if the pics of travis in the shower were taken with a zoom lense position?
What height was travis, does anyone know?
I am trying to figure out where she was standing. There was a box found with a water mark that they thought signified it had been in the room when substantial water was on the floor.( It could have absorbed water making the water mark higher than the actual level of the water it was exposed to. , Did they see any evidence of water overflow into the closet ?)
I am trying to figure out if she could have been on a box when she shot him, justifying the trajectory.
If he was shot first and was shot at the sink, he would have been standing.
Then again, I have zero ability to interperet this crime scene( what the heck am I doing even trying?!) -
Shouldn’t the state have this all figured out?
Where is a computerized mock up they used in the OJ case when you need it?
The box would not withstand her weight, but there is no evidence it was anywhere but in the closet and water from a source definately tainted with blood was absorbed by it to create the water/bloodstain mark.
I can tell from the shadowing the person taking the pics changes positions a few times, to include left, right, below, and in some cases straight on, I have one editor who opines she may have been standing on the top at one point. The testimony, which I will state I believe lacked a few details, imo, was that LE believes the person using the camera set the camera to autofocus.
Without the knowledge of exactly what pics were enhanced and how, to include the EXIF data, there is no real way to conclusively say, imo.
My opinion only, I believe the state does have this figured out quite well, but they limited their exhibits to prove the charges they indicted her for, and ultimately what the jury will render their verdict on. They have the burden to prove their case to a successful prosecution so they can use what they want.
B
If there is a word to describe man hater (ie: like misogynist), that would be ALV.
I also believe she is a lesbian (which is NOT an issue for me NOR meant to be a hate comment)…but…one who despises men. I get that vibe, including the ‘I’m not fond of men’ vibe, too. Is it just me?
Observe her psyche as she testifies about a man she’s never met. Then, has the audacity to approach Sam Alexander in the ladies room, to say ‘it’s nothing personal’. It sure as heck is! MISANDRY! She’ll console a woman, but what if she met up Travis’ brother in the court halls? That would be interesting.
“Are you angry with me Mr. Martinez?” The mind won’t go where it hasn’t been so I interpret this to mean….’I'm angry @ YOU Mr. Martinez”. She clearly demonstrated a lack of respect for the court system and male prosecution….IMHO <——– this is NOT intended to be a hate comment and I cannot say it enough.
I BELIEVE ALV is a genuine misandrist, and although she has seen the texts between Jodi and Travis, she has the ability to use her personal feelings to put a twist on them. She is an expert, indeed. I wonder how many male victims she's treated in dv relationships?
We all know if those texts were read in completion (without the cutting and pasting), we'd clearly see it was Travis who was distancing himself from HIS abuser.
-snipped
"The body of evidence suggests that there should be no argument. Diffusing energy in an ongoing gender war takes away from the critical task of developing effective prevention and intervention strategies."
http://alycelaviolette.com/Women-Who-Hit-Their-Male-Partners.htm
Gender war? My momma is a victim services advocate for the city police and RCMP. She has gone to court, supporting MEN who've been physically and emotionally abused by their wife/partner. Further, she has also helped couples in gay and lesbian relationships, involving domestic violence. It just so happens more women report their abuse, which Jodi never did. There's always some kind of record or paper trail that proves there's abuse in a relationship. Even if charges are never pressed, records are kept. Perhaps this is handled differently in my country. IDK.
If this is a gender war, it's ALV's war.
AJMHO
Just want to say that I have no confirmation that ALV approached Sam in court or in the restroom. I do believe the version that she spoke to Sam briefly when leaving the courtroom- but again, not confirmed independently.
If that is true for any reason that was not initiated by Samantha, it is/was inappropriate on the surface.
However, we also know that both Travis’s sisters were in chambers the day before, came out sobbing, and with paperwork in hand so let’s keep open about what these 2 issues are about until we have confirmed info.
ALV is married, has been for a very long time, I have no information as to her sexual preference outside of that, but I have not witnessed anything from her that would leave me with the impression it is at issue here.
B
Here are a number of links for those interested in the blood cast off and arterial spray in the forensic setting.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=blood+cast+off+and+arterial+spray&oq=blood+cast+off+and+arterial+spray&gs_l=hp.12…0.0.2.7908.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0…0.0…1c..8.psy-ab.WUGEX53hhq4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.cGE&fp=f18f27e046486f57&biw=1218&bih=671
I will tiny it:
http://tinyurl.com/cwjllzs
When I first saw the crime scene photos I was sure those pieces of carpet and wall would be entered, especially as that evidence was taken in the most key spots of the whole crime scene! I didn’t realize they hadn’t been covered and I can’t think of a good reason to leave them out–unless there was some mishandling, they lost them, or some other dumb reason.
That arterial spray pattern has been evident since day one. Travis fought like hell to save his own life and I believe he nearly did. He thought he could stop her without having to kill her.
GRAPHIC WARNING
Thanks WG- the first ppt is outstanding and if anyone wants a general and basic overview of blood pattern analysis- but can stand the few actual crime scene images within, this is a great layperson read. To apply to a crime scene however, one would need all the information contained therein to render any sort of opinion would be my only caution.
As an example, the variables in porous v non porous surfaces and in some cases an outdoor scene or other air mass/movement contributors can alter just a “visual” read.
Thanks WG, great resource demonstrating what I have not been doing a very good job with-
B
This article for Staples High School, Westport, CT, is a very good primer for the blood evidence at this crime scene. I’m glad high school students are learning the biology, chemistry, physics involved. Pair that with sociology, psychology, religion, philosophy…math…well, we might have some education going on. Way to go, SHS.
http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/forensics/08-blood/bloodstains.htm
Did anyone else witness La Violette speak with Travis’ sister in the courtroom? How accurate is this information?
“Expert” witness Alyce LaViolette took her potty break early last week and accosted victim Travis Alexander’s sister Samantha, who was sitting in the courtroom gallery. LaViolette violated AZ laws on victims’ rights by accosting the victim’s sister. Samantha escaped to the Victims Room and LaViolette continued to the bathroom.
This happened while media attention was on Juror #5, sitting quietly in her seat. Check out @SuzinNEOhio on Twitter, who was directly behind Samantha when it happened.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O8HtT4l0dEc#!
Thanks for your responses Blink- Ill try to answer your questions and better clarify my thoughts:
Blink you want to show chronology based on the evidence thru typing and blood spatter etc and you seem to think the prosecution is lacking because there seems to be no attempt to do so?
Well this cant happen- you nor any other expert will ever be able to tell exactly what happened where- not looking at the blood not by typing it
Without a videotape of the crime, nobody can ever be exact, but I maintain that blood evidence, it’s patterns and “info” with proper analysis can come pretty close, and in this case I believe their is a wealth of data that can outline the origin of it’s source and associated information to tell this story with a reasonable degree of certainty, if not overall certainty from a qualified expert. I am trained to analyze this in context with the overall scene evidence, but what I am talking about is the Dr. Henry Lee’s of the world. When I say typing it, I am also using that term to describe it’s DNA properties, not the actual blood type. I don’t disagree that when parts of a crime scene are compromised ( water splashed or wiping) it can be impossible to reach conclusions to certainty, but in my limited opinion there is more than enough to work with here where some conclusions can be drawn to recreate this incident, leading to the brutal murder of Travis Alexander. I am suggesting that analysis of the scene, the blood evidence, the autopsy protocol and yes, the actual pictures taken accidentally combined with collatterall information can be loaded into several forensic modeling tools with good results. For the final deliverable to have any integrity however, it must be built from the crime scene first however.
You have seen the prosecution refer to a picture of a wounded Travis on the floor and refer to what is clearly a bleeding wound as “red staining” correct? There’s a reason for that.
To further clarify, I am referring to chronology of wound events, to my knowledge, unless other factors I am not aware of (such as a power outage from a grid, or other similar verifiable variable that could produce a time stamp void (there is a light on in the bathroom shower shot so I know this happens NOT during a power outage) there would be no way to determine overall chronology to certainty and before anyone says what about the timestamps on the pics- stay tuned on that one.
because JA was injured and THEN she attempted to clean the scene any of her blood could be simply a result of transfer after the killing-
the same with the print- although mxed with Travis blood could have happened in her attempt to clean up-
The blood definitively answers the question of whether or not she was there & whether or not she attempted to clean the scene not much more than that
If you are referring to the entire blood evidence at the scene, I completely disagree, and if you are referring just to Jodi’s- I would offer that can’t be proven one way or the other because we don’t know where her blood was found, what additional prints were found outside of what has been presented.
Jodi Arias was not injured in any selfdefense struggle not hers anyway- we know this because Ryan got real up close and personal- –
There was copious amounts of blood at the scene and we can reasonably infer that all but the handprint was travis’ NOT hers-
why because she was virtually unscathed-
That is absolutely not correct. You don’t know what latents were gleaned from that scene, nor do I. You don’t know if during an evidentiary hearing 50 prints of Arias’s were suppressed or excluded from submission because they could not be authenticated to occur on June 4th and the only that could was the mixed blood left side palm. You don’t know how many prints were Travis’s, where they were located or what can be inferred or concluded by them. None of us do. In fact, the only thing I can really do is in a general way tell where the processing powder voids are outside of what was presented in court.
In fairness, I am an analyst, so I am trained to as little inferring as possible. If I can’t prove my inference, it cannot be part of my finding as anything but “possible” – if that.
again the only struggle that we can reasonably infer took place is from Travis trying to struggle to flee not fight and JA pursuing him-
He has selfdefense wounds she doesnt-
he has wounds from where he was attacked- she has one wound to her finger-
it is REASONABLE to infer that JA didnt act in selfdefense because the law states you can only use equal force under imminent threat-
the slippage I was referring to involved her hand slipping on the knife – I am sure you understand-
as to why only one cut-it seems by the evidence we can REASONABLY infer she was lucky- she had COMPLETE control of the knife except once when the knife slipped-
She may have been wearing gloves and received that cut cleaning up, pulling the knife out of his chest after some time passed, or when she broke a glass ( she says) when she went downstairs to wash her hands ( again, not introduced, but taken into evidence).
My point is that the wound blood is evidence and could, if appropriately processed, could PROVE aspects of the State’s case if conclusions can be drawn from it, and I promise you if her blood is in places besides that print, and they know it, it is part of a story. Either way, I see blood patterns that were not diluted, and imo, depending on who they belong to, tell a piece of the story, period. As I ultimately believe it could strenghten the state’s case, the only reason I can come up with for not including it is that they flat out did not due that onscene diligence ( wouldn’t need to as I have seen the macros- it is enough coupled with the tech and testing to elicit expert testimony, way enough.) or they believe it opens the door for confirmation of an interpretable struggle that concerns the state the jury could find Arias acted in self defense over their theory.
as to that spatter you are referring to higher up which you say had to have come from the throat slashing- based upon trajectory- perhaps-
please Show it to me, as I am unaware of this as most definitely proving that theory-
The left arterial spatter corresponds with the origin of it’s source (Travis left neck placement) and the much less severe force to the inury on that side, and then the right upper wall arterial spurt, which actually increased in force and depth from left to right, and severed both the carotid and jugular on the right side.
Blink we both know that blood can tell the story but its truth can be masked by luminol by time by cleaning attempts – water & gravity -etc–
you asked:On what blood evidence are you basing the fact that you have concluded a scenario where Travis is crawling down the hallway?
I am basing it On the same evidence you used to conclude that the struggle occurred under the pictures-
Yes, but I have referenced exactly what blood indications I am referring to and what i believe they represent to me in context of the injury and the scene. So my question is exactly what within the pictures you are looking at indicate Travis was crawling down the hallway at any point? Yes, it is a loaded question, lol.
BTW this is what i am saying there was no fight there that day only the struggle to stay alive by fleeing of TA
not JA
too many things are undisturbed- and the selfdefense wounds to TA and lack of wounds to JA as well as all of TAS injuries support this.
you said:
I personally do not believe she had any remorse, but I do not agree that is interpretable by the crime scene.-
-She did not take care of him in death- she did not cover him or dress him or close his eyes or place him in bed- she never placed any beloved item with him-
Crime scene interpretation is not that simple, when building the theory of the victim/suspect interaction- You are making an assumption on what you think you see, and I understand that, but in no way is that how we can arrive as a conclusion that means the suspect has no remorse- just a few variables I will throw out to demonstrate my point:
1. Suspect may have simply ran out of time, was interrupted at the scene.
2. Suspect was staging the scene for another purpose or to redirect outcome.
3. Suspect believed that putting him in the shower was a demonstration of remorse (requires victimology and offender profile)
4. Suspect deleting his nude pictures was a sign of remorse.
5. Suspect keeping dog out of area was a sign of remorse.
See what I mean?
you said-
You nor I can say how that wound left evidence at the scene without proper DNA swabbing and analysis.
Actually Blink it can be reasonably inferred as she had only one injury and the evidence supports her story (in the car) of only this wound –
What evidence in the car? Have you seen evidence from inside the car of her blood or injury presented? Yes, rhetorical, you can’t refer to non-evidence in support. There is no blood evidence from inside the rental car that has ever been presented in this case and some rental dude saying he saw kool aid stains he washed personally is not even evidence of kool aid, lol.
You can bet if blood evidence was found in that vehicle that matched either Jodi or Travis it would have been admitted for trial.
Does not exist.
You said
It is absolutely protocol to know whose blood is whose. Why don’t we?-
Blink I agree that it is protocol as was the testing of the fiber evidence- but you cant UnF a case
LE did not do this is my reasonable inference based upon the Det answer to the fiber evidence- we never teted it-
Luckily in this case it has no effect or shouldnt because we know who killed TA and we know he had defensive wounds in addition to stab wounds to his back in addition to a gunshot wound to the head and a slicing of his throat-
The jury should be able to REASONABLY conclude from the blood evidence presented that JA was killing him as he tried desperately to get away-
You said
I completely agree she was the aggressor. Imo opinion Travis fought for his life, in imminent fear for his life after already rendered incapacitated by a bullet. That said, as I stated previously- no real way to know that without the typing from the scene. We can make general assumptions, yes. That is not what I am after, I am trying to piece the chronology to the incident, to the evidence.
-
Whether or not there is typing of the scene we will never know the chronology of the attack certainly not what came first the gunshot or a stab wound..
What we can REASONABLY infer from the scene the blood AND the clean up along with Arias versions is
JA was never in imminent fear nor did she use an appropriate amount of force to escape imminent death-
By JAs lack of injuries we can REASONABLY infer that all the blood except that print was Travis’ as he bled out from all the wounds Arias inflicted in her goal to kill him.
You wrote;
There was blood on and underneath the scales.
There was a drop of blood and a smear- thats it-
How do you know that? Which scale? Again, was it admitted into evidence? Do we know why only the clear one was taken into inventory? Unless the processing reports of same are made public there is no way to conclude what is or isn’t on the scale or what it might “prove”. It may not be useful to the case, but what if that blood belonged to neither Travis or Arias- or was a combination of both? That information is highly relevant. There is no such thing as “just a drop of blood or just a smear” in crime scene analysis and subsequent testing. The results dictate the value, not visual observation alone.
whether it was typed or not can not go to show the chronology of the attack or even if the blood on the scale was Arias blood it cant show she was injured there wounded in a fight-
Why not? because she cleaned the scene- just as her finger wound bled on the car steering wheel after she had already killed travis
At the scene she had an already injured finger which could have bled out during the cleaning- thereby rendering typing useless to show chronology of events
You: The clear scale was taken into evidence- not presented.
why would they present it what would it go to show other than it wasnt broken in a fight to the death dtuggle?
You: The wastebasket contents, marked for evidence- not presented.
Again what would it go to show? if Arias blood or travis it could have happened before death while shving or after cleaning by Arias-
Dunno, that’s my point. It was taken into evidence for a reason.
You:
Two separate and distinct carpet extractions- both taken into evidence, neither presented.
Actually the carpet was presented not sure if jury was present…there are pictures of the expert holding the cut out in court- on WS the carpet was discussed in trial though of this i am sure
There are several carpet sections, and the two I am referring to were not presented in court. One is the carpet section leading from the bathroom into the closet, and the other is a different section to include the matt underneath which is part of the overall large section where the carpet meets the tile area. I do not read at WS but that is not my only issue wrt to carpet in the case.
B
You said:
If you analyze the pics from the crime scene, are you able to see where the latent group stops their “survey”?
No Blink I am not able to see as I am not privy to all crimescene photos or the sequence of when they were taken- but I do realize most presented in court were already processed-
What I mean by that is if you are looking at the hallway shot after it was processed for prints, as an example, you can determine the level the tech stopped processing. In other shots, say on the doors, you can see the powder remnants area and in most cases in at least the macros their is generally measurements to define the area tested. This is based on protocol for that forensic resource or CST. So we know a great deal of processing took place, with next to know submissions.
You said:
You simply cannot say without typing whose blood is whose, and all the transfer physical evidence from the scene alone, there was no struggle.
-
Again Blink whether typing or not the blood evidence can never prove this as Arias was bleeding AFTER she injured her finger and she like in the car could have bled out throughout the scene during the cleanup
Or she put on dishwashing gloves she found under the sink, or in cupboard- in my mind if I see a suspect wearing gloves at one point and not another, I find that investigatively significant- to what end I cant say without other details, but it is to a criminal investigator.
You:
I feel like any response I have to these comments about what is not disturbed will come across as snark, not at all my intention, but in the context of a very bloody and evidence-rich crime scene, I am not understanding how you see pictures on a wall where there is voluminous blood several feet below them as an example, leads anyone to believe anything other than this assault took place below them , thus leaving them un-bloodied and undisturbed. Not uncommon.
Perhaps Blink- but again if there was more of a struggle than just Travis trying to get away-crawl away from his attacker then why arent the pics disturbed why is the blood only lower?
and respectfully Blink I was not only talking about the hallway pics but everything in total
Because the struggle occurs on the floor. We know one place it did not- the bathroom sink. You also have a relatively confined area of a combination of aspirated blood and blood drops, which could only have come by someone tall enough to leave them as they are recorded. So you have that. You have suspect/victim interaction in a position where a wounded individual is standing at some point, and you have clear and distinct varying patterns that exist in the tile hallway, and into and including the carpet area where an individual lost arterial blood (in my view) and an extensive bleeding wound that soaked through the floor carpet into the wood subfloor, and I have seen areas of the tile grout underneath the tile itself.
Travis was wounded at the sink, he stood over it, at least at some point.
The scene does not bolster what the defense claims happened-
You:
Past what edge? What footprints are you seeing? I am not aware of footprints from the carpet being introduced as evidence.
The carpet was discussed and the patterns were said to be consistent with a person walking thru them—yet there are no bloody prints past that area- so Travis never got past that area- his stuggle to get away to flee ended there-
My point was to demonstrate what you are calling footprints are not. Possible foot traffic, perhaps, but there are what I consider two separate and distinct shoe prints or possible shoe prints via fabric transfer on the tile floor a left and right, near the entrance to the master closet from the bathroom. Again, why no expert on those? For me, if I can prove Jodi Arias is putting socks over her shoes ( I can see that in the voids, imo, but would need macros ) that goes a LONG way to premeditation for me, or whatever else can be gleaned by the fact that there only appears to be two, and none on the steps, etc.
You said-
You seriously just said that the chronology does not matter because JA refuses to tell the truth?
No I said
The chronology was not laid out by the prosecution or the defense-
the tafts of hair the blood being mixed or not- the roots etc none of it matters why not because JA refuses to tell the truth of what happened and evidence is telling something completely different
(than her selfdefense)
meaning again we will never know the chronology because only she knows the blood evidence can not tell us- as again the scene was cleaned by JA who had a bleeding finger- all of it is compromised
What the blood DOES show us without the typing – is the same thing TAs injuries and JAs lack of injuries show us-
TA was fleeing for his life- as JA was brutally attacking him-
I don’t agree that is a conclusion v a possible theory. I do not believe the trajectory, depth and wound patterning on Travi’s SCALP, back, right rear neck indicate the offender is above him or he is kneeling at all. They also do not reflect they are made by a 5’6″ offender while he is standing. I believe they occur when Travis turns to leave the scene after he is shot at the sink, and Jodi is still pointing the gun at him and he is in desperate fear she is going to finish the job so he tries to bodyslam her so she does not shoot him- but he is clearly incapacitated, and he lands on top of her. She is armed with the knife, and begins stabbing him, wiggling out from under him as she hits his scalp twice, and he is reaching up to grab the knife without success, but causes the slip of her grip that wounds her. She stabs him repeatedly with limited range (9 wounds within 5×6 midline) none of which enter chest and only nick bone ( this applied force deficit is just physics) until he stops moving. She gets out from underneath him and turns him over- he is still alive so she stabs him in the torso, then neck and finally slits his throat .
Nothing in my theory makes this any less murder, and nothing makes it defense on the part of Arias. In fact, I would submit that their would be no other reason for Arias to have a gun and knife on her person, with socks over her shoes, to commit premeditated murder.
Imo, she was in his way to escape the scene and already shot him, likely moving toward him to do the same again and would have except the gun jammed.
You said:
God rest his soul he did. But parts of Travis in terms of his attack are all over that hallway and bathroom, they did not got there that way because there an attack that he did not attempt to save his own life- which is all I am saying should absolutely be part of the states case.
—I agree with this Blink where I disagree is that i believe the evidence shows the attempt he made to save his own life was his trying desperately to flee to block blows to crawl away NOT engage with JA in any battle -
I learn so much from our discussions Blink thanks for humoring me
I am glad and I always learn new perspectives as well.
Respectfully submitted
AJMO
Peace
Word – Word Girl! Love ‘em! Thanks for the laugh this morning!
blink says article is 13 yrs. old
Mamere says:
Sorry, if what I was trying to suggest (as a change for JM to make) from defense witness’s own testimony of DV by TA TO tying her expertise TO JA’s type of stalking. Have way moved off of the issue of domestic violence onto suggesting how state could bring focus back to defendants stalking behavior with studies.
Re-route issue of DV by victim to category of Stalking, subsumed under broader DV, and introduced by defense’s own expert.
Blink, with no edit and only a 3″ typing area shown, it is over my head to maneuver your wonderful blog. That bit of how state could re-route their questions BACK to defendant’s DV class A Stalking with murder took way too long. And apparently by your 13 yr. old comment just wasn’t expressed coherently by me.
Lol, your doing just fine and a welcome addition mamere.
B
mom.3.0. writes:
It is only selfdefense if a reasonable person can conclude that jodi acted that day those moments in selfdefense when she killed him and a reasonable person can not get there-
——————————————————————————————–
But in THIS case, there is something else going on with the ” reasonable person” prong.
Ordinarily ONE of the standards that self defense is held to is ” acted in a way a reasonable person would act in the same situation”
The defense is claiming that Arias reasoning was affect by the mitigating factor of PTSD and abuse, so therefore Arias acted the way a reasonable person would act if their reason had been affected by abuse. This is what the battered woman syndrome, or any ” abuse excuse” is all about.
In pursuing the line of battered woman defense, Arias is claiming that the PSTD and abuse altered Arias perception of imminent danger- defense is claiming that BECAUSE Arias was abused, she really thought that Travis was going to kill her when she dropped the camera. So obviously they have to give the jury a premise , so they gotta educate the jury to how Travis behavior is abusive. (But I know you know that!!)
By the way, doesn’t it feel like there is just SO much corroboration from the defense?
The defense has only TWO people, their experts , (who could be considered as character witnesses) but it seems like so many more-
Because they have kept Samuels and ALV on the stand for so long, there are DAYS of testimony on Arias behalf presenting her a credible and a victim.
But when it comes down to it, all this is coming from just two people, Samuels and ALV.
Blink-
The answers to the juror’s question had in some instances already been brought forth by Martinez questioning. But I don’t think ( so far) that the jury’s questions neccessarilly reflect a disregard for or lack of confidence in Martinez…
I think that their questions reflect the desire of the jurors to solve this for themselves and participate fully in the process. If they are an average person, they are not this empowered in their everyday lives, and having the opportunity to ask questions may in and of itslef be the motivation to do so.
I think the jury is not bored, I think they are ready to excercise their rights to pose questions- such a unique way to participate- and that they eat up anything they are given in terms of info- which is why I hope Martinez will give them more to think about that just whether or not they believe Arias.
I am also wondering about the general menatlity of a polace like Mesa- seems on the surface to have a lot of people who value self reliance greatly…. the realtively large Mormon element, the colorful Sheriff Joe Araipo ( sp)- we really are looking at what THIS TOWN thinks of all of this, and Mesa may not represent the not America in general…
good news to me is that no matter the motivation, the jurors questions seem intelligent.
Lyla, Nana- you got some room in that cukoo’s nest? i just submitted three posts in a row!
Who-
You said ..”reflect the desire of the jurors to solve this for themselves ..”
Yep, this is my exact fear. If solving it for themselves provides holes to the conclusions they are being asked to find, they may not be able to find one. You do not want a jury going into deliberations not sure at least how this occurs, when they have demonstrated they already have a level of forensic knowledge that had them inquiring why something was not tested.
Reminding all again, it just takes one.
B
@Mom.3.0
“I hope JM is learning as he goes too B, and that is why I am thankful for you and your team and for posters like Jeni
AJMO
Peace”
————————————————————–
Where would we be if we couldn’t come here and say our piece? My thanks also. JM puts me in shut-down mode during his direct examinations..I essentially “tune him out”. I hope I’m the oddball in the group and the jurors are able to get past his badgering. AV’s response after answering one of JM’s question was: “Mr. Martinez are you angry with me?” and the courtroom spontaneously burst out in laughter (even Juror#5) was just a little over the edge for me. If he loses the jurors respect this case may not go his way. But, I continue to hope and pray for justice for Travis Alexander.
Assume the jury hangs or worse, an acquittal. How do you think your perception will change since you personally believe Arias to be guilty as charged?
B
———————————————————————-
Attempting this again and hoping computer does not go all wonky on me lol. The orginal question asked me about how the prosecution presented it’s case and cross examined witnesses. I did not see the case presented because I did not see the trial until Jodi took the stand. I have given no opinion of the case presented, only to JM’s style. That opinion will not change because of the outcome of the jury. Like Mom3.0, I would have to hear their explanation as to how they arrived at their decision in the event of an acquittal or hung jury. That said, I cannot think of any explanation from them that I would understand in an acquittal. My opinions so far have been based on what I have seen and what I do know, and what makes sense to me. An acquittal would mean that all 12 jurors believed she had to defend herself or die. There is nothing that I have seen that would support this decision. It makes no sense. Am I to fault the prosecutor for that because of his aggressive style. I probably would not. I might be able to understand a hung jury depending on what they say as to how they came up with that decision. This jury does not have to decide that she killed him. She admitted it. Nothing about his slaughter would tell me that it was in self defense. As for the premeditation, I think this is proven as well. Still not sure if this answers your queston, but I have never given an opinion regarding the case the prosecution presented because I have not seen it. My opinion was only offered with respect to JM’s style. I do think he has gone to far at times and had believed he should dial it down for AL. I cannot say that the decision the jury makes will be because of these things.
I did not realize you missed the prosecution’s case entirely, lol. Probably not a fair question on my part then.
B
It sure would be nice if JM could ask AL if she is familiar with the missing persons case of Susan Cox (Powell). I keep saying that JA’s ACTIONS do not portray her to be a victim of domestic violence. The stark contrast in the actions of Susan (secretly establishing a plan to escape with her children safely, making others aware, keeping her own journal, etc) and Jodi (driving hundreds of miles TO her “abuser”, stalking-type behavior, obsession with said “abuser’s” activities) make the self-defense claim absurd, especially based on any DV accusations. A victim of domestic violence, especially in a situation where it is very difficult/dangerous to escape, would welcome the other woman. Another woman would help (maybe not completely eliminate) mitigate the danger at time of separation.
I’m not suggesting in any way that a woman or man should be happy for someone else to step in their shoes in the role of the abused. It is just my belief that if JA was so used and abused and really wanted an escape from Travis, she would have been ecstatic about this trip he was taking to Cancun with another woman. It would have given her space to get away from him and seek help. Instead IIRC, she actually asked about staying at this house while he was gone.
I would never be picked for this jury. I can’t get past the autopsy results vs. abusive relationship vs. self-defense. As to the little bit of truth in every struggle, yes, I believe she had to defend herself after she became the aggressor. You shoot me in the head or stab me, you can bet I am going to be completely ticked off and will counter-attack to the best of my ability.
I hope JM has a clean, chronological close that helps piece together the testimony.
AJMOO
O/T Just to be clear –
I warned the new wife of my ex of his propensity for violence. In fact, wanted to be very clear in warning her that she could be putting her life at risk. However, I was free of that marriage and safe. I had secretly hoped a gazillion times while I was in danger that he would find someone else and leave me or to just decide he hated me and would move on. That’s the only point I was trying to make and it doesn’t come across that way.
Notafanofjmartinez says JM was his div attorney in 1988 & he fired him for unethical issues
Mamere says: well, wow..ok explains a lot . a HLN trial commentator testified she had never, in the many trials she has covered, seen a prosecutor exit through the front door. She didn’t see him actually converse with a juror but testified to first time seeing this.
Blink, thanks for this link about duct tape significance. Do you think JA returned upstairs just to say later baby, saw the duct tape on bathroom floor,and TA praying for forgiveness and this sent her over the edge? She would understand symbolism of this in a true bringing home to Jesus moment coupled with seeing him praying for forgiveness.
http://www.reapteam.org/duct-tape
Well, it is still premeditation but maybe she did have gun for protection and didn’t bring it for murder. And no knives were missing from his knife block but could others in drawer.
I am sorry good people but she has come down in my estimation of pathological evil but she is still pretty highly ranked and would hate to see her walk.
Thanks for the sweet reply Blink!!
I did not realize you missed the prosecution’s case entirely, lol. Probably not a fair question on my part then.
B
———————————————————————-
I appreciated your question and respect your opinions, comments and those of all of the other posters here. I just figured I was misunderstood and wanted to clarify as well as answer your question. Which was thought provoking as well as challenging.
That is what I love about this group.
But my point is, you are making the assumption the “heavy smoke smell” was noted prior to the rental, it is on both receipts- so how are you arriving at that conclusion? There are no notations on the receipt about the kool aid stains or missing mats- e only learned that via testimony. I do agree that it is POSSIBLE the heavy smoke smell could have been present- I am simply saying we cannot exclude it had something to do with Jodi’s activities. Sometimes evidence is absolutely non-evidence- happens.
B
I spend at least 50% of my life in an Avis rental car (Budget is owned by Avis), so those printouts are very familiar to me. The first printout is created at the time the customer appears at the desk to pick up the car. If there are any notations about preexisting conditions of the car going out, it is noted as a “remark”. If the guy who had that car just before me scratched it up or smoked in it, the notation is made so that I am not held responsible for the damage. When I return the car, a “walk around” would normally be done to see if anything might have happened to the car in my possession. The printout I receive after I turn the car in will contain the original remark (“smoke smell”) plus any damage that might have occurred since I took the car. So, in Jodi’s case, the car smelled like smoke before Jodi ever took possession of it. She cannot be held responsible for it since it was there before she ever took the car.
I can’t find any copy of the rental printouts that haven’t been zoomed in by Martinez, so it’s possible the stains and missing mats could have been noted on the final receipt printout when Jodi returned the car. That final printout will contain all the information of the original, plus anything noted about the condition after Jodi had the car. I’ll post them if I ever find the full documents.
Cendant was a large client of mine back in the day, I am very familiar as well.
But what I am asking you is how you know you are looking at two seperate receipts where the heavy smoke smell is noted as the car is being picked up only?
B
Maggie M at #31 gives a wonderful link to two unbiased legal experts
Mamere: says: that is exactly what I said..if door to stalking was opened,move focus away from TA’s DV TO stalking by defendant through. asking AV:”do you consider driving miles, tire slashing stalking behavior?” These two legal experts, one was a former prosecutor, suggest strategy for JM to use what yours truly, merely a retired clinical social worker suggested last night.
Receiving crickets and Blinks comment of well, looked at your citation and info is 13 yrs. old which just left me scratching my head.
So fine, I get no respect from Blinkers so I will give myself an atta girl. Atta girl, me;-)
I am so proud of myself, wop wop
?
Prior to your post, I penned a lengthy response to someone about how to question this witness with an eye to using her own information coupled with the facts in this case. One of which, btw, is that there is no evidence JA ever slashed a tire of anyone’s vehicle, and as I opined in an earlier piece, I think that situation may be more tied to the former Ms. Andrews former love interests. At no time was evidence introduced at trial that Arias was the tire slasher so I can say with certainty that is not coming up as you stated.
The woman in the green dress is a journalist, not a legal expert or lawyer. There are several posts on here addressing the issue of same- are you reading all the comments?
There are posts in this thread from others calling ALV data antiquated to a degree, I saw that in the abstract you posted as well, because I know that someone else would have, and it is not personal, was not intended to be, and it was after all, just an abstract.
I try to respond to posts as time permits, but I am big on encouraging conversations between the EXTREMELY talented researchers and critical thinking savants that let me hang out with them here.
It has been my experience that the readers and posters here are very respectful and polite, but this is definitely the highest bar you will find in case analysis. Admittedly, can be a respectful but rough room- not much in the way of a thin skin lounge- as I can attest personally.
Jus sayin’
B