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
Fight and flight have polarity. Arias claims to have experienced both simultaneously which from what I have read is a neuropsych impossibility.
She rolled and ran (flight) which would have continued with her running down the stairs and out.
Instead, she chose to stay and (fight). She got the gun and readied herself.
I believe this proves premeditation and a contrived account of the events.
Further re fight or flight, LV vehemently portrayed Arias as the pacifier, one who always sacrificed of herself to quell situations. That being the case, Arias would not have been the aggressor with the gun. Lets agree hypothetically that the camera was dropped and Travis hollered at her as it bounced. He lunged at her and they fell to the ground. What in those moments or at any time previously gave her the impression that her LIFE was in danger? Through her own words he banged his own head against the wall. She had NO reason to believe her life was compromised.
Totally agree.
B
thank you Mom3.
I was SO VERY upset by that article and that journalist. I have NEVER expressed anything abt ALV as a human, just as it refers to her ability and bias regarding her job and this trial.
I do not condone any bashing of her personally, but we as a public entity are allowed to disagree with her assessments and call them wrong In Our Opinions and with regard to this trial and the facts of the case.
BLINK, I always find this such an intelligent and honest place, where bashing is NOT OK. But to come here after reading that article only to find you asking US to read it. well, I felt angry and upset.
I find so many on here honestly trying to figure things OUT… not personally bashing anyone…
maybe you felt we needed a reminder? But Mom3 made me feel better, bc she eloquently wrote how I felt. This case is making me CRAZY!
jane- obviously I write and moderate my site to attract and compel a certain level of reader and contributor to participate in ernest case related conversations. On occasion, I need to remind some that includes boundaries- since I have not known you to ever cross those, you can assume that I was not really speaking to you in my request, or really anyone else that does not qualify, lol.
That said, I did have a handful of posts I actually deleted that made it obvious some folks needed to read that as posted by me.
I think I am sufficiently on the record regarding Ms. ALV, and I feel that many here are as well, and that right is very important to me.
Harsh web reality- the emotions in this case and other cases affect everyone differently, and there will not be a time as long as my name is on the door where someone from here, or incited by something from here that charges up the mountain torch in hand.
I promise you, it has happened before, ergo, my posting the link.
It is my preference over turning the car around
B
Could this be the matter to be discussed with ALV on Monday or Tuesday … When the judge reminded ALV that she is still under supoena?
ALV is licensed as a “psychological assistant” – who may only practice under direct supervision of psychologist Charles Thomas Stockton.
Problem being that this says Dr Stocktons license is revoked.
Link says this info was last updated April 13, 2013. (California Board of Psychology)
http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=10905&P_LTE_ID=724
Discussed early, no.
B
Adding to above from link about ALV and California Board …
Says ALV’s license is cancelled.
???
Blink.
Please disregard my previous post concerning ALV license just above.
Further digging … Old news/old dates.
lol, np.
B
Mom3.0 your post led me to consider a few things.
Blink shares that yes, Jodi is a sociopath, but she’s so much more, almost as if there is no one diagnosis yet created that suits her mental illness. (we could say she is possessed but in the psyche field that would be a cop out and frowned upon
)
LaViolette did not step outside her personal box of knowledge to gain thorough understanding of the specifications of this case. We can see how this was manipulated to some degree by the limited information she was given access to by the defense team and her refusal to interview other folks for corroboration.
It may also be more than that. It may be that society has only recently begun to recognize the ways in which women abuse men and the levels to which these types of abuse can escalate, ie… murder and death.
Sex here is used as a tool for the female to gain control over the male. It is the nexus of Jodi’s manipulation and abuse which, from the outside looking in, appears to include:
-forms of stalking: sneaking into his home offering herself to him in any sexual way he desires, showing up unannounced, reading his emails and texts to other people, tapping into his bank account records, moving to Mesa after they broke up, peering in his windows late at night when he doesn’t know she is there
-mental abuse: using lies in order to manipulate Travis’s emotions, creating situations where he becomes angered, enamored, embarassed, exposed, refusing to leave when she is told she is not welcome (sleeping under the Christmas tree), hanging all over him in front of his friends, her refusal to go away and stay away
-threats: we surmise this happened with a threat to expose his nonexistent sexual desire for young boys and her secret taping of him discussing his sexual fantasies as she encourages him to go into the deepest places he may never have gone without her encouragement
-acts of vandolism: there is no evidence but certainly a fair consideration that Jodi slashed Travis’s tires
-finally, violence: the shooting, stabbing, and throat slashing of Travis Alexandar which all began with him vulnerable in the shower as nude photos were taken. On that point it could be that her ‘ritual’ as it were actually began during their nude photo session in the bed. Who knows, the point being Jodi orchestrated his death in a way that suited her desires for his slaughter and we may never know how every detail leading up to it mattered to her because they are so outside our realm of thought or understanding.
So, here we have what could lead the psyche community to consider what the abuse of a man by a woman might look like, the nature of the male and how they might deny or react to this type of abuse, and how an imbalance of power might occur under these circumstances. This is not the power we think of with regards to money, children, security, home, etc… It’s the power regarding privacy, safety, reputation, sexual control, and boundaries.
Men have been manipulated by women for eons, which can be (though not always) a form of abuse, and like women who stay with controlling and violent men, these victimized men also stay with the women who abuse them, keeping the relationship and abuse secret although the motivation for doing so may be different.
Similarily to the abuse of women by men, when the victim indicates they are making moves to completely sever the relationship, an escalation takes place which can lead to extreme acts, some of which are violent.
While the abuse of men may happen less frequently and lead to eventual death in far fewer cases, we know that men’s lives can be ruined by these abusive women.
Finally, all of this may eventually lead the psyche community to develope a new diagnosis of an individual whose mental constructs and behaviors match those of Jodi Arias or any perp with similar traits and would likely include many characteristics of those diagnosis already in use but go even further into the ‘fissures’ Blink mentioned, which gave a good visualization into Jodi’s mind for me.
I have been following this case more peripherally lately. We went on Spring Break two weeks ago and I have been busy catching up at work since then, but have apparently not missed much of anything.
Although I believe in open justice, I am beginning to have have second thoughts about televising trials. Viewers at home, fed by Nancy Grace and company, are becoming emotionally involved with these cases and developing emotional attachments to individual participants. Juan Martinez and the state employees testifying for the prosecution are doing their jobs. The defense lawyers and their professional witnesses are doing their jobs (although the defense has done a very poor job of preparing their witnesses for cross examination). Unfortunately, to many observers JM is a holy warrior for Travis, and the defense team is an agent of Satan. I greatly fear the amount of hatred that will develop if the Trayvon Martin case is testified. Public hysteria is a horrible system of justice.
If given appropriate options, it is very unlikely this case will end like the C-word case. That individual dressed well, smiled for the jury, listened to her lawyers, and KEPT HER MOUTH SHUT. It is extremely unlikely this jury will feel the same for this witness who blabbered on for weeks on end. I suspect, however, that some jurors may have a feeling that this was a troubled person who cracked under strain, and should be given an option to convict her on a lesser charge.
Finally, to continue the eggciting conversation. JA’s past history reminds me of the character played by Julia Roberts in Runwaway Bride (although less attractive and more crazy). That character douldn’t figure out how she liked her eggs cooked and always preferred the kind of eggs her boyfriend-at-the-time liked. JA seemed to changed religions and interests with each boyfriend.
Oh yes mrs blink, that question is in reference to those initials
Sorry about that
The biggest Thank You EVER for Mom3.0′s comment on April 14, 2013 at 2:21 am. regarding the “mob mentality” article.
You nailed it!
I don’t consider myself part of a “hate mob” that is calling out ALV for her biased, lying testimony. I do not feel a bit sorry for her receiving all the criticism that I feel is warranted…She’s going to make $30,000 to $60,000 for spewing her lies! It’s Travis’ family & friends that I feel badly for!!
Blink, for once I disagree with you regarding your criticism of Juan Martinez. I LOVE how Juan Martinez is going after the so-called “experts” testifying for the defense. He’s disgusted with them, as am I. I think you should wait & see how he ties it all together. And I am praying that this jury will see JA for the murderess she is. My opinion is: if a man had done this to a woman, we wouldn’t even be discussing it. I want her sentenced to death, sitting in a cell for 23 hours a day! Justice for Travis!
Loved your post Mom 3.0. It caused me to type several responses all of which I deleted. Assemble we can, but peaceable should be required. When I was in high school girls were not allow to wear pants. Imagine that. We left classes and had a sit in at the administration center. Such a cause. Long story short I was a sophomore and 2 people, male and female, from each class were elected to meet with the school board to settle this mighty injustice. I had, weeks before, been sent home for wearing a leather fringed skirt (that belonged to my mother) as it was felt inappropriate so I was a natural candidate for my class. We must respect fashion after all. The two girls from the upper class were picked because they were cheerleaders. When we showed up for our much desired meeting those 2 girls walked in with jeans and T-shirt on and I showed up with a very tailored orange maxi skirt black turtle neck and black tights ala “Love Story” and great suede black boots, Who do you think got the full boards attention, convinced them respectfully to change some of their views. It did not change immediately but they did allow for parents to come in and sign a paper that their daughters could wear pants. My mother was the first and some of my male teachers called me “Mr. Ode” for awhile. Oh well it was about fashion, wasn’t it? There are good ways and bad ways to change things. Mobs are not the way. Hopefully Ms. L will learn from this and be able to adapt it into her continuum. Hopefully new people entering her field can learn from this. Travis is setting a precedent to reconsider Domestic Abuse. Criticism is great, persecution not so much. All just my OHO.
Re ALV, this is the best analysis I’ve seen:
“This woman is a kind person who bit off more than she could chew, with an unprepared and lackluster PD that may have strengthened their case at her expense.”( Blink)
http://blinkoncrime.com/2013/02/20/jodi-arias-trial-in-her-own-words-how-i-killed-travis-alexander-with-his-gun-and-his-knife/comment-page-39/#comments
together with the failures of JM in chosing to probe fairy tale & CV versus Travis’ story in his bodily physical evidence.
To me she accepted a job as an analyst of whether JA experienced partner abuse with Travis based on her work experience. She did that. It is the prosecutor’s job to tell Travis’ victimology; he could have put a partner abuse specialist or a psychologist on too in the case in chief. Where ALV has strayed from her very narrow job to place Jody as the recipient of “abuse” was the fault of all the attorneys & jurors whose questions strayed from her area of expertise–and the Judge who didn’t rein it in. imo.
@Amy’s Sister. I’m with you; but in a formal trial,
this (mental abuse, stalking, violence)
was the prosecutor’s story to tell.
I wasn’t here then. Did he?
These women like Jodi and C-word are all about slipping their control of the male into the relationship. There was some evidence that C-word would do some of the same things that Jodi did regarding changing behavior to match the situation.
There are dangerous men and dangerous women out there. The women who fit the dangerous category may not be quite as violent as Jodi, but there are cases where they match or exceed her level.
The major problem with this case is both parties were doing things to control the other. Travis was not clean and Jodi was a master at using sex to drive a relationship. And when sex did not do the job, she used other means to create a situation where the other party in the relationship was fearful of what might she do next.
There does not appear to be a clear cut pathological description of Jodi’s behavior. She ranges across several of the standard classifications.
@Blink
“Starsky says:
April 13, 2013 at 7:52 am
Blink please clarify for me. If a hung jury, can JA (which also stands for Jack A$$) walk free??
No, she can’t unless the state would not refile charges for some reason, which would not happen. I do believe she has a very strong chance of getting that murder 2 deal.”
——————————————————————
She could be out in ten years? Pardon me, I need to go swallow some Kaopectate. ):
http://azlawguy.com/the-difference-between-degrees-of-murder-in-arizona/
“Second degree murder is similar to first degree, except that it is not planned ahead of time or “premeditated”. The difference between this type of murder and either first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter is sometimes indistinct. Generally, second degree murder results from a wanton disregard for human life. For example, if a person willfully attacks and injures another, and without specifically planning this ahead of time, and the person dies of his wounds, this might possibly be considered second degree murder (although such a final ruling is, of course, the result of a trial and verdict).
In Arizona the mandatory sentence for second degree murder is imprisonment for more than 10 but no more than 25 years.”
I can’t let myself believe this case will turn out like CA.
Imagine the fear Travis must have felt in those last few moments of his life. It’s palpable, for me. Unfortnately he didn’t realize he was dealing with a psychopath. I don’t even believe Travis knew she was coming on June 4. I think she didn’t tell him for fear he would tell his roommates. According to phone records, they didn’t speak since 6/2. Travis was done with her, & she couldn’t take that. Cancun pushed her over the edge.
I have a lot of faith in Juan Martinez. He is doing a great job of representing Travis. Hopefully, the jury gets this in 2 weeks. Send JA to the big house…. & solitary confinement.
Rose says:
April 14, 2013 at 7:54 pm
@Amy’s Sister. I’m with you; but in a formal trial,
this (mental abuse, stalking, violence)
was the prosecutor’s story to tell.
I wasn’t here then. Did he?
–
Actually, Rose, as I understand it,:
When self defense is claimed, and within that self defense is an adjustment to ” reasonable person” ( meaning, what would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances), it IS incumbent upon the defense to offer proof of what they say altered Arias ability to judge immenent danger.
In this case, the defense is saying that Arias acted the way a reasonbale person would act IF that reasonable person had been abused.
They are claiming that her actions and her judgement of imminent danger were due to the abuse she suffered at Travis’s hands, and the traumatic effect it had upon her made her unbale to respond to the situation or judge immenent danger the way an otherwise reasonable person would, That is, the defense is claiming that Arias felt her entire life was in danger when Travis alledgedly lunged at her when she dropped the camera, and they claim this is because Travis showed an escalating violence toward her. The defendant does have to convince the jury of those claims.
Arias, or any defendant, technically does NOT have to disprove the theory that the prosecution is presenting. It is the States responsibility to prove their claims of premediation of felony murder.
In any case, the defendant will offer something to provide reasonable doubt about the prosecutions theory.
Arias used a gun to shoot Travis. And even if she doesnt remeber the satbbing, she still remembers she shot him and that he was not dead after she shot him She claims the gun was not her gun. She does remember she left the scene.
So therefore, even in Arioas’s scenario, she used a stolen weapon she knew could cause harm or death, and left the victim to die.
How is that scenario indicative of a stolen weapon?
Her claim is that the gun went off accidentally and he was dead when she left, no doubt about that.
B
TA did not deserve the slashing any more than AL deserved the backlashing. Voicing an opinion is far different than threats.
That said, a couple things I noticed is that she now refers to the murder as a “killing” where she previously called it murder during her testimony. She also said Jodi was not sexually victimized by Travis (paraphrased) which then resulted in JW referring to the continum that does not have sexual deviance listed in any of the columms for DV. Many noticed the discrepancy re: the shooting taking place in the closet during her testimony. IIRC she also said Jodi pulled the triger and shot him. To me this is also a discrepancy, because Jodi testified that she did not even know that she shot him. If you remember pulling the triger than you must also remember shooting someone IMO.
It is clear to me that she still cannot keep her lies straight.
I have a lot oft faith in Juan Martinez too. He ist doing his best und one great job!
welp…I never thought the “eye” photo would come into play.
Jodi would have barked the additional person long ago I think.
I’ve had it in the back of my mind for a long time that she had help in some way, as Blink knows, but….I’m not sure the timing of the iris in the eye photo is timed well here.
But hey, I think many of us can claim Photoshop expert on our resumes now, so there’s that.
Rose says:
April 14, 2013 at 7:54 pm
@Amy’s Sister. I’m with you; but in a formal trial,
this (mental abuse, stalking, violence)
was the prosecutor’s story to tell.
I wasn’t here then. Did he?
___
Not all of it and those he did have been fragmented. I would say the jury is probably not clear on their relationship yet due to LaViolette’s testimony and the rules regarding questioning and evidence to protect the defendant from prejudice.
Juan’s closing is going to have to be stellar.
Today’s closed proceedings.
A witness is analyzing the photo of Travis in the shower and zooming in on Travis’ eye. JM does not want this photo entered in as evidence.
Nurmi has filed for mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct specifically his conduct with AL. Also, JM’s conduct relating to signing autographs outside the courtroom. Motion for mistrial is denied. Nurmi is arguing before the Judge JM’s bullying of AL and Samuels. JM is addressing social media effects on the trial. He mentions JA’s tweets and Jodi smirks. The court finds the prosecutor was not in violation of misconduct regarding Ms. LaViolette or Samuels. Judge rules the jail not the court is in charge of JA and tweeting.
Court in recess until 1:15pm.
I don’t know if you heard the Samuel’s tape, but if that had been my case, I would have stopped the deposition immediately and sought remedy then. JM behavior in that deposition was outrageous. I do agree with the Judge that it was not shown it shaped the Dr’s testimony so I agree with her ruling.
Nurmi needs to dry run his arguments better. He is weak in delivery and he should have stated at least 3x that this was a death penalty case, not a carnival.
Respectfully submitted-
B
In response to my statement that Arias used a stolen gun
Blink writes:
How is that scenario indicative of a stolen weapon?
Her claim is that the gun went off accidentally and he was dead when she left, no doubt about that.
B
—————————
The murder took place in Travis’s home.
Arias claims she went to the closet and took Travis gun from the shelf.
Arias claims Travis did not give her the gun.
Travis did not give her permission to get the gun or use the gun.
If someone does not give you the item, and does give you permission to take something they own, that is stealing, isn’t it?
Arias claims she then took the gun to the desert.
If the gun belonged to Travis, and Travis did not give her permission to take the gun from his house, she stole it.
I did not hear testimony that she said he was dead when she left. I heard testimony that she was in a fog after the gun went off. I recall testimony that she knew he was dead when she left the voicemail, and that she knew he was dead when she had the parkinglot conversation the next night in SLC.
Was she asked if he was dead when she left,( I may have missed it!! )
If she knew that the shot didnt kill him, and knew he was dead when she left, that she knows that she killed him, wasn’t in a fog…?
So that I am clear- are you suggesting that the stealing of Travis’s gun is the “in commision of” for felony murder?
Her testimony was that she remembered nothing between shooting him and “coming to” or whatever with a knife in her hand. While she may not remember it, it is well established that he was quite dead when she drug him into the shower, etc. Her fog does not change that. She testified she killed him, so I am afraid I am not following you on this one.
B
whodunnit says:
April 15, 2013 at 10:24 am
Arias used a gun to shoot Travis. And even if she doesnt remeber the satbbing, she still remembers she shot him and that he was not dead after she shot him She claims the gun was not her gun. She does remember she left the scene.
So therefore, even in Arioas’s scenario, she used a stolen weapon she knew could cause harm or death, and left the victim to die.
How is that scenario indicative of a stolen weapon?
Her claim is that the gun went off accidentally and he was dead when she left, no doubt about that.
B
How does jodi know if he is dead after she left if she doesn’t remember anything.
As to the gun, we don’t have proof to it being stolen, but could jury just use their common sense pretaining to the gun. A same caliber gun stolen and used to shoot travis.
She was in a fog, she says, but the facts don’t change that he was deceased in the hallway, and she testified she killed him.
The jury (unless instructed otherwise) is allowed to consider facts in evidence, but in that arena it likely goes to their right to consider truthfulness in testimony- by either side and what a reasonable person would infer or conclude and then weight that as instructed.
Look, nobody makes an accident, struggle, self defense or whatever into a heinous murder massacre, it goes the other way around. The murderer tries to make it look like an accident.
The man had at least 3 nearly immediately fatal wounds out of 29- no chance of that.
B
blink writes
So that I am clear- are you suggesting that the stealing of Travis’s gun is the “in commision of” for felony murder?
Her testimony was that she remembered nothing between shooting him and “coming to” or whatever with a knife in her hand. While she may not remember it, it is well established that he was quite dead when she drug him into the shower, etc. Her fog does not change that. She testified she killed him, so I am afraid I am not following you on this one.
B
——————————————————————–
yes, as far as “stolen gun” I was pursuing thoughts on felony murder. Value your input and thoughts.
Agreed, if she knew she killed him, this doesn’t neccessarily show that she was NOT in a fog.
I am just still chewing on “the fog” issue. If you knock out the fog claim, more support for pre med. The defense, via Samuels presented the fog as a symptom of PTSD. Prescence of PTSD is used to support claims of extended and escalating abuse
Looking for clear lines for the jury to follow, the fog messes up everything.
Well, then no, lol. We could get into the legalities of whether or not a person who is deceased, where it could not be proven actually owned a firearm would still be an owner after he was deceased, of an unrecovered weapon no less, but honestly, that dog won’t hunt. This imo, was one of the reasons the state “finessed the shot first or last theory.” I have since seen macros of Travi’s GSW and I am going to tell you for someone that was allegedly shot after death, he has two black orbital regions extending to the sinus (as observed) and the projectile entry is quite clean and margins are quite as would be expected in a .25 injury. He was shot first, imo, and that should have been the state’s shoo in for felony murder.
B
This is why I think this jury gets it and will get it right in the end. A question asked of alv about dates she spoke with the defendant involving the 44 hours assessment. I believe at least the person that asked this question will piece out the dates and come to the conclusion that JA came up with this type of defense after speaking to alv and it will be brought up intheir deliberations.
Also, i know they get it when a question is asked about the incident at purple plum, whether the argument in text was as important as to cheating verses arias claiming some girl told of the cheating…. I do believe they see her as a stalker… She was watching travis and obtained the information of him cheating with her own eyes either by peeking in windows or following….
Jodi has done the same as ca while in jail. Thought of a way to take anything and everything has has such as text ect and use it to her advantage.
What I believe is that jodi was pissed at travis for awhile before the murders. I think she wanted to destroy his reputation and was planning to do exactly that before the killing. The sex call to me sounds like a set up to be used later.. She brings up subjects for him to elaborate on like she is fishing him. She may have not wanted to kill him earlier on in time but I do think she wanted to destroy him in some way
I think she could have possibly studied the baby killers case and came up with ideas
Please stay safe, Blink … NY City & Washington DC especially stepped up their security today. Can’t believe this is the status of the US today. Starting to feel like we live in Beirut.
Poor beautiful Samantha (all three of them), Arias seated within reach. Restraint beyond measure. I just cannot imagine.
Trial recessed for today: Tomorrow 9:30PDT/12:30EDT
Are you guys kidding me you are not talking about the stipulation that this murder defendant was not holding a weapon at the time the picture was taken of Travis’s face in the shower when he is sitting down?
B
Yep mrs blink. Martinez agreed and that was the stipulation read.
Um, hello? tap, tap, tap. Is this thing on?
Critical thinkers on break, lol? Anyone?
B
Okay, I’ll bite.
Do you believe the computer expert today regarding the reflection of a person in TA’s eyes, Blink?
I agree with JM … major speculation IMO. That “outline” could’ve been anything and I didn’t see a “person” there either. Could’ve been the dog JM saw or even a tiger for all I know. From my point of view, nothing was scientifically visible showing it was an outline of anything, except a bunch of colors from the reflection.
I think it was a major stretch to be honest and I can’t believe the defense was even trying to bring it in. Seems to hint of desperation to me. What purpose honestly does it serve? Even if it WAS a person’s reflection, I really don’t see how that helps JA at all. Nurmi said it corraborates JA’s story that she was holding a camera taking pics of TA in the shower. Well, so what! She admitted to killing him and it’s common knowledge she was there and holding the camera taking pics in the bathroom. I really don’t see how they think that helps her at all. Since I didn’t see any outline of a person, I definitely didn’t see an outline of a person NOT holding a knife or a gun so what credence this holds for the case is beyond me.
The jury already does not appear to be buying the defense’s theory of self-defense or any of JA’s stories for that matter. From the jury questions to ALV it appeared to me that just like with Dr. Samuel’s, the jury was basically saying, “we don’t believe JA … why do you?” I didn’t get at all that at least one juror was somehow buying into the self-defense angle or JA being a battered woman — at least not from the actual questions asked. I can’t speak for what’s going through the juror’s minds that don’t ask any. It appeared to me with the way the questions were worded the jury were in a sense mocking ALV and her alleged belief that JA never potentially lied, manipulated her or that JA wasn’t somehow the actual aggressor, but like I said … this is just my opinion by observation.
I missed the latter half of the hearing this morning. Did the judge rule on whether or not the computer expert can testify in regard to the alleged “outline of a person in TA’s eyes?” I thought I heard her say she wouldn’t be able to rule on it today.
I believe that the expert was absolutely correct that the flash/camera Zeiss lens was reflected in Travis’s pupil. I also believe that with his expertise and appropriate hardware for viewing purposes he saw even more than he “drew”. I believe Stephens would have ruled in the defense’s favor because Martinez did not so much as present a citation ( has he ever argued a Daubert hearing?) and what was she going to do, rule against an expert with pressing hearings for the State out of Martinez’s own office? I mean, that is just nonsense.
I don’t think he ever stated that it was Jodi, nor do I think anyone could verify it was her specifically from that image without her admission it was her. I say admission, but y’all know the chronology.
B
Maybe he will say that she had the gun in her pocket. She had those weapons near by no doubt
How would he be able to say that? And the pants she was allegedly wearing do not have any pockets.
B
Jden says:
April 15, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Poor beautiful Samantha (all three of them), Arias seated within reach. Restraint beyond measure. I just cannot imagine.
———————————————————————-
I believe I long would’ve jumped over the spectator rail and attempted a criminal act on JA already if it were me. Restraint beyond words is an understatement I suspect. I so feel for TA’s siblings. I am wondering what might potentially occur if by some chance JA is not convicted on 1st degree murder. I would be beside myself. Samantha is the police officer in CA, right?
I work very hard at maintaining some professional distance so I can function effectively. Today, watching the siblings have to sit behind their brother’s killer and see the last image of him alive plastered everywhere had me in tears.
B
-snipped
Arias took several photographs of Alexander on the day he was killed in 2008. A defense expert claims that he can see a reflection of a person in the eye of Alexander in one digitally enhanced image. Nurmi said the image shows Arias with both hands on the camera — and not holding a knife that she used to kill Alexander
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/15/lawyers-for-jodi-arias-want-to-introduce-digitally-enhanced-photos-victim/
….and this is how it’s been determined the killer wasn’t holding a weapon. Seriously.
I’m not much of a critical thinker, but that image proves eff all, to me. For all we know, it’s another individual, aiding JA with the murder. Who can prove it’s JA, even?
Agreed in theory, the bigger question is why the State would agree to stipulate when Arias admits it was her.
B
Blink …
You stated above you believe TA was shot first. How can that be when the crime photos obviously show dried pools of blood UNDER the shell casing and the casing on top? Do you believe in the cleanup, JA somehow moved the casing or something in order to make the scene appear different than it really was? If that were the case, I believe she would’ve done a much better job. She left way too much evidence behind doing her in, i.e. camera and bloody clothes in washer, memory card still in camera (why not just take it with you and the camera as well?), etc.
The forensics of the case is the part that has always gotten me. One medical examiner will say he was shot first, and another that the stab wounds were first. From the medical and forensics evidence, how can there be two totally separate opinions so far apart from each other?
Shell casing is transfer evidence, nobody can say how it ended up there conclusively. We know there was water splashed on that flooring because of the computer paper box saturation.
However, i have posted at length why I believe Travis was shot in proximity to the mirror/sink. There is aspirated blood on the sink, mirror and to the right, the medicine cabinet which was taken as evidence but never entered as an exhibit.
The opinions can be far apart because the reality is that Travis was found 5 days after he was murdered, and if that house was not a dual Zone HVAC, it would have been worse. A simplified response, but at the end of the day, the most succinct.
B
Just caught the decision on the blown up photo of the eyes. OMG. I went to go look at the pics for the time stamps but not all of them have the times on them. Of course she would be holding a camera while taking a picture. That is kind of like “duh” lol. Anyway what I wanted to see with respect to the time stamps was to see how many seconds between that pic and the “accidental” pic of the ceiling that is 62 seconds before the one where Travis is dead. Basically if she can do all of THAT in 62 seconds, than would take no time at all to get a gun or a knife after the eye picture.
62 seconds seem reasonable to you?
B
Sorry , guess all your critical thinkers are in shock.
Happens in a case like this, to all of us.
I think it was Jden who observed earlier what I agree had to be a grueling day for Travis’s family. It must take a level of faith on their part many never have tested.
JM is playing with fire in this case, and just because we all believe jodi Arias is a sociopath and cold blooded murderer does not mean he gets a pass, imo. It is true I am pro-prosecution, but I am anti-risk.
B
Oh and another thing, is the picture with the outline drawn on it part of the evidence or just the blown up picture of same. Honestly I could not tell what it was. Ink blot tests, what do you see? Does anybody ever see the same thing in those? Or childrens art lol? Defense will cry(like a kid) when you look at it and do not know what it is.
@Blink. re Stpulation: a ninja holding a
weapon is about to twirl onto the stand.
Indeed. Or at least the artifact of same.
B
The eyeball reflection of Jodi shown in court today indicates to me that she was holding the camera in her left hand at eye level. The left shoulder is back along with the elbow. The other arm is not so clearly defined. She could very well have been taking a picture while holding the small 25 cal. pistol. Jodi has long fingers. She has a hand structure that is large for her height.
Cameras record everything captured through the lens. One of the strangest photos I ever took was with a SLR as I jumped on the Powell street cable car in San Francisco near California street. The camera was being held in one hand. I not only captured the cable car, but because of reflections, I capture the sidewalk with people and then down the hill with a container ship passing in the channel.
Is the photo enhancement good enough for identification? I could not determine from the TV view of the court screen.
Why stipulate that Arias is not holding a knife or gun at the time the photograph is taken rather then stipulating that a knife or gun cannot be seen in the photograph?
EXACTLY.
B
How and why did JM agree to this stipulation? How does he know for sure she was not holding a gun/knife?
What does this mean? Oh how I wish I knew what really happened so that I could reckon that he was terrorized, not at gunpoint? Why would he sit there?
Had he been stabbed in the chest and she was sick enough that she took his picture?
Here is the link to the Daubert hearing. Imo, nobody should be forming an opinion on this ruling without watching this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV26GghXbLI
Thank you Tawni Dilly
as you know I am all for bringing in pics- but IMO that eye photo was not proof that JA wasnt holding a gun or knife-
if the pupil pic was shown they would have understood it was open to interpretation-
But not agreeing to the stipulation would have opened the door for alot more pupil pics and who knows how long that guy would have been on the stand and who knows what a field trip to the lab would have meant IRT openings for further mistrial motions….
and ass we know the prosecution is hinting strongly that the fun was last so that could be the sole reason for the agreement- JM thinks it helps this theory along….
Keeping all this in mind-
I do think agreeing to this could be a bad mistake for the State-
one the pic guy stated In his opinion TA was crying in that pic and JA was standing when her testimony is she was kneeling and crouching-without his testimony this info is not known….
and then this stipulation could be big a mistake because of how the stipulation was given its own day of testimony
Both sides have agreed arias wasnt holding a gun or knife when this pic was taken
that makes this info this stipulation more important than it actually is-
–
Now it doesnt have to be a win for the defense-
as JA herself has said she doesnt know in which order the pics were taken or deleted…
But according to the timestamps this pic is not the last pic of Travis- there is the leg pic as well as the arm on knees pic IIRC and then the ceiling pic- so it is very logical for the jury to infer this movement in the pics was the defendant reaching for her weapons close by- close by because as we know the bloody bathroom pic happens next – in close order…
the gun may have been in the closet- the knife may have been on the nightstand wherever JA had to go and get them- whther close by or not-
So it seems this stipulation only narrows the timeline even further–
we all know by the time the bloody photo was taken Travis was incapacitated wounded and Jodi was towering above him-
So in the grand scheme of things this could be the nail in JAs coffin or it could be the key to her cell-
IMO it all depends on whether or not the jury bought ANY of the selfdefense DV stories or her fantastical tales of the gun retrieval – closet story and her kill u b- tales that ended in a murderous fog complete with the clanging of the knife as it eas dropped…then refog IRT cleanup and cover up-
there you go my thoughts FWTW
AJMO
Basal tears are always (sans any condition to the contrary) present on the cornea, he was not stating Travis was crying, nor could anyone tell that with water streaming down his face from the shower. He also introduced EXIF data on deleted images, which was not confirmed in court, in fact, it was said to be recreated by encase in certain images.
B
yikes sorry for all the typos- I hope you can decipher my mess.
lyla says:
Lyla says
April 15, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Trial recessed for today: Tomorrow 9:30PDT/12:30EDT
Are you guys kidding me you are not talking about the stipulation that this murder defendant was not holding a weapon at the time the picture was taken of Travis’s face in the shower when he is sitting down?
B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I, for one, never believed JA was holding a weapon in her hand as that photo was taken. Wise move for the prosecution.
The real story here, imo, is the crestfallen look on JW’s face when the jurors did not want to hear the judge repeat the stipulation. Just not interested.
With much respect Grace, I don’t think they know wth it means, they were not informed it was a Daubert hearing, that a witness was technically recalled from an earlier hearing that resulted in a stipulation, or that JM spent his afternoon beating up a witness that is being utilized as an expert by his own office and colleagues. Not just his own office, his own DDA.
No weapon means asking oneself how she acquired it, and how the melee ensues. It also supports the notion she was telling the truth that Travis was agreeable to the photo shoot. I don’t want a jury going down the roads this defense has laid out.
B
jane banks- Im glad I helped- I totally understand how you felt-
moxiemom my biggest youre welcome ever
Ode- thank you very much for for sharing your story with me- and thank you for standing up to make sure young women were allowed to wear pants-…With your descriptions I went back in time as an observer.. – I widh I could write like that way to go
Jane banks Moxiemom Amys sister and Ode
I appreciate your acknowledgment as I wrestled with whether or not I should post or stay mute
Amys sister very thought provoking post I am happy to know my post helped to spur your thoughts all can say is wow very interesting and I do hope something good comes out of this trial-
Blink I totally understand your turning the car around as a reminder thanks
AJMO
Peace
@Indahlia. imo it is, from a defense perspective,
to allow the argument there was a second party present.
And I can tell you exactly what image that will be. I don’t know that the defense plans to argue that per se, or if they are playing odds and waiting for the habeas.
B
In response to the fact that a stipulation was agreed upon bewtween Defense and State. The stipulation is that there was no weapon in Arias hand when she took the pic of Travis looking directly into the camera>
Blink writes:
Um, hello? tap, tap, tap. Is this thing on?
Critical thinkers on break, lol? Anyone?
——-
I think it was a good decision on JM’s part. The State is not claiming that Arias had a weapon in her hand at that point anyway. Many posters on many sites seem to have been working on a theory that Arias held the camer with one hand while she used the weapon with the other, but I do not recall any questions to witness on the stand about whether or not arias had a weapon at the same time she used the camera. This idea that an image could be seen in the eyeball has been floating around for a WHILE now- and originally it was used to show TWO people in the pupil’s reflection. Seriously I think that the defense is do every single thingthey can to get a mistrial and line up things for appeal. By the state agreeing to this stipulation, the defense cannot come back and use this eyeball as unexplored evidence.
IF they had not agreed to this stipulation, there was a chance that the jury would have been carted to Nuemeister’s lab and left to their own ideation of what the shapes are in that eye ball close up.
Honestly, this is more questionable than the air cans in that OTHER case in Pinellas county.
Of course it is beyond ridiculous. But it is also serving the purpose of putting distance between the not so great last day of ALV’s testimony, and her not so great responses to the jury in particular. Spending time away from ALV lessens any harsh judgement that might be ” stuck” in the juries mind if they had gone to rebuttal directly after ALV.
anyway thats my two cents worth- can’t resist a challenge!!
LOl, on your point about no weapons- to be succinct, it is specifically stated no gun and no knife. Meaning the 2 known used weapons in Travis’s murder.
Good thought on the distance from ALV, and I would agree if this was not the 2nd time that martinez ( AND THE ONLY 2x) stipulated to this witness is because Martinez knows as much about pantone stepping as my imaginary parakeet.
I am trying really hard to remain decorum. Feel like I am watching replay and fast forward at the same time.
Martinez seriously said he thought he saw a dog. Just wow.
B
according to a water cooler blog,
JM stipulated to keep the defense expert off the stand.
Off course he did, and he did it twice. Same witness. Remember what I said about no benefit to the defense to attack the images?
I meant some of them.
Surerebuttal anyone?
B