Jodi Arias Trial Verdict IS IN: GUILTY Of MURDER In The Slaying Of Travis Alexander
Image courtesy Arias
Phoenix, AZ- In the 4 month long trial of Jodi Ann Arias for the murder of her brief boyfriend Travis Victor Alexander, the jury deliberating since last Friday has arrived at a verdict in her case. Arias was found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of Travis Alexander on June 4th, 2008.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,859 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
@Eloise
Thanks for posting the link
In laymans terms:
Jodi Arias’ Attorneys Request Judge Vacate Death Penalty Eligibility, Question ‘Especially Cruel’ Ruling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/jodi-arias-death-penalty_n_3508995.html
Blink can you please explain what this motion to vacate aggravation phase of the verdict means in lay person’s term. Is this a common occurrence? Is this just a matter of course that an attorney files this motion or is their actually some substance to this claim?
Thoughts and opinions of all are welcome so as I can further understand the significance (if any) of this motion.
@ Eloise says:
June 27, 2013 at 4:51 am
Thanks for the link/trial updates, dear friendie. Love on ya! xo
whodunnit says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:56 pm
mom3.0
———-
Mom 3.0, The testimony you citing was was offered during the phase of deciding if the murder was committed in a cruel and heinous way.
The Defense’s position was that IF Travis had been shot first, he would not have suffered. That is why Willmott was questioning Horn about sequence.
Who, what is the TRUTH of what happened?
As we know horns testimony IRT the gunshot was severely lacking-
A gunshot with a 25 from indeterminate range would not be rapidly fatal- it would not necessarily be incapacitating it may not have not lead the victim to drop to the floor, it wouldnt have to pierce the dura mater it would not have to pierce the other two membranes it did not have to had injure the brain
why did the prosecution feel the need to bolster this bogus line of testimony why they would feel the need to throw their lead investigator to the wolves a man who countless times did not seem to be “mistaken” but clearly confident & aware of what the MEs thoughts HAD been
These thoughts by the way , are far more consistent with actual evidence & Horns actual report and what the State had been presenting prior to trial.
You:
BUT-
Even if he had been shot first, what could a naked, injured, weaponless man have done, within a matter of minutes ( seconds) after the shot, to justify 29 stabs and a slit throat? This IS overkill.
—
i agree but still A naked man who was shot in the head Could do alot of damage- we dont know the TRUTH of the timeline we dont know anything really
Who, what is the TRUTH of what happened?
You wrote:
And blatantly, if defense is saying he was shot first, of course he is then fighting for his life, NOT continuing to attack Arias to the extent that she would have to stab him 29 times and slit his throat in order to survive.
—
Actually we dont know this either, he most certainly could have been enraged by Arias he most certainly could have been acting in in a irrational fit of rage due to the gunshot- as our research has shown there are such cases.
You:
Willmott is trying to show that lack of blood to the brain shows lack of serious injury. But again, the point is, did Arias overkill? And the answer is yes.
___
Who
The point is –what is the truth?
the evidence should tell the story but it wasnt telling the story the prosecutor wanted it to- it seems so
Did they then muck with the evidence, with testimony with reports and tried to make the evidence fit a theory the same thing Arais’ defense lawyers tried and failed to do?
You wrote:
I personally do beleive that the autopsy report supports Horn’s interpretation that the lack of blood in the brain indicates that there was no blood left, that his opinion is justifiable at least.
==
i respect your opinion however
IRT the absence of tracks and hemorrhaging—instead of testifying to the facts in his autopsy report and the very real possibility that there were no tracks and no hemorrhaging, no measurable damage to the brain because it was NOT injured he stated it had to this and must have that with no real evidence to back up those claims nor the claim that it was only a “typo”
His report states not only the dura mater was intact but the other membranes to include the FC
You wrote:
here is a snip from autopsy report:
“The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains ”
—-
yes I am aware and this snippet in no way makes it factual the notion -that the brain had to have been injured and the duramater etc need to have been pierced “Somewhat limited ”
if the FC and delicate membranes were intact to include the dura mater it seems highly likely Horns testimony was not altogether truthful in relation to his previous report.
You wrote;
The issue at hand is what Arias fate will be. It is not about whether or not she killed with aggravation, they have lready decided that.( And again, the relevancy of the autopsy report is to show whether or not Arias killed with aggravation)
—
Yes this is the STage we are at right now, but I disagree that this is the only issue.
I disagree, the relevancy of an autopsy report is NOT to show whether the perp killed with aggravation. It is to document the evidence
You wrote;
The issue at hand now is the defense motion of wanting to postpone the trial in order to gather more mitigating evidence to prevent Arias from DP.
Under Arizona law, neither side is allowed to introduce new evidence in the final sentencing phase about aggravation, . This phase is just about whether or not she will get life or death for the crime they have already found her guilty of.
Here is a link to Arizona law about trial pahses and life or death verdict:
http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/arizona/az-laws/arizona_laws_13-752
a snippet
F. The penalty phase shall be held immediately after the trier of fact finds at the aggravation phase that one or more of the aggravating circumstances under section 13-751, subsection F have been proven. A finding by the trier of fact that any of the remaining aggravating circumstances alleged has not been proven or the inability of the trier of fact to agree on the issue of whether any of the remaining aggravating circumstances alleged has been proven shall not prevent the holding of the penalty phase.
—–
I so appreciate all the time and effort you are putting into this, but for this piece, with MUCH respect, I don’t get your point at this time. The trial has many appealable issues I am sure, but they havent even decided on when , if EVER, a second jury will be empaneled.( lol !!!)
I realize all this Who, and to me it does matter whether or not the jury received the facts and proper evidence or whther the State twisted and cherry picked evidence to fit their theory and not the Truth.
it should concern everyone that there are real issues to be brought up on appeal because if she ultimately receives anew trial or Life it WILL be on this prosecutors hands as all he had to do was pr3esent the real facts and real evidence absent sequencing and theory-
I think he may have became to invested in wanting the DP and less invested in truth and justice.
You wrote:
Most importantly, hope your dad’s recovery continues to go well xxx Thank you very much Who, and I also appreciate your thoughts and perspectives a great deal thanks for sharing them with me.
No right or wrong just a discussion to further the cause of justice.
Ajmo
Peace
Ragdoll says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:37 pm
@ Eloise says:
June 27, 2013 at 4:51 am
Thanks for the link/trial updates, dear friendie. Love on ya! xo
*********
How are you Canadian friend?? I am trying to keep up and read- working a lot- so sometimes I only have time for a quick read. I miss the trial with everyone! Thanks for all your uplifting posts!
Mom 3.0
Hi Mom 3.0-
You have ( kindly) posted lengthy responses to my posts dated June 10 and June 23. I haven’t had a chance to respond to either of those posts of yours ( I am in Minnesota with my son at a lego convention, whole other story lol)
I so appreciate that you are doing so, but I gotta say I am feeling a bit overwhelmed at the idea of going back to isolate the bunch of what seem to be misinterpretations of things I have said. I dont mind having a discussion about things we may disagree on, but in some instances you have misunderstood what I was trying to say, and based your response on that supposition.
To clarify the bare bones-
1. When the mitigation phase was being discussed, I referred to the lack of friends and instances in the past that could be used as mitigation. This is different than saying Arias or anyone else’s life is ” worthless” if they lack education or good works, as you interpreted it. In a murder trial, in the mitigation ohase, the facts of the criminal’s life may be subject to judgement, including their friends, and I was speaking specifically, not generally.
2. Arias claim of self defense is based on the concept that BECAUSE she had suffered abuse by Travis previous to June 4, she beleived she was fighting for her life when she claimed Travis got angry at her for dropping his camera. A reasonable person would have a d=uty to flee, but defense specified that Arias be held to ” reasonable person if that resonable person had been abused”, So when I wrote that Arias case hinged on her being abused, it was in reference to that. You seemed to feel that no, Arias was claiming self defense because Travis attacked her. As she said on the stand, her position is self defense, but that is just the “short story”.
3. I referred to Arias life before June 4th ONLY in terms of her position as being inthe mitigation phase. I was not judging her- or anyone else- in general terms, though you responded that you understood this to be me calling Arias ” worthless” When a criminal is charged with pre med with aggravation, they have the opportunity to offer any instances, circumstances or testimony that would mitigate the DP. I was looking at Arias life in terms of that phase in which everything is subject to judgement, including friends.
I am not judging anyone in general for lack of education or charitable works as far as whether or not their life has value. As a ( barely ) high school grad, and a single mom who has a special needs child, I would hate to see anyone judged for lack of participation in things outside of their own financial and s family demands. But we are talking a bout a convicted murderer, and that is ( obviously ) different.
4. I used the word ” relevancy” when referring to the autopsies, in relationship to the defense and the State’s use of the findings to bolster their individual cases about whether or not aggravation existed. This is different than saying that the “purpose” of the autopsy was for aggravation, as you took my
statement to mean.
As far as the whole shot first shot last dura matter brain injuries etc, the verdict is in, and UNTIL there is an appeal, the autopsy is relevant in the follwoing way:
defense says that shot came first, so Travis did not suffer a heinous death.
state says shot came last, he suffered a heinous slow death by painfull stabbing.
– to be clear I dont think either side got it right ( lol)
The issues you bring up about inconsistencies, contradictions, obscure and obscured evidence seem VERY relevant- to an APPEAL.
I agree with you that the point of this or any other trial SHOULD be to uncover the TRUTH, but I feel that what a trial is at this point is a matter of arguing law. Many of the motions made in this trial actually challenge existing laws or lack of same.. most recently defense motion to vacate aggravation due, in oart to a lack of clarity in constitutional wording! But every motion, on part of the State or the Defense, cites circumstances/verdicts of other trials or existing laws, period, not truths that went unproven ( unfortualately) .Motions express either the desire to adhere to previously granted verdicts or refutation of same, and the judge is empowered to rule- but again, there is never any guarentee that the truth will out. Kudos to you for trying to figure it out with what is accessible at this time- you have a freedom that lawyers and a jury don’t have , as far as breadth of things you can consider to form your opinion.
As much as I would LOVE to feel that lawyers should be uncovering the truth when they take on a prosecution or defense, I think it is pretty clear that they are arguing law to suit their chosen conviction more than truth at all costs- occupational hazard??
A great quote from ” The Merchant of Venice”- ” first we kill all the lawyers..”
Anyway, I am sorry if I have not responded in full to the many things you have written, if I get a better chance time wise I will circle back- x
Hmmm…the word ‘especially’ was created by Judges ergo it totally confuses juries so….
Something tells me Mr. Nurmi has a (not-so) secret hankering to pursue a Constitutional challenge. Maybe he needs to finish up the Arias v. State and keep looking.
Agreed.
B
Whodunnit
Thanks for your comments. It was a great and easy to understand. Keep it up!
Re who june 30
You wrote;
Mom 3.0
Hi Mom 3.0-
You have ( kindly) posted lengthy responses to my posts dated June 10 and June 23.
—
You have responded in kind, thank you.
I will post my responses to the last ones soon who, as i am determined to catch up with everyones great posts which i unfortunately could not get to until now.
___________________
You wrote;
I haven’t had a chance to respond to either of those posts of yours ( I am in Minnesota with my son at a lego convention, whole other story lol)
–
Please dont feel the need to take away from time with yr son & any thing having to do w/legos, no matter yr age legos re great the same cant be said for conferences
________________
You wrote:
I so appreciate that you are doing so, but I gotta say I am feeling a bit overwhelmed at the idea of going back to isolate the bunch of what seem to be misinterpretations of things I have said.
–
No appreciation necessary and please do go back to clarifyy our thoughts when needed.
Im sorry you feel overwhelmed by what seem like misinterpretations on my part
__________
You wrote:
I dont mind having a discussion about things we may disagree on, but in some instances you have misunderstood what I was trying to say, and based your response on that supposition.
—-
who, when I respond to a post it is a furthering of the discussion Since I am not privy to your underlying feelings,
i took the words at face value, to do otherwise would be a gross misjudgment on my part, as I would be guilty of going behind the words and changing the meaning- im sorry if something i wrote stressed you out.
_________________________
You wrote:
To clarify the bare bones-
1. When the mitigation phase was being discussed, I referred to the lack of friends and instances in the past that could be used as mitigation. This is different than saying Arias or anyone else’s life is ” worthless” if they lack education or good works, as you interpreted it.In a murder trial, in the mitigation ohase, the facts of the criminal’s life may be subject to judgement, including their friends, and I was speaking specifically, not generally.
—–
But, your post of june 10th was Not speaking specifically to mitigation – you were specifically responding to what i wrote
which I had been discussing whether or not JA or another person suffering from these disorders and who had been convicted of murder, could be treated successfully and be returned to society:
I wrote:
And yes a seasoned objective thorough mental health professional could treat Arias successfully is it 100 % guaranteed, no.
and you responded:
With SO much respect for what you have been saying, I fear that ARIAS is just not a good example of this diagnosis and ..
without wanting to sound horrible, what is the point? We are not talking about a person who has made any discernable impact on anyone’s life, let alone kept even herself functioning in society. This isn’t a Minister/doctor.laywer/nurse who snapped, a teacher who taught hundreds of students who succeeded in life, or even a camp counseler who lost her way! We are talking specifically about a woman who even at age 27.was unable to graduate from high school,stay out of debt, find a profession, or become a part of anything lager than the social life linked with her love interest. Where is the charity work, the long term church affiliation, the family, the community that would again benefit if Arias could be ” returned to normal” I am NOT saying ” kill her” because she has little to offer to society , I am simply saying that she should be viewed in terms of existing laws. And nothing has proven her to be mentally ill to the point of being alleviated of responsibility for pre med with aggravation. ( 1000 apolies for my broken record here!)
end snip-
—–What is the point…without wanting to sound horrible…
We are talking specifically about a woman who even at age 27.was unable to graduate from high school,stay out of debt, find a profession, or become a part of anything lager than the social life linked with her love interest Where is the charity work, the long term church affiliation the family the community
“that would again benefit if Arias could be ” returned to normal””
who, Words have meaning,-without being a mind reader or going behind the words, I simply responded to what was written.
I am glad my response to your anippet, gave you the opportunity to alter your wording to better clarify your thoughts
but clearly I was not misinterpreting the written word – i took them at face value= and at face value it seems they were conveying something which you never intended
in # 3 you wrote
3. I referred to Arias life before June 4th ONLY in terms of her position as being inthe mitigation phase. I was not judging her- or anyone else- in general terms, though you responded that you understood this to be me calling Arias ” worthless” When a criminal is charged with pre med with aggravation, they have the opportunity to offer any instances, circumstances or testimony that would mitigate the DP. I was looking at Arias life in terms of that phase in which everything is subject to judgement, including friends.
I am not judging anyone in general for lack of education or charitable works as far as whether or not their life has value. As a ( barely ) high school grad, and a single mom who has a special needs child, I would hate to see anyone judged for lack of participation in things outside of their own financial and s family demands. But we are talking a bout a convicted murderer, and that is ( obviously ) different.
–
who, you never said you were only speaking to the mitigation phase. i did not misinterpret.
if it makes you feel better, and I hope it does, I would never think you to be a judgmental horrible person. I did interject the word worthless, to sum up the category which you were placing JA in, at the time, and clearly you as a compassionate advocate would not put all people who may share the attributes in such a category with JA-
but who thats not how your words read- that is one of the reasons i chose to respond- as i didnt want anyone reading this suffering from BPD or other MH issues who may be struggling to find a job, a love, a family, a home, a community, friends, a belief system etc to feel that they were, worthless-
I am glad I underscored your snippet as it allowed you to better convey your feelings behind the words- i hope you feel better for having done it, and thank you for sharing a personal tidbit with us.
______
Who You went on to write in your latest post:
2. Arias claim of self defense is based on the concept that BECAUSE she had suffered abuse by Travis previous to June 4, she beleived she was fighting for her life when she claimed Travis got angry at her for dropping his camera.
—
First let me state for the record, I did not misinterpret your words on this issue either- although i am happy to supply you with the opportunity to further clarify or rethink
You stated;
Mom 3.0- Arias said she “did not know the why of it”, before she formally came up with a plea of self defense.
But by the time she went to trial,her entire defense is based on her explanaition of WHY she did it:
She is VERY clear that the reason she did this is because Travis abused her.
Which i answered:
NO you are mistaken she was never clear, and her answer to why she killed him at trial was (PP) because he attacked me, it was selfdefense- her defense was never she did it “because of the abuse”
So it may seem like semantics but clearly JA never clearly claimed the reason she did it(killed Him) was because of the abuse which is what you wrote.
No misinterpretation on my part, but again I am glad you were able to expand on what you wrote, as that furthers the discussion.
– who, she did claim that part of her fear stemmed from trying to flee AFTER the camera drop and “flashing back” to an early instance where fleeing hadnt worked-
she then turned toward the closet – and in a self defense move she got the gun -then “accidentally” shot him…. She doesnt recall the knifing
again Arias was NEVER clear and she never gave the abuse as an reason as to why she HAD to kill him- the abuse was the reason she ran to the closet, him chasing her, shoving her, body slamming her, allowed the fear to grow, as did his yelling- but she never claimed to have shot him or stab him “because of the abuse”
______________________
You went on to write:
A reasonable person would have a d=uty to flee, but defense specified that Arias be held to ” reasonable person if that resonable person had been abused”, So when I wrote that Arias case hinged on her being abused, it was in reference to that.
—
who, you never referenced that- never wrote that, never quoted that, so please excuse me, how can I misinterpet something that you never even wrote?
If JA suffers from BPD PTSD and or DID then it CAN be argued she was NOT a reasonable person at the time of the murder
Who- again as I have already stated I think the defenses case was poorly executed and in fact was shortsided/wrong to go with what they did.
_________________
You wrote;
you seemed to feel that no, Arias was claiming self defense because Travis attacked her. As she said on the stand, her position is self defense, but that is just the “short story”.
–
who I have stated time and time again I am NOT speaking to what I may or may not feel IRT JA and travis
I have already shared those thoughts-
So please dont make this about feelings: it makes me feel as if you= good side me =bad side- cause that isnt the case at all- in fact I would venture a bet that many of my feelings are congruent with yours-
BTW Arias actually said right out of the gate- it was the “SIMPLE ANSWER” not short story
snip:
4:46 p.m. ET:
Defense Attorney: Did you kill Travis Alexander? #JodiArias: Yes Defense Attorney: Why? Arias: The simple answer: he attacked me
end snip
Claiming it happened Because he “attacked me” – is clearly different than i did it because of the abuse
__________
Who you went on to write:
4. I used the word ” relevancy” when referring to the autopsies, in relationship to the defense and the State’s use of the findings to bolster their individual cases about whether or not aggravation existed. This is different than saying that the “purpose” of the autopsy was for aggravation, as you took my
statement to mean.
–
Again who i can only go by what you have written, or at least I try to.
With further clarification I do understand what you meant IRT relevancy vs purpose.
______________
you wrote:
As far as the whole shot first shot last dura matter brain injuries etc, the verdict is in, and UNTIL there is an appeal, the autopsy is relevant in the follwoing way:
defense says that shot came first, so Travis did not suffer a heinous death.
state says shot came last, he suffered a heinous slow death by painfull stabbing.
– to be clear I dont think either side got it right ( lol)
–
But who, the autopsy report does not seem to bolster the shot came last theory – what it bolsters is TA was shot but not “through the brain” not thru the dura mater, not thru the other TWO membranes- what it bolsters is that the brain was “somewhat” decomposed perhaps at the early to mid stages of autolyzation.
i agree the verdict is in, and she admmitted to the killing… and much of what we have discussed will come up on appeals- as it should
my point is they could have ensured the verdict was sound had they just done a better job of securing and presenting the facts and evidence
if dr horn did his job, if the state had, there would be NO issue for appeals- as it stands now, i have to wonder if they didnt stay silent on sequence, or go with shot first- because it would have added credence to Jas claims.
–who i agree with all your thoughts on lawyers and our system – great POP quote-
Ill post my other responses soon
thanks for cont the discussion sorry you felt overwhelmed glad you were able to address your concerns-
have fun with yr son
AJMO
Peace
ps to jean- have you ever watched “Trading Places”? You remind me alittle of Roy Taylors character— and he voices his solidarity and agreement- with a loud and very affirmative: “Yeah”
Lol take care jean, who and all
Mom 3.0
you wrote
my point is they could have ensured the verdict was sound had they just done a better job of securing and presenting the facts and evidence
.
———-
Mom 3.0,
I think that is really the point and you have said it so well!
and
You are right, my statements and responses have not been explicit enough to avoid misunderstanding, it is not your fault!!
I have understood your posts and totally understand why you feel the way you do.
Going through your last response, I realized I don’t really have a dog in this fight, I just have observations and opinions and they are only from my point of view. I follow your own logic in reaching your opinions too!
It is so frustrating to feel the truth is out there, but unobtainable. Until there is a final verdict , appeal and disclosure under the freedom of information act revealing what has gone on behind the scenes, well, we are just left to speculate.
Just know I really enjoy reading all your posts and am learning a lot.
xx
Mom3.0
I have never seen “Trading Places” so I do not know Roy Taylors character but from what you say, it sounds about right! I seem to understand Whodnnit’s post better than I do yours. That’s all. But that is my problem, I suppose…no critical spirit here. Lol to both you ladies.
RE
whodunnit says:
June 26, 2013 at 4:29 am
hi who just catching up….
I wrote:
As a citizen, I am very concerned about this entire case and what it could mean for any of us who may find ourselves at the mercy of LE and the courts and a jury set to determine and weigh the evidence against us when that evidence is all highly questionable.
You responded:
I say in a jocular tone- short answer to that is, don’t break the law, but we all know that is not really the answer and certainly isn’t what I really mean to say…
—
Who, I get your wit but really is everyone who is arrested and charged with a crime guilty of the crime?
Honestly Who, IF the State can take a case which is a slam dunk…where there is so much evidence and the person confessed & is willing to plea- and still seemingly fabricate or manipulate the evidence and the facts to change their case to better fit into a Dpenalty case, than I ask what chance do innocent people have against such a system?
This prosecution did not get the walmart store evidence until trial this was the backbone of their case to proving premeditation.- they did not take the measurements in the closet of the shelving- they did not send that robe to the lab etc
They did not send fabric evidence to the lab
They did not type all blood evidence or collect all blood evidence or present all evidence.
They did not Eliminate everyone to get to their ultimate POI and suspect Arias…
They went with JA who as it turns out was the killer, but by all rights they should have eliminated all others to include roommates, friends, business associates, religious fanatics- ex boyfriends not just Jas but others, ex girlfriends and family
With the roommates, we have Flores stating well one roommate was a work yet did come home for lunch and an Approximate time when he would have been expected home… The other roommate we have an alibi of he as at his girlfriends-
The evidence which was presented at trial incorporates the friends discovering travis 5 days after- well whose to say they were the first on the scene?- whose to say it was Arias that attempted to clean up- put the camera in the washer….
LE did a very poor job of collecting and preserving the evidence and the crimescene and any witnesses LE did even less of a thorough job in the days and weeks following the murder- add to this that Flores shared pertinent info with Jodi and others and may have tainted the case from the get go-
Blink said it all from Day 1— (pp)
For a murder to have pics, timstamps, receipts, blood evidence, texts, journals, phonecalls, roommates, a confession, mental health evals etc
We still know next to nothing why is that?
Why wasnt the blood evidence presented?
Why wasnt that handprint discussed further?
Why wasnt all the fiber- blood tested typed?
Why was the banister wet to the touch as if recently wiped down ?
There are many problems with the camera/photos that were presented
Blinks correct those photos that were supposedly on the camera-
Why is it that many photos of TA were also on the camera? him biking- etc- How can that be?
Think of the evidence at the crimescene that seems to tell a different story of that camera than the one presented at trial-
TAs camera box was left sitting on the desk as if it had recently been opened- HUH? But there are previous pics of TA on that camera- why would the camera be back in the box? Does Travis seem like the type that would leave a camera box just sitting out like that- look at the closet in that room it is a mess- the box and that closet do not jive with Travis who seemed to be a stickler for cleanliness and order- take a look at his closet his home- a place for everything and everything in its place…
The room was not a catch all- it was his office-where he sat on his computer, at his desk-
A desk that JA claimed to be man handled upon… a room where they were leisurely hanging out, looking at the computer/ the disk…again Does Travis strike you as the kind of person who could relax in a messy room w a messy desk …BTW this was supposed to have taken place AFTER the 100pm rope tryst/ Hooha Pics which were part of the timeline presented…—
When was Travis killed? The roommates have different accounts of when they last saw him
His roommates were not alarmed by his car in the garage, his ring, his watch, and phone on the kitchen sink, his laptop left open & left behind, his dog left behind, the bloody? water in the downstairs bathroom, the full washer and dryer… the floor cleaner left out… the mess in the office.. the smell…
Was JA an invited guest at all ? was there a tryst that day ?
were those shower pics from THAT day? was his camera ever used prior to JA or ? possibly setting up the “timeline” pics
Theres evidence throughout that house- IT does tell a story- but the story may be something entirely different than what the trial presented-
Just because JA states that she was invited doesnt make it so
Just because Ja said TA was in the shower and the attack started there doesnt make it so-
just because the trial presented the camera/pics as a timeline doesnt make it so
Just because the trial presented Arias alone doesnt make it so
where is the evidence to support?
Without that camera’s supposed timestamps without Jas words, the forensics could tell a different story
Again all blood evidence was not typed, can we be positive all blood was either tas or Ja’s?
The camera bag was left in the middle of the floor upstairs- but wait why? again, the camera seems to be taken from the box..
When did the deletion occur?
Were the photos taken from the memory disk or from the camera?
There was a story to tell – it was written on the walls on the floor in the sinks in the washer and dryer- it was in all the evidence left behind and all the evidence that was left out… the check left behind, the camera left in the wash, in the fiber evidence.
Yet it was not told why?
Before you say well JA must have done it all and shell never tell who else would have a motive?
Anyone who cared about Travis could have tried to “clean up” the scene
Anyone who was sure it HAD to be JA could have wanted certain evidence to be found- the photos, the check…
Even though JA admitted killing Travis it could still be a rush to judgment- one which made LE cut corners one that could have had the prosecution set out to prove a theory, instead of presenting just the facts which would have let the evidence tell the story… it harkens back to your confirmation bias
You wrote:
With great respect, I dont agree that the evidence in the Arias is ALL highly questionable.
—
Thats fine Who I respect that- if you dont mind sharing which evidence do you think isnt questionable?
You wrote:
The State chose to present their case as being based primarialy on circumstantial evidence.
–
yeah they did and on evidence which seems to be very untrustworthy with chain of custody issues and the like.
You wrote
The jury was legally empowered to disregard any and all of the testimony they heard. Without getting into great detail, the real point is , does anything that you are looking into eliminate the fact that she murdered Travis ( to which she confessed) and did so heinously ( look at the pictures). Mitigate, maybe, but eliminate all guilt, well, no.
–No i wouldnt think any of this eliminates the fact that she killed Travis-
but again this case was NEVER about the WHO the Who was already answered-
the evidence was to bolster the case for premeditated 1st degree murder one which was especially heinous and cruel besides the gas cans, & the phone being off, what goes to premeditation?
I have looked at the pictures, they are gruesome but i have to say the defense has a point- what makes a murder especially cruel, especially heinous?
There are many murderers who have committed atroscious gruesome crimes that never were considered for the death penalty….
You wrote:
I can see all the things you are pointing out as errors on the States part, and she is entitled to appeal, in varying degrees, whatever her final sentence is. State pays for the appeal if she is sentenced to Dp, she pays if it is life with or without parole.
Agreed
It should have NEVER come to appeals Who- if the State had been thorough if LE had been thorough if the evidence was solid they would have had no need to create such appealable issues.
Our system isnt supposed to be about presenting a case that isnt factual- its supposed to be about gettting the bad guy but NOT at the sake of truth and justice, otherwise we are all in peril—
i mean sadly we have come to expect Defense lawyers will lie bend the truth and the law to win their case -but should we learn to accept this from the Prosecutors as well?
Is winning what its all about… not the truth, not justice, not innocent until proven guilty?
If so, then why not just do away with the whole process lets just decide a person is guilty from the get go- then we just string em up- and be done with it?
You wrote:
So my question to you is, do you think the State has done all this on purpose?
I dont know, it seems winning at any cost is a factor for many, so who am i to say it was or was not done on purpose? Who, my question to you would be – does it matter to you if they did do it on purpose? since she is obviously a killer anyway- does the end justify the means?
I wrote;
“Still many of us are satisfied that she did do it, and probably agreed to all the evidence etc to hide the truly viscous truth of the killing-
If this is the case, then the State let her get away with it and helped her to obscure the truth by their own manipulations and shortcomings
The evidence is supposed to tell the story yet so much of the evidence was either not collected, was never presented, or was twisted to fit a version of events a theory….”
—– You responded and i agree-
I think that what we are looking at is the legal system itself
Thank you for all of your thoughts on evidence and the system Who, it gave me much to ponder
You wrote
the court has a process of winnowing down the evidence, there are pretty tough rules about it.
Yes i understand and agree but it is not winnowing down the evidence who, to simply not present evidence or facts or twist or suppress data to support a theory absent of those facts.
you wrote:
So even the process of getting evidence INTO a trial is fraught with legal parameters that must be followed, that is the system we have.
true
You Wrote;
For example- Arias submitted copies of letters that were alledgedly written by Travis, which she claimed would prove he was a pedo phile. These letters were deemed inadmissible, because she would not submit the originals and would not reveal where she got the copies. Further, the evidence of the letters she presented was viewed by the court to be forged and not written by Travis. She offered these letters saying they were integral to her defense, and she did so acting as her own counsel. Is that the kind of evidence that you would consider suppressed- and which part- the copies of the letters themselves, the fact they were judged forged, or the fact that she tried to present the victim as a criminal with no legal proof, or the fact that she excused her public defenders because they would not submit the letters, and shesubmitted them while acting as her own lawyer?
yes there were problems with this evidence the court was fair and just in disallowing this “evidence” there was no record of where they came from if they had been manipoulated and they were highly suspect etc.
the same should have been for the camera evidence as LE admitted to manipulating it, admitted that the card was separate from the camera when it was found in the machine and has no true idea of how when or by who IRT the camera and the washer and the deletion etc.
yes that evidence should have been suppressed.
You wrote:
The interogation tapes of her parents, which icluded her mother sayingthat Arias told her she” wasn’t in Arizona and had the reciepts to prove it”- the jury was not allowed to see that, or the neturety of Arias interrogation as evidence,because it would be seen as prejudcial- is that what you mean by suppressing evidence?
actually yes i do believe that this evidence should have came in all of it to include arais’ standing on her head, laughing outloud hiding under a table…her mom saying a friend called to say she needed help all of it. Even her fathers tapes. just as i believe the hughes should have been called to the stand and travis other exs.
You wrote:
Guy Searcy’s public claim that Arias called him at 3:00 a.m on June 5th, distraught and saying Travis was dead. He publicly claims he asked her where she was and she said California. He says that he called the DA’s office twice after they arrested her,and said he had information that could help or hurt her case. He said that they could have located the closest tower to where she was calling and proved where she was when she said Travis was dead . So was that evidence suppressed, or did his legal rights preclude the State from being able to ask him what they wanted to know?
You are taking Guy Searcys word for this- lets say LE did look into these claims- and it did turn our JA called him from cali around that time- what proof is there that she said what he claims?
besides i would think if this were the case the defense would have called him and LE should have charged him with aiding and abetting.
When they put him on the stand, he pled the fifth?
actually IIRC, he was going to plead the 5th IRT who was present at the phone call and TMK he answered this question off camera, no charges were filed -so i think that was much ado about nothing. but yes most certainly the court was right to vet both he and the hughes without the jury present.
You wrote;
As far as Horn’s testimony, he testified as an expert and gave his opinion. he explained why he interpreted his autoposy the way he did. The only thing to question there is his expertise. The defense was entitled to bring in their own expert…… and yet…..
yes he did testify as an expert and he did give his opinion his first findings were not MERE opinion but based on the evidence before him- the remains– but yes i do believe Horn was contradictory to himself in several areas of his testimony as well as to his report and he was contradictory to Flores reports and to me it seems Horn did not explain why he interpreted his autopsy the way he did he claimed typo and blamed lack of evidence in the brain to support his opinion on decomp which he had previously reported as “somwhat” decomposed…..-.
You wrote and i agree;
We pray for the truth and fairness, but clearly we have not created a perfect justice system that will guarrentee that.
As to your other insightful thoughts- very well articulated and
I can not think of anything to say in retort that wouldnt pale in comparison.
AJMO
Peace
@mom 3.0
Are you watching The Zimmerman trial
Malty- I am not Mom 3.0, but as you know I have chosen not to cover the Zimmerman trial to date. A good friend of mine is commenting on the case, and turned down representation of Zimmerman- so I felt it was a strong possibility of conflict of interest. I agree it is a fascinating case, and I have followed it, but I feel the racial overtones can make online discussion dicey.
Be careful friend- I feel very protective of you
B
@mom3.0
The reason I ask is I know you are into discussion groups and I am wondering if you know if there is one on the Zimmerman trial that is as well monitored like this one
Mom 3.0
to address a snip from your last post
you wrote:
” You went on to write:
A reasonable person would have a d=uty to flee, but defense specified that Arias be held to ” reasonable person if that resonable person had been abused”, So when I wrote that Arias case hinged on her being abused, it was in reference to that.
—
who, you never referenced that- never wrote that, never quoted that, so please excuse me, how can I misinterpet something that you never even wrote?
If JA suffers from BPD PTSD and or DID then it CAN be argued she was NOT a reasonable person at the time of the murder”
——–
—
———–
Mom 3.0-
The defense DID argue that Arias was suffering from PTSD and global transient amnesia. Regardless, the jury did not turn in a verdict that reflected these factors as mitigating. ( originally, La Violette was listed as a witness for the mitigation phase, but she was ” bumped up” as a witness to the case in chief)
IF the defense had convinced the jury that Arias was abused and disturbed to the degree that justified her actions, they probably would not have voted for aggravation. For all we know, Arias may be trying to circle back to that ( BPD etc.)- maybe the hearing on July 18th will illuminate further.
The defense argued that Arias had been abused and therefore could not be held to the reasonable person standard. The defense pysch witnesses were there to testify to her mental state ( samuels) and to the claim of abuse ( la Violette) The defenses case is that due to the specific abusive relationship Arias had with Travis, the alledged pattern of escalation of violence etc, Arias believed Travis would kill her when she dropped the camera, and that is why she was compelled to get a weapon instead of taking the same clear path to the stairway and out of the door.
The jury was instructed to apply the reasonable person standard to Arias with the adjustment that she acted as a reasonable person would act if they had been abused. BUT The court did not stipulate that Arias HAD been abused, the judge simply instructed the jury that they could accept that testimony regarding mental state and abuse as truth if they chose to. I do not have the link yo the jury instruction on hand but I posted it on this site earlier , shortly the instruction was given.
In a nutshell, here is the reasonable person standard, with reference to use in pleadings of self defense, with cases included:
. The Reasonable Person Standard As Applied To Self Defense
In criminal cases the reasonable person standard may become an issue when the accused relies on affirmative defenses such as self defense. For example, in most jurisdictions the case law and statutory law on self defense generally require that the defendant’s belief in the necessity of using force to prevent harm to himself be a “reasonable one.” (La Fave 10.4(c)) (2nd Ed. 2003)) This is an objective requirement which requires consideration of how a “reasonable person” would have responded. (Ibid.; see also State v. Coffin (NM 1999) 991 P.2d 477 [the appearance of immediate danger and being placed in fear thereby are totally subjective, to which is added the objective requirement that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have reacted similarly]; 73 ALR 4th 993 (1989); but see Vigil v. People (CO 1960) 353 P.2d 82 [instruction that right to self-defense is based on what reasonable persons would do under similar circumstances held error; animals who cannot reason, instinctively act in self-preservation, so self-defense by mankind is not based upon the reasonable man concept]; cf., Model Penal Code § 3.04(1) [requiring only that the defendant "believe" that the use of force is necessary].) Thus, even if the defendant’s belief is “reasonable to him,” it may not suffice to justify self defense. (See People v. Goetz (NY 1986) 497 N.E. 2d 41 [error to merely require that defendant’s belief be "reasonable to him"].) On the other hand, even a mistaken belief may be reasonable because, as Mr. Justice Holmes observed in afamous expression: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” (Brown v. United States (1921) 256 U.S. 335; see also State v. Marr (MD 2001) 765 A.2d 645; Commonwealth v. Glass (MA 1988) 519 N.E.2d 1311.)
The reasonable person standard is what is being debated when we talk about BPD PTSD Amnesia and other mental states. It is key in a self defense claim.
I apologize up front if I am not very good at communicating tone when I post. Its something that I must learn.
Please know that as I wrote earlier, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, meaning that I am open to anyones opinion and am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I don’t want to antagonize you, please know that!
I have formed an opinion as an observer, not as any kind of professional or expert,( thats for sure! ), and my opinion has been formed by watching the trial and in large part factoring in what I read on the various sites- most of BLINK ON CRIME ( hey where are the t-shirts?)
I am really grateful for the luxury of being able to discuss all facets of this case, to be able to agree and disagree without having to actually make THE decision that would affect a person’s life.
Hope this clears up any misunderstandings! x
Blink thanks for your concern
I can understand there could be problems
There is a HLN blog but not as tight as yours I don’t say much anyway but but I heard someone say on TV
They were a court Addict It might be my problem to
I love watching court
As do I when I have the opportunity Malty- it is my second professional passion.
B
mom 3.0
your posts are getting ahead of me again- i posted about reasonable person standard before reading your latest post, i was replying to the one before your latest when I wrote” your last post”
You have many unanswered questions, i have questions too, but at this point I am waiting for the july 18th hearing, waiting to see how this plays out , for my own sanity!.. lol.. saying this all with a big smile!
Malty says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:23 pm
@mom3.0
“The reason I ask is I know you are into discussion groups and I am wondering if you know if there is one on the Zimmerman trial that is as well monitored like this one”.
——————————————————————–
Let me know if you find one Malty. My hubby will divorce me if I glue myself to another murder trial particularly if it involves HLN/pundits
Malty says:
July 1, 2013 at 10:23 pm
@mom3.0
The reason I ask is I know you are into discussion groups and I am wondering if you know if there is one on the Zimmerman trial that is as well monitored like this one
====
hello malty
Sorry i can not answer your question
im not sure why you think i am into discussion groups-
BOC is the only forum i would ever recommend to anyone, it is the forum where i choose to post-
I read others from time to time-especially when someone here shares a link or when my googling pulls up a site..
and from reading, i cant say anywhereelse provides such a safe and flame free forum like BOC — theres only 1 Blink
Re Malty says:
July 1, 2013 at 8:41 pm
@mom 3.0
Are you watching The Zimmerman trial
Malty- I am not Mom 3.0, but as you know I have chosen not to cover the Zimmerman trial to date. A good friend of mine is commenting on the case, and turned down representation of Zimmerman- so I felt it was a strong possibility of conflict of interest. I agree it is a fascinating case, and I have followed it, but I feel the racial overtones can make online discussion dicey.
Be careful friend- I feel very protective of you
B
—-
thanks for stepping in Blink, and Im not sure if you were speaking to malty or me in sharing your concern
But i am glad for it
As for me, no I am not watching the Zimmerman trial-
perhaps someday I will watch it
I have to agree with Blinks wise decision on this case, not to offer a thread or discussion- we once briefly talked about it here on BOC
This is a very emotional case, even before one chooses to get into an indepth analysis…
I commend Blink for understanding this, as well as recognizing a possible conflict of interest concerning her friend.
Ajmo Peace
I thank you kindly Mom 3.0- I think sometimes certain cases create emotional roadblocks that are not suited for true analysis. At that point I pray for understanding, patience and justice.
B
Jean- you are a poster of few words but you get your point across-
No I did not detect any venom in your agreement or solidarity- I am posting not to change minds just as an offering to make us think and to further the dialog- sometimes a “yeah” is all it takes LOL
-
Who, I am reading all you have posted and thank you for your kindness- you are a very articulate person and I am in awe of your debate skills as well as your kindness
I am sorry if I seemed out of sorts as I am alittle out of sorts and it has nothing to do with what you wrote…
I apologize if I was too literal.. as I Do so understand how the written word can lead to many a misunderstanding-
and obviously I did misunderstand what you meant- but not necessarily what you wrote, if that makes sense…
I am glad we could clarify our thoughts…and further the discussion.
Dont feel obligated to respond to every post I write as I will not take offense-
Although i do look forward to reading your posts
I am just taking the opprotunity i have right now, to address those posts that I couldnt get to earlier….
I am determined to catch up.
AJMO
Peace
@ Malty says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:12 am
Hi Malty.
I, too, am a court addict. Major heat wave goin on in the prairies. Even too hard for court. This might break the addiction, but I’m afraid I may be replacing it with slurpees.
Happy post Canada day to my beloved country.
Love and slurpees! xo
oops….hard = hot. Brain is cooked.
Hey Mom 3.0
xxx!
who and Mom 3.0
I hope you will not mind if I interject a laugh here-
Who- I saw the triple xxx and re-read it twice, lol. I knew what you meant.
B
@Mom3.0
I guess I have seen you on more than one group here on Blink. your name always makes me wonder what the 3.0 means
I know we should stay with our Blink But I do so love watching court. As a teen I use to go down to traffic court
Instead of teen get togethers I was totally into it
And have never changed
I kind of like to check out what other lay persons are saying but there are few groups that are worth the effort
There is a hate element that ruins many of them for me
I am reading your posts here and also Who And find you peaceful discussion interesting
I personally am waiting until July 18
@Raydoll
The heat is getting cooler here in the Northwest I do not do hot weather well
I pray you get a cool wind soon also
HLN has made me almost like Nancy I use not to like her but she has grown on me
So there is one good thing
blink writes
who and Mom 3.0
I hope you will not mind if I interject a laugh here-
Who- I saw the triple xxx and re-read it twice, lol. I knew what you meant.
B
—
well there I go again not being clear!! Just meant to give hugs and send love and thanks to Mom 3.0 who has been so generous and thoughtful in communicating fully what she is thinking, and make sure she is understood and understands others. I am grateful!!
I do everything I can to stay objective and respect privacy on this site, but sometimes you just gotta give a personal shout out!!!
You were clear, I was having a mod moment, lol, xxx gets flagged as porn in the program, lol lol.
B
That is funny I don’t use x But I will remember that one Blink LOL
Status hearing moved back two days to July 16th.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/jodi-arias-trial-update-judge-moves-status-conference
Happy 4th of July to the Travis’ family and all my American BOC friends!
http://tinyurl.com/mlbx23l
good grief, the worst thing for Jodi Arias would be for everyone to forget about her. I honestly haven’t thought of her in at least a week (which is saying a lot for how invested I was in watching every second of the trial). She will be forgotten if given LWOP rather than the DP. I wish the prosecution would just ask the judge to sentence her and stop this. JSS will definitely sentence her to LWOP. If she gets the DP, she will never be executed due to many appeal issues that have already been discussed on this site at length. In my opinion, she should have been executed yesterday, but obviously my opinion doesn’t matter. When I think of this case now, I can honestly say I think of Travis, his smile, his love of life, and the legacy he has left.
sunshine writes:
I wish the prosecution would just ask the judge to sentence her and stop this.
—
I am noticing that people seem to think that IF the prosecution would just drop the death penalty, the judge could make the final decision. In fact. this is not how the law works in Arizona. In the event of a mistrial, a new jury MUST be empaneled. IF the second jury is also hung, only THEN the judge can make a ruling on her own.
I urge anyone (who is still interested lol), to read the 2011 revisions for capital cases:
http://www.azbar.org/media/58847/4-capital_case_instructions_revised_2011.pdf
In this document, you will see the laws that must be followed in a capital case in Arizona. This document includes instructions to the judge, and it includes Jury instructions.
This document also includes a very lengthy and detailed definition of ” especially cruel heinous and depraved” . It is specific, and IMO , I beleive easy for a layman to understand in its entirety, contrary to the defense current motion that the definition of “especially cruel” is only within a judge’s ability to comprehend.
——–
With regards to mental health issues as a mitigating factor ( this is for you, Mom 3.0, with a hug) here is a snippet:
” It is a mitigating circumstance that the defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of [his] [her] conduct, or to conform [his] [her] conduct to the requirements of law, was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. The defendant has the burden of proving this mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence.
“Significantly impaired” means that the defendant suffered from [mental illness] [personality disorder] [character disorder] [substance abuse] [alcohol abuse] at or near the time of the offense, that prevented the defendant from appreciating the wrongfulness of the conduct or conforming [his][her] conduct to the requirements of the law.
If any juror finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was significantly impaired, then that juror shall consider this impairment as a mitigating circumstance when determining whether to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment or death.
The effect you give to any mitigation is left to your sound discretion in determining whether there are mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency.”
–
As we have discussed, it is becoming more and more clear that this trial is not truly focused on discovering the TRUTH behind every facet of this crime.
For example, we are left with a gaping hole to explain exactly the circumstances under which the stabbing and throat slitting occurred. The defense has put forth that the truth is that Arias cant remember that. Read the instructions and you will see that It is incumbent upon the defense to prove that amnesia ( among other mental factors), and I don’t beleive they have. I do believe that under the law, the defense COULD, in a re trial, put forth more evidence of Arias mental state in order to seek leniency against the DP, but under current Arizona law and 2011 revisions, new evidence of Arias mental state could NOT be considered for a refutation of the already decided upon guilt of aggravation.
—-
In any case, I really think being aware of the Arizona laws that are dictating the path of this trial is vital in any discussion of what is fair and not fair.
Our laws do not always reflect what we know to be morally right and wrong. We know it is morally wrong to call a person deroggatory names, but our laws only dictate that it is punishable to physically hurt someone, and that obscene language is only “illegal” ( i.e. punishable) when spoken in front of anyone under 14. We know that it is morally wrong tp punish a person BECAUSE they are mentally ill, but our laws dictate that if they understand they could cause a person’s death by their actions, they are culpable. The list goes on and on. (note- I am not listing the legally appealable issues in this case, just pointing out two small examples, relevant to Arias case, of the discrepancy between morality and illegality)
But bottom line is that the judge CANNOT immediately make a judgement without going through the process of empanelling a second jury in the case of mistrial. Even if the prosecution drops pursuit of the the death penalty, they still have to get a second jury, according to link above.

Ragdoll, I see a slurpee in my future!
7/8/2013 OBJ – Objection/Opposition. – Party (001) 7/8/2013
NOTE: OBJECTION TO MOTION TO VACATE AGGRAVATION PHASE VERDICT PURSUANT TO RULE 24.2 ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 24.2. Motion to vacate judgment
a. Grounds for Motion. Upon motion made no later than 60 days after the entry of judgment and sentence but before the defendant’s appeal, if any, is perfected, the court may vacate the judgment on any of the following grounds:
(1) That it was without jurisdiction of the action;
(2) That newly discovered material facts exist, under the standards of Rule 32.1; or
(3) That the conviction was obtained in violation of the United States or Arizona Constitutions.
b. Previous Rulings. The court may deny any such motion on the grounds that the matter has already been decided.
c. Motion Filed After Notice of Appeal. When a motion is made under this section after a notice of appeal has been filed, the clerk of the Superior Court shall immediately send a copy to the attorney general and to the clerk of the Appellate Court in which the appeal has been filed.
d. Appeal From Decision on Motion. In noncapital cases, the party appealing a final decision on the motion shall file the notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court within 20 days after entry of the decision in superior court, or within 14 calendar days after entry of the decision in a court of limited jurisdiction. In capital cases, the court, after denying a motion to vacate judgment, shall order the clerk to file a notice of appeal from the denial.
http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/24_2.htm
Rule 24.2. Motion to vacate judgment
http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com
Arizona Revised Statutes, Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Evidence
A little story. This evening 3 sisters came to the door when I was home alone. They said they came by to spread the word of Jesus Christ. They said some kind words and and then asked if they could say a prayer and I said sure. One remarked on the crucifix I was wearing and they gave me a card in the event I wished to call on them in the future. It wasn’t until a bit later I noticed they were from The Church Of the Latter Day Saints. When my husband came home I said I was visited by three little sisters from the Mormon church. He said what- did Travis send them?
@ Word Girl
Enjoy that bad boy, sweet friendy! Lovin on ya xo xo xo
Blink can you not cover Adrienne Salinas…?
Sorry i ment can you cover Adrienne Salinas?
She vanished like Morgan or Lauren Spierer . So sad…She needs help. Maybe it ist not too late
She vanished just like Morgan or Lauren Spierer. She needs help. Maybe it is not too late…
Bill Montgomery makes a statement..
http://www.azcentral.com/video/#/County+Attorney+on+Arias%3A+Would+like+to+achieve+%27just+outcome+short+of+a+trial%27/2538478854001
and to me, it sounds like he is floating it out there that State would be open if a plea was put forth that involved ” finality”- meaning an agreement to drop any appeals. Just a guess. I also interpret his statements as saying that new information could affect the perspective on the whole thing. It is an interesting clip, in that Montgomerey appears to be talking about justice and fairness, and not particularly assigning blame for the delays .. just my opinion.
I will be in Italy when the next hearing takes place- not sure if we have any posters from overseas on this site, but if there is any awareness/interesting perspective of this trial over there.. I’ll report! ( Though I have a feeling the Amanda Knox case is much more of interest there…)
We have several International posters and travel safely!
This will settle, or Judge Stevens will decide, imo.
B
OT Got any comment on the Zimmerman verdict?
Imo jury composition says it all. The game changer.
My own outrage is the States Attorney altering it’s own IT report of Martin phone–deleting 2/3 of the material such that potentially inflammatory or inculpatory eviddnce (of Martin) did not go to Defense. Then firing yesterday the States Attys IT Director for disclosing that omission from his IT report to the Court. I hope he wins big in a tort suit and the Stayes Attorneys at issue are sanctioned by Judge & disbarred. Thank god for honest gov’t employees who fall on their swords to comply with our laws.!
I have not covered the case as we discussed- however, I may as part of a larger issue involving rogue prosecutions. I feel like a shaken bottle of seltzer waiting to decompress.
B
I know I’m OT, but George Zimmerman…Not Guilty. IMO the State did not prove their case.
OT Well having just seen puffy-faced (ahem) States Attorney Angela Corey speak, the person who fired the Prosecution Office IT Director for his honesty with the Court in accordance with the Law, I must say tho I would’ve voted to convict at least on manslaughter, I find her words, not to mention her garish jewelry–cross front & center, make me glad it’s a loss for her team. She deleted 2/3 of her IT team’s work product in Defense disclosure without informing her own Director.
Rose
You express my sentiments exactly. There should be an in depth investigation of how this case was twisted by Angela Corey and others.
This is exactly like the Duke LaCross case in that an over zealous prosecutor decided to make a sensational case by bypassing proper processes and making false statements on the indictment.
The media did their part in adding to the misinformation too.
O/T: Ditto, and specifically the conversations the state had with Jenteal after her first day of testimony.
B
I found the Zimmerman trial interesting unlike the Jodi trial it moved right long with few side bars
And no sex tapes
PHOENIX – A hearing set for Tuesday morning in the Jodi Arias murder trial has been moved to 10:30 a.m., according to the Maricopa County Superior Court
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/jodi-arias-update-status-conference-set-for-tuesday
Another status hearing scheduled for August 26th.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/16/jodi-arias-back-in-court-for-death-penalty-argument-as-prosecutors-ponder/?test=latestnews
@Lyla
Thanks for the link
I was going watch and did see Jodi come in
And thought OMG I had forgot how much I disliked her
Some how I fell asleep and didn’t see any more
Oh well
@Malty
You didn’t miss much….leg shackles, hand cuffs accompanied by three armed officers. Jodi is aging quickly. I wish this were put to rest for sake of the Alexander family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5dYHi1Lsys