Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury

Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury – Commentary


Jodi-Arias-May-8-2013-PhotoAP-The-Arizona-Republic-Rob-Schumacher-PoolMay 8, 2013: GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. The Wild About Trial lawyers are not exactly surprised, we have to say. Our first clue was the comparatively brief jury deliberation, a mere three days as compared to the months of testimony. Generally verdicts that favor defendants take a little longer, as a kind of “Twelve Angry Men” situation develops in the jury room.

All twelve jurors found Jodi Arias guilty of premeditating the killing of Travis Alexander. Five also believed Arias was guilty of felony murder, that is, a murder that occurs while another felony — robbery, in this case — is ongoing.

This wild ride is not over yet, Trial Junkies. Coming attractions include the aggravation phase of the proceedings, which will give the jury the opportunity to consider whether Alexander’s murder was especially cruel, heinous or depraved, or if it was “committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification.” It will be similar to a mini-trial; however, the jurors can take into account evidence heard during the chief trial.

After that the penalty phase begins, when the jury will hear evidence on whether or not Arias deserves the death penalty. Both sides will present evidence. Nurmi will undoubtedly argue that his client is less culpable given the abusive relationship she had with Alexander, and should he successfully show that Arias “was under unusual and substantial duress” he may be able to spare his client from execution. Martinez will reiterate the gruesomeness of the murder, and the jury will decide.

One interesting thing about both of these upcoming mini-trials is that the rules of evidence are relaxed, so we will probably hear a lot of new information that could not be brought out during the main trial because it’s evidentiary value was in question. Expect even more scandal, as the door has been opened for hearsay testimony.


Judge-Sherry-Stephens-April-24-2013-Photo-The-Arizona-Republic-Mark-Henle-PoolJury Instructions

May 2, 2013: After weeks and weeks of testimony, including 18 days of Arias herself on the stand, this trial is almost at an end. For the lawyers, the marathon is almost over. The jury, however, is still slogging through.

Before closing arguments today, Judge Stephens took some time to look the jurors in the eyes and instruct them on how their decision-making process should unfold. It can be really confusing to be a juror, especially in a case that is as information-heavy as this one. Judge Stephens laid out the road map of the information they can consider, the information they must ignore, and the verdicts they can reach.

Let’s break it down, shall we?

First of all, the judge was explicit. The jurors can only consider the facts in evidence. They cannot let rumors, hearsay or facts that they might have learned from another source (news media, Wild About Trial, Wild’s Twitter account) influence their decision-making. If it was not stated in open court without objection, then they cannot consider it.

Secondly, Judge Stephens told then they could not let their prejudices or sympathies come into play. The key here is “Just the facts, ma’am.” As a juror, whether you love Jodi Arias or hate Jodi Arias needs to be completely irrelevant. Now, whether or not it is even possible for the average juror to approach deliberation that way is another issue. It seems impossible to leave all prejudices and sympathies at the door in this case, especially considering how much time the jury spent with Arias. They know her well, and we are certain that each juror has a definite opinion about her.

Judge Stephens was also clear about how much weight the jury should give each person’s testimony. She was clear that police officers and experts are no more or less credible than regular people. She told the jury it was up to them to decide how much of the testimony they thought was believable, truthful or important to the facts of this case.

The next point Judge Stephens made is absolutely huge: Jodi Arias does not need to prove she is innocent. She did not need to present an affirmative defense. She did not need to testify. She could have sat pretty and batted her eyes for the prosecution’s entire presentation and then just said, “that’s it, you didn’t prove I’m guilty” and we all could have been spared the drama of her testimony. Choosing to argue self-defense does not strengthen the prosecution’s case. The prosecution is in the same place they were in weeks ago: Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander? They provided a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in that direction, but did they PROVE it?

Not only is the State of Arizona required to prove Arias guilty, but they must also prove her guilty of every “element” of the crime. Each crime is broken down into component parts in a legal definition, and the jury must look at each component part to determine whether Arias is guilty. For example, the jury might find that Arias caused Alexander to die, but they might be split on whether she premeditated the death. In that case, they would not be able to convict her within the legal definition of first-degree murder, and they would have to look to a different offense, like second-degree murder or manslaughter.

So let’s dive into those legal definitions.

First Degree Murder (Also called Murder 1 and Premeditated Murder)

To convict Arias of first degree murder, the jury would have to unanimously agree that Arias (1) caused the death of Travis Alexander; (2) that Arias planned the murder.

Second Degree Murder (Also called Murder 2 and Heat of Passion Murder)

To convict Arias of second-degree murder, the jury would have to unanimously agree that Arias (1) intentionally caused Travis Alexander’s death. There is no premeditation requirement in a second-degree murder verdict. If the jury splits on premeditation, this is very likely the verdict.

Manslaughter

To convict Arias of manslaughter, the jury would have to unanimously agree that Jodi Arias unintentionally caused Travis Alexander’s death.

First Degree Felony Murder

To convict Arias of felony murder, the jury would have to unanimously agree that Jodi Arias intended to commit burglary (the legal definition of burglary is that Arias (1) entered a residence (2) with the intent to commit burglary).

The judge also gave the jury an instruction about how to treat self-defense. Basically, this is how that breaks down. After the jury has made a decision about guilt on one of the possible crimes listed above, then they must decide whether or not Arias acted in self-defense. So, for example, if they find that Arias was factually not guilty of any of those crimes, then they never have to make a decision about self-defense. But if they do find her guilty of one of the crimes the judge listed, then they need to examine whether they found she acted in self defense.

Self Defense

To find that Arias acted in self-defense, the jury must either unanimously agree that a reasonable person in Jodi Arias’ situation would have acted in the same way to preserve her own safety or, if the jury unanimously finds that Arias fits the description of a battered woman.


March 8, 2013: Jodi Arias had over 200 questions to field from the jurors, the final cap to her weeks of testimony.

We’ve discussed before the somewhat rare practice in Arizona of allowing jurors to submit questions. Some of the Wild About Trial legal staff thinks that permitting juror questions turns the jurors into lawyers and takes them out of their appropriate role. Some of us believe that juror questions are a helpful tool to allow jurors to crystallize their understanding of the facts of the case.

The questions the jury submitted for Arias showed that both of those analyses are correct. Many of the questions were simply trying to get at the heart of the matter and trying to discern the truth out of Arias’ vague answers and inconsistent testimony. Some of the questions were downright confrontational, as if trying to nail Arias on cross examination.

Some of the questions that served no purpose but to mock Arias included:
“Why were the laws of attraction so important to follow but the law of chastity was not?”

“How do you remember so many sexual encounters but don’t remember stabbing Travis and dragging his body?”

“Did you ever see a doctor for your memory issues?”

“How do you determine when you will tell the truth and when you will not tell the truth?”

We are surprised that the judge admitted these questions. When judges are considering whether a question posed to a witness is appropriate, they need to look at two important factors: whether the question is relevant, and whether the question unduly prejudices the defendant.

These questions were not relevant in the sense that they did not elicit new information and did not explain previously submitted evidence. The sole purpose of these questions was to be nasty to Arias.

If the prosecutor had asked those questions that would be one thing because it’s the prosecutor’s job to get in a hostile witness’s face. It was improper for the judge to allow the jury to assume a confrontational role against the defendant.

Most of the other questions the jurors posed were relevant, however, and provided an interesting lens on the jury’s thought process. They asked why Arias had never telephoned for help before during their abusive relationship. They asked why she had not reported Alexander to the police if she believed he had pedophilic tendencies. It seemed that some of the jurors are not convinced by Arias’ testimony that she was abused by Alexander.

They also asked about her road trip, and it was clear that they believed she was trying to cover up her tracks on the way to Mesa, not just on her way back from Mesa. They asked about the gas cans in her car, and why she filled up gas in California when she testified that she took gas cans to take advantage of the cheaper gas across the border. That would tend to show that at least some of the jurors believe she premeditated the murder.

Trial will not begin again until March 13, giving everyone a week off.


Day ten of Arias on the stand, witness fatigue

February 27, 2012: Is anyone else sick of Arias’ testimony yet? It’s hard to believe that her time on the witness stand has dragged out this long, and yet here we are.

It seemed like one of the reasons Nurmi kept his client on the stand for as long as he did was to demystify Arias and make her relatable to the jury. The reasoning was that if the jurors spend enough time with Arias, they would realize that she was the victim in all this, that she acted in self-defense, that she was a nice girl after all, and that Travis was a monster who tied her up and made her do deviant sex acts.

If that method worked on direct examination, Martinez’s cross examination has effectively ruined it. The longer Arias stays under the prosecutor’s questioning, evading questions, refusing to answer because the questions are too vague, the more frustrated the jury becomes, and the more their sympathy for Arias wanes.

Martinez’s line of questioning could be a lot more specific and precise. It’s our opinion that he leaves Arias too much wiggle room and that he needs to work on his witness control. Arias should be an easy witness to nail down, but she keeps evading him. A veteran prosecutor like Martinez really should be better at this.

It could be that Martinez — like all of us — is suffering witness fatigue.

After spending ten days with Arias, what do you think the jurors think of her? What do you think of her?


Arias’ controversial testimony: Alexander turned on by young boys

February 12, 2013: The big reveal in yesterday’s trial was Arias’ testimony that she walked in on her ex-lover masturbating to a picture of a young boy wearing only underwear. The attorneys debated the admissibility of the evidence before Arias testified, probably because the testimony is so incendiary that it could alter the jury’s ability to remain unbiased in their deliberation.

The judge found that the information about Alexander’s pedophilia could come in as relevant evidence of Alexander’s character.

Important facts about a victim’s character (lawyers usually call this just “character evidence”) are often admissible in criminal trials because they can provide context for the crime committed against the victim. Character evidence is particularly common in cases that focus on a mutually violent relationship.

In this case, Nurmi is using Arias’ testimony to do his darndest to show that Alexander was a creep and a bad guy. According to Arias’ testimony, Alexander liked little boys and beat his girlfriends. It feels like Nurmi is daring the jury: “Are you really going to side with a pedophile over this poor woman, this victim of domestic violence?”

After the prosecution’s case against Arias, which painted a clear picture of her guilt, this is probably the last best chance Nurmi has for a verdict other than first degree murder.


Arias takes the stand

February 5, 2013: Trial junkies have watched with grim fascination as Jodi Arias testified in her own defense yesterday and today. On direct examination her testimony seemed rehearsed, even coached, and the information she gave often seem irrelevant to the larger case at hand. Prosecutor Martinez cooled it on the objections and let her talk.

As lawyers, we cannot possibly overstate the importance of calling the defendant to testify. It is a rarely-used defense tactic, and there’s no way Nurmi would have put Arias on the stand without a great deal of careful thought and planning.

The reason defendants rarely testify is because doing so exposes the defendant to cross examination. Once the defense lawyer has questioned Arias, the prosecutor can also question her. (And, apparently, Arizona’s trial laws being what they are, the jury will be permitted to ask her questions as well!)

For Arias, cross-examination will be brutal. You can bet Martinez will grill her mercilessly on her every inconsistent statement, her bizarre behavior after Alexander’s killing, and the most raw, private details of her personal life, including her sexual relationships. Martinez will leave no stone unturned in exposing Arias as a wicked woman.

So why did Nurmi decide to risk it? Why put Arias on the stand to begin with? Honestly, it’s tough for us to say. Nurmi’s direct examination of Arias was so scattered, we often did not understand the point he was trying to make with her testimony.

It seemed like he thought he had a good battered woman’s syndrome defense because Nurmi went into her past abusive relationships somewhat extensively. Arias would be the only person who could testify to the facts of her previous relationships, so perhaps Nurmi believed that defense was important enough to open Arias up to attack on cross-examination.


Why Jurors Can Ask Questions of Witnesses in the Jodi Arias Murder Trial

January 29, 2013: If you were a juror in the Jodi Arias murder trial, what questions would you ask of the witnesses you’ve seen? If Arias testifies herself, what questions would you ask of her?

On the eighth day of trial, the jury submitted several handwritten questions to Judge Sherry Stephens after the testimony of Esteban Flores, the lead detective in the Travis Alexander murder investigation:

“When interviewing Mr. Alexander’s roommates, did they ever show concern for his extended absence?”
“Did you ever check into their alibis?”
“Did Mr. Alexander have another boarder living in the house (and) were fingerprints of the boarder taken to see if they matched the scene?”

These questions have provided insight into what the jury is thinking about the case. But why are jurors allowed to ask the witnesses questions in the first place? For those people accustomed to watching television court dramas, you may be asking yourself this very question.

Traditionally jurors are not permitted to question witnesses themselves. However, a small number of states have changed their court rules to allow juror questions, often with the requirement that juror questions be submitted in writing to allow both the defense and prosecution an opportunity to object. Arizona, where Jodi Arias is being tried for murder, is one of the states that now allows juror questions to witnesses.

According to the official website for the State of Arizona Judicial Branch: “Arizona has pioneered many successful jury reform measures, such as jurors being allowed to ask written questions of witnesses in the court; jurors being allowed to discuss evidence (in civil cases) during the course of the trial; juror note taking and juror notebooks in lengthy or complex trials and supplemental pay for long trials.”

Several of the states that allow juror questions include Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Washington, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Although the rule has been adopted in a few states, it is still somewhat unique in criminal law. As avid trial junkies know, the prosecution must fully prove that the defendant is guilty in order to win their case. By allowing jurors to question the witnesses, the prosecution has the ability to patch up holes in the evidence. It also provides lawyers on both sides with a window to the jury’s perspective on the case, and good lawyers will then tailor their case around that perspective.

For example, in this case the jury wanted to know more about other potential suspects. Arias’ lawyer would be wise to keep coming back to the idea that the investigation into other potential suspects was not thorough enough, thus Arias might not be guilty.

By giving jurors the chance to ask witnesses questions, the roles in the trial are reversed. Gone are the days when juries were passive observers, relying only on the information provided by the attorneys. In states that allow jurors to question witnesses, the jurors take on the role of the lawyer and become active participants in the trial.

This role reversal might be dangerous if jurors become personally involved in the case. Imagine a scenario where a juror poses a question, and the defense objects to the question based on a legal technicality. The juror then might feel personally disappointed that his question was not answered and might take out that disappointment on the lawyer who objected, thus prejudicing the defendant. It seems to us at Wild About Trial that a judge who permits juror questions must proceed with utmost caution.


January 18, 2013: The prosecution called their last witness today and the judge gave Arias and her defense lawyer ten full days to present their own case. Why so long?

Well, for one thing, the judge wants to take a few days to consider the defense’s motion to dismiss. At any criminal trial in the United States, the prosecution has the sole responsibility to prove its case. The prosecutor

must call all the witnesses and present all the evidence that is necessary to convict the defendant. Technically, the defense does not need to do a single thing in response.

If the judge does not believe that the prosecutor proved that Arias killed her ex-boyfriend, the judge can grant the defense’s motion and the case would end with Arias a free woman.

However, it seems to us that the judge is going to find cause to deny that motion given the wealth of evidence against Arias, from her conflicting statements to her procurement of weapons to her ultimate confession to law enforcement. It is going to be up to the defense team to provide an alternative theory in their case.

So why the hiatus? Any number of reasons – it’s possible that someone involved in the trial is unavailable for those dates, or perhaps the judge just wants time to catch up with the court calendar. However, we suspect that part of the reason for the time is to give Arias a chance to negotiate and take a plea deal before the jury returns with a near-certain conviction. It’s possible that there is a deal on the table for a lesser sentence than the jury would hand down, and now that Arias sees how badly her case is going, she might take the opportunity to capitulate now.


January 14, 2013: This trial is better than a soap opera, full of sex, lies and photographs documenting the whole darn thing. We can hardly believe some of the sordid details that have come out during this trial. The prosecution isn’t holding back; we’ve seen all the sexts, explicit messages on Facebook and racy pictures that document the tumultuous, passionate affair between Arias and Alexander.

It seems almost counter-intuitive that the prosecution would be playing up the intimate relationship between Arias and Alexander. Since Arias was so close to Alexander, how could she be guilty of his murder?

But that intimacy only adds fuel to the prosecution’s theory: if Arias’ relationship with Alexander was that steamy, that involved, that obsessive, then there’s the motive. The argument will be that because the two were so close, when Alexander and Arias split up, Arias just couldn’t take it anymore. The level of infatuation between Arias and Alexander now looks like a mania. It’s a very clever way of taking evidence that might have hurt their case and making it the touchstone of the case against her.

The sexy pictures of the couple in happier times also serve as a stark visual contrast to the pictures of Alexander allegedly taken by Arias after she had killed him. Those photographs side by side will be a chilling reminder for the jury that this is a case of violent, obsessive love — just what the prosecution hopes to prove.

The prosecution may also be hoping that by tarnishing Arias’ reputation by making her look promiscuous, they will be able to convince the jury that she was capable of other immoral acts. It should go without saying that to do so plays on the worst of gender stereotyping, but it may still prove to be an effective tool for the case against Arias.

That Jezebel theory may shed some light on why witness Ryan Burns was a prosecution witness and not a defense witness. Burns was the man who Arias was making out with the day after Alexander was killed. Instead of proving that Arias had an alibi or was utterly unaware of Alexander’s death, because she did not seem upset or shaken in any way during her interaction with Burns, the prosecution used it to show that Arias is unfeeling and promiscuous. Very slick.


January 3 2013: Watching this trial, it’s hard not to think of the classic quotation from William Congreve, “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.” Is that all there is to this case? Jodi Arias, a beautiful young woman surrounded by loving family and friends, just flipped out and gruesomely slaughtered her ex because she was jealous?

That’s what the prosecution would have us all believe. And it’s true enough that Jodi is not the most sympathetic defendant. She was certainly in Arizona around the time of his death, according to the sexy photographs of her and Alexander. Yet she told police she was on the road. Then she told them she was there, but the murder was caused by masked intruders. Finally she told them she killed Alexander but acted in self-defense. Those three conflicting stories alone may be enough to secure her conviction.

The defense would be wise to bring in an expert on battered woman syndrome, a very real psychological disorder. An expert can talk about how women who are the subject of constant physical or mental abuse do not stand up to law enforcement pressure the same way a mentally healthy person might be able to. A battered woman will make excuses for her behavior, she will demur from the truth and she will do anything to protect her abuser’s innocence.

Battered women also generally fail to report previous instances of abuse in their relationships, so when an abused partner does finally “snap” and become aggressive toward her abuser, that behavior seems like it’s coming out of nowhere.

If the defense can make a compelling argument for battered woman syndrome or a similar heat of passion killing, Arias might be spared the death penalty and convicted of second-degree murder instead. But in any case, it is unlikely she will be exonerated completely. She is looking at many more years in jail.

Share this post!
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Pinterest

Comments

tab  
Rn2639 says:

I haven’t figured out which came first….what spattered blood all over the sink and mirror? I think stabs, how, then slice to the throat to finish him off.

   
Doria Maruscak says:

Oooh, I really like both of those. Which would you be more comfortable in? I know that you really like wearing tights and those types of tops, but the maxi would be incredibly summery!

   
Chong Whitver says:

Wow, amazing blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is fantastic, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury & .

   
Rolande Priolo says:

Wow, amazing blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is great, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury & .

   
Darius Stollings says:

Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is wonderful, let alone the content!. Thanks For Your article about Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury & .

   
carolrees says:

And it’s still over ! As they say “justice delayed, is justice denied”. Let’s get on with the penalty, give her the Death sentence !!!

   
Freeman Kujawski says:

Wow, incredible blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is magnificent, as well as the content!. Thanks For Your article about Jodi Arias: Hell Hath No Fury & .

   
chelsea says:

wasn’t the count 5 premeditated, 7 felony premeditated……

   
Kelly G. says:

Hi Chelsea! Kelly here. This has been misreported a little bit. All twelve agreed with premeditated murder, otherwise there could be no Murder 1 verdict. In addition, another five jurors believed her guilty of felony murder as well. In the end, the most meaningful verdict is the unanimous Murder 1. Hope that helps!

   
Patricia S Ajak says:

“The prosecution is in the same place they were in weeks ago: Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander? They provided a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in that direction, but did they PROVE it?”
Is it really circumstantial if the defendant states, under oath in front of jury — “yes” — to the questions, “Was it you who slit his throat? Was it you who stabbed him 29 times? Was it you who shot him?”

   
Giorgio_Coda says:

She’d be hotter if she had a smaller nose. :/

   
Giliannelohed says:

Immediately after study a number of of the blog posts on your website now, and I truly like your way of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark site list and will be checking back soon. Pls have a look at my web internet site too and let me know what you think.

michael kors bags outlet

   
tiZecrilt says:

This is the right weblog for anybody who wants to find out about this subject. You realize so significantly its almost challenging to argue with you (not that I really would want?-HaHa). You absolutely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Amazing stuff, just fantastic!

cheap jordans

   
tiZecrilt says:

It is best to take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will advise this web site!

kors michael kors

   
Giliannelohed says:

I’d have to check with you here. Which isn’t some thing I in most cases do! I get pleasure from reading a post that may make men and women believe. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

michael kors bags sale

   
clothed sex says:

-Mortal Kombat 3

   
unwigefluisse says:

I’d have to check with you here. Which isn’t some thing I frequently do! I delight in reading a post which will make individuals believe. Also, thanks for permitting me to comment!

christian louboutin sale

   
Giliannelohed says:

I was particularly pleased to discover this web-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this excellent read!! I undoubtedly enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to have a look at new stuff you weblog post.

christian louboutin

   
unwigefluisse says:

I’d have to check with you here. Which is not something I commonly do! I take pleasure in reading a post that may make people today feel. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

cheap jordans for sale

   
unwigefluisse says:

Aw, this was a really nice post. In notion I would like to put in writing like this in addition – taking time and actual effort to make a incredibly beneficial article?- but what can I say?- I procrastinate alot and by no indicates seem to obtain something done.

cheap michael kors bags

   
laurie says:

To me, the most disgusting thing I’ve seen, is the smug and snide chuckles and looks from jabba the hu…I mean Nurmi.

   
Lisa says:

I wish they would have called Chris Hughes as a defense witness. He could have testified of how he did not like the abusive way in which Travis treated Jodi. He would have been a good witness.

   
laurie says:

chris hughes HATES arias and has said he knows she killed his friend.

   
jean says:

Thurs. 4/24/13 – what now? More defense psch. testimony? Jury has to be totally fed-up. I hope they can hang n. Thank God they haven’t been sequestered.

   
Richard says:

My 2¢ worth; Jodi owed Travis for BMW and payment with sex was tabled, partial sex with payment would equate that Jodi must afford travel costs, hate sex or cash payment or bad named for non-payment. In shower Travis was killed but Jodi had to shower,Travis had to be moved to bathroom floor, then returned to shower. The blood stain on rug was Jodi trying to find dry shoes or clothes and hand print was her slipping or falling, Travis was attacked and died in shower. His defensive cuts were in shower, Jodi was more-so the pervert but Travis was also demented.

   
Roz Schurr says:

Does the prosecutor get to cross examine the defenses “expert” witness? (The psychiatrist)

   
jean says:

looking forward to cross on Monday. More abt Snow White – JM has a plan to make SW just as battered as JA. The only abuse JA ever suffered was verbal. Travis called her a liar several times. This woman planned everything except for Travis ever leaving the shower. Too much blood. She planned on dismembering him,disposing of the body in the desert and washing all the blood down the drain. Extra gas may have been intended for part of the disposal/cover-up. He came out of the shower lurching toward sink kind o “like a linebacker”. He had his chance to take her along – last chance. She planned the front half down to a tee. She wasn’t going to leave any body. There would be no evidence of foul play. Too much blood. Couldn’t clean it up. She was desperate when she dragged him back to the shower, lifted his upper torso and got him back in. She would have been blood all over. She had to change clothes. I wish they could find a record of that gas can purchase – I’d bet she also purchased heavy-duty trash bags. She panicked when her plan went wrong. She did not panic because of what she had done.

   
jean says:

she doesn’t show remorse. Remember her words in the desert? Something like”I guess my life is pretty much over”, not “Oh my God, what have I done ?”. There was no fog. No guilt no remorse no feeling for anyone except her self. Total narcissistic sociopath. She’s got a different sort of brain. Probably needs study or lobotomy.

   
jean says:

a brain like Einstein? Really?

   
John C Stires says:

Jodi felt Travis’ leaving forever and began planning his demise before he took another woman to Cancun. She didn’t want to lose the wonderful public persona he shared with his friends (but not with her) along with the private and creative sexual intensity they equally shared. Slashing his tires and other compulsive behaviors didn’t change the inevitable and she began writing the script for:

“Murder in Mesa”.

THE SCENARIO: Two thugs murder an Arizona man, one shoots him with a pistol and the other stabs him repeatedly while his blonde ex-girlfriend is traveling from California to Utah.

SCENE ONE, Planning:
Props include Grandpa’s gunky gun, a knife, three gas cans, dark hair, ‘skaters’ inverting the license plate of a rented car (that looks nothing like hers), a dark sweater, multiple credit card accounts and other means to hide the fact that she wasn’t even in the state of Arizona.

SCENE TWO, The Murder:
Steamy sex for the last time. She dresses then takes sexy photos of Travis in the shower. She directs him to crouch down while water flows over his buff body. She drops the camera [click] and Travis yells at her. She pulls out the gun and shoots him once in the face, shocked that the gunk in the mechanism prevents a clean ejection of the lightweight shell casing and a second shot. The bullet travels across and behind his face from his forehead slicing through his sinuses, lodging in the jaw on the other side of his head.

Incredulous, Travis leaps to the mirror to look at himself. Naked ant wet, he screams at her, aspirating blood onto the mirror and sink. Jodi pulls the knife from the scabbard she kept in the small of her back and begins the frenzied stabbing that will take his life one minute later. It begins with nine wounds from left to right into his mid-back, neck and head.

As the adrenaline races, Jodi steps back and away from Travis, moving towards the door. He turns, taking a couple of steps towards her and collapses onto his back prior to reaching the hallway. She jumps on top of him [camera clicks], mortally stabbing continuously and deeply into his torso, including wounds into the vena ceva, the major vein that returns blood to the heart. The coup de gras nearly severs his head, a slash to his throat from ear to ear where he bleeds out, now dead. The morbid frenzy took one minute and left a scene of horrific slaughter.

SCENE THREE, Evidence destruction and misdirection.
She drags him to the shower, hides, manipulates and destroys evidence, including placing the casing she discovered stuck in the ejector slide onto the congealing blood puddle. Too smart for reality, she had no idea the camera had fired off a few times, time-stamping the event and directly implicating her. When fleeing the scene she left messages and texts on Travis’s phone while driving to meet a Utah man with whom she’d created a budding relationship, claiming to be in Northern California.

Some background;

The empty cartridge is a(nother) red herring. It’s very easy for an empty cartridge to jam the mechanism of an older, unused and gunky.25 caliber semi-automatic pistol. The empty casing has very little mass and is very lightweight; it’s easy for it to stick in the slide and it probably happens more often than not. That’s where Arias would’ve found it as she collected her items and put them back into her big purse before leaving the scene.

The memory expert is extraneous and a desperate attempt to deflect reality. He made a hypothesis that fit the woman and the crime and then performed every task and formed every answer to support the very theory he’s taken ownership of. No question but that he felt sorry for Jodi. There’s no question that an event like that would create PTSD in anyone other than a sociopath Arias. As to amnesia? Not all of that is nonsense. This story fits with her first “real” excuse, The Ninja Defense. It’s a task far beyond her capacity to remember each detail of the lies that began years ago; remembering is impossible. The whole thing was planned in advance and with surprising creativity.

The so-called battering defense can be assigned to virtually every relationship between young lovers. There’s nothing in her history that would create enough anger to justify anything greater than a slap in the face and a curt “Good bye.”

Tragic, compelling, salacious, horrific and very, very sad.

   
jean says:

i think she changed clothes before she left the scene. She would have had blood all over her. Tere were only a few kool-aid type stains n the seats. In order to get him in shower, she wld have had to lift at least upper torso. She changed clothes in her “fog”. No amnesia, no fog. Couldn’t clean up the scene. She was blood all over. The blood was a real bad problem. She ran out of time,panicked. She planned everything pretty well on the front end – she had a plan to hide this and that plan went awry. She was going to get rid of the body. She wanted the good evidence wahed down the drain.

   
Frank says:

Jean, I’m wondering if she showered and changed. Some of the TV experts say the 1st wound was the deep stab wound to Travis’ Vena Cava, which is why there was much blood from the gun shot that they say came last. Thing is, the bullet didn’t penetrate brain tissue. Brain wounds bleed profusely, but a low caliber bullet that may have misfired and had a reduced muzzle velocity that traversed his sinus cavity and then lodged in his jaw bone may not have produced a lot of bleeding.

Then there’s the pool of blood in the carpet at the entrance to the bedroom. The experts haven’t really commented on it. I think that that is where Arias killed Travis with the deep stab wound. I can make the case within the timeline that Arias shot Travis, uttered an “uh oh” and ran down the hall to get the knife. I can then see her leaving him lying there bleeding out while she showered and dressed and then very carefully dragged travis’ body to the shower, slit his throat and then ran the water to get rid of blood before attempting to destroy other evidence. Picture that – Arias calmly showering and dressing while Travis lay dead in the hallway.

   
jean says:

sadly, I can picture that. Gunshot first makes more sense. If he were sitting in shower , angle for stabbing by a lefty doesn’t look quite right. Angle would be correct for gunshot wound. Fascinating . BUT when did he get defensive wounds?

   
jack says:

In answer to the person who questioned her ability to drag him across the floor. She could have put the body on a blanket or something like that and would have been able to drag him. She did it. No doubt about it.

   
johnny g says:

was jodi driving with her wipers on when the fog appeared and r those fog proof glasses shes wearing, would she be able to sustain a normal life if released or would we all be indager of jodi getting a fog relaps. i think that she should pay the ultimate price for her crime and maybe justice will be served and other jodis will think twice before doing something so traggic. keep up the good work Juan Martinez

   
Jay says:

Dr. Samuels has made so many errors it is difficult to regard him as a helpful witness for the defense. The last one was, in response to the jury’s question, he said that she was not suicidal when he met her; but on cross examination, when he was asked about giving her the seal-help book, he told Martinez: “She was suicidal”. Remember that? In addtion, he admitted he was helping her when he said: She was alone; had no one else to turn to. He clearly was not objective in his examination. IN addition, he seemed to have formed the opinion that she had PDST before he tested her, then crafted his test to support his conclusion.

   
jaykay says:

I kinda feel for laviolette,shes GOTTA know prosecuter martinez in going to SHREDher.who knows,he probably actually likes some if the expert witnesses,but has to do wat hes got to do.god knows the defense has no shame for pure evils sake,why should anyone look at it slanted?someone said,and I thot fitting,punishment is justice for injustice. (selah)

   
Monami says:

LoL! Right!

If you’re going to fabricate evidence, don’t save the cheat-sheets you used in doing so…sheeeeesh!

However, if both Samuels and LaViolette’s careers circle the drain and ultimately die as a result of their testimony in this case, could Jodi be charged with those deaths as well? LoL! jk…

   
jean says:

Here’s how it went down. She had her tools assembled. She talked him into shower and more pics. She shot him after telling him what she was going to do – she would have to get those words in. He gets hormone to brain flood – shot doesn’t kill him knocks gun away, lurches to sink. She grabs knife from her camera bag stuff and proceeds to knfe him til the throat slash kills him in hall. Important to get him back in shower, lots of effort. Too much blood. Was going to dismember him in shower – couldn’t hide the blood. Didn’t plan on shot not being lethal. If it had been lethal – there would have been no evidence. No body. Remember she wrapped herself with stuff when she was going to slash her wrists? Blood had been a problem before. She planned well. She had no intentions of leaving any evidence. She was going to take that body, dispose of it in the desert and go her merry way. She had already thought out how to cover her tracks with voicemaîls etc., so continued on with that plan. She practiced that before the event – already knew what to say. It may be that her verbage and pride in that was her downfall. If she had not given him time to react, he might not have gotten the adrenal in rush that enabled him to flee and spread the blood. Ironic?

   
jean says:

Her demeanor has changed again – looked pitiful Monday watching psychologists testimony. He made a grave error when he didn’t redo that pstd test, and he set himself up when he sent her a book. He sent her a”feel good” card? How can he even pretend objectivity? She manipulated him too – guess she didn’t think it wld be found out. In this instance, her prowess is not serving her well. He failed to notify appropriate persons of her suicide thoughts? What? Most laymen even know to take such threats seriously. Whatever happened to the CYA practice? This man is quite likable but I think his laisse faire attitude in re to ethics and procedure is lacking and possibly dangerous. Juan has done his homework very very well.

   
jean says:

laissez faire (sp. )

   
jaykay says:

I think thers a lil juan martinez on the jury.the juryquestion 2 samuels was to the effect of”25-30 hours is kind of not enough time to make the diagnosis, dont u think”he said, that actually most evalutions are around 8-12hrs,otherwise they seem more like a visitor or a frie.d an tend too looze impartiality.words to that effect.i think the juror was going into a corner and ripping the sheet off the darkness.
, much likeJM.reality is that is exactley wat he did,spendinv all that time w/arias.

   
bennie says:

Has any one ever check at the jail where she has been for the last 5yrs she has had a lot of time to plan all of this she could have read up on this.check to what she has been reading about for the last 5yrs she is no dummy she has a lot of time to plan all of this i hope they get her.

   
hjerumewe says:

Breaking News!!! Those for Jodi Arias, will be happy. Haters, will be disappointed. Jodi Ann Arias took the miracle camera shot of her llife and one for the ages. Jodi Ann Arias is INNOCENT!!! This photo is available to all. The camera pic of Travis Alexander revealed the two killers that Jodi told everyone about through her police interrogation. See Youtube: The Name of Videos: Travis Alexander The People In His Eye and Travis Alexander People in His Eye HD. She was telling the Truth. I have made a copy of this post and a date stamp(17 March 2013: 21:39PM)

   
gutie says:

@hjerumewe…sure, that is very good evidence! “:snicker” “:snort”. let’s all forget the
picture of him alive, then 62 seconds later, the picture of him laying on the ground
with his throat slit and tons of his blood streaming from the wound AND Jodi’s
foot and leg in the picture and go with this looney toons observations…next the Jodi
fan club will be saying it was aliens who murdered Travis.

   
Monami says:

You’re kidding right…??

You do know JA has admitted she is the one who murdered TA:
– from the stand
– under oath
– during cross examination

   
Bud says:

She went there to kill him. She had him at gunpoint in the shower, she shot him but it was not fatal. He got past her and most likely did knock the gun out of her control, she went to find the knife real quick but time for him to get up to the sink and cough blood as is seen in the photos. No other way to explain the coughed blood. Then she got back to him and went at him from behind with the knife, He turned and while backing away toward and into the hall she was at him with the knife and he had his hands up, finally she got through to his torso and got him in the chest, he falls back and down with his back to her and she got on him from behind and slit his throat. No other explaination for the scene. Why the expert said he could not be sure when the shot came. Do u really think she wanted to use a knife? No she thought a shot to the head would do it clean and in the shower. This is the real way the scene went down… NOW SOMEONE GIVE ME MY RESPECT!!!! LOL.

   
Frank says:

PROPS, BUD! But how about this? The 1st attack was with the .25, but it misfired. Travis is in shock and goes to the sink. Arias is in a sort of shock and runs down the hallway. If it were self defense, she turns left and goes down the stairs. Instead, she has it in her mind she has to get the knife, which she does. However, Travis has made it down the hallway and they meet at the entrance to the bedroom, which is where she delivers the stab wound to his heart. Then the anger from her brilliant plan going off the rails (failure is a real b**ch for a narcissist) causes her to act out the rage part of the attack. She may have even left him in the hall, dying, while she showered and dressed and cleaned up and then used a sheet or blanket to drag Travis back to the shower where she slit his throat and rinsed blood down the shower drain. However it went down, it wasn’t self defense. “Cold” doesn’t even come close to describing what kind of Sociopath Arias is.

   
davebccanada says:

IMHO she planned to use both weapons from the start. It was supposed to look like a two man (or 1 man/1 woman) killing and she was not supposed to have been near the place. When the police linked her presence by her blood and Travis’ in the palm prints on the scene, she had to account for being there, thus the story of two intruders that murdered him (one with a gun and the other a knife). She had it all planned in detail.

   
frances says:

i just hope this trial dosen’t turn out casey a. trial.you hear some of these silly men commenting on her beauty and not what she did. if she gets away with this, it would be the worst thing that could happend to travis’s family

   
jean says:

I believe J. Martinez hammered the last nail into her coffin with the timeline of the murder and the impossibility of stepping on that shelf in Travis’s closet. She brought the gun. Travis would have had it in a case. In any scenario she could have retrieved it earlier and had it ready. The showering gave her ample time to assemble her weapons. The first strike was to the abdomen with him grabbing for the knife. He staggered out and hung onto the sink where she stabbed him in the back and as he fell she did the hē

   
elaine says:

i have heard from so many poeple on tv shows that have not been called as witnesses why?

   
jean says:

This redirect is excruciatingly slooooow. Why not just X-ray the finger? I started watching this extravaganza with an open mind – hän’t heard of the case. I felt some empathy for this woman and her vulnerability. Don’t know what the jurors think but I think this is one conniving,self-satisfied woman who has not one ounce of remorse or feeling of guilt. It truly is ALL about her.

   
Josh says:

It will be a travesty if the jury does not convict at this point. All this says is go ahead and murder your ex boyfriend out of jealousy, just tell the police you don’t remember what happened and then make up 3 or 4 stories about what happened. I feel so bad for Travis Alexander’s family and what they have to endure.

   
jean says:

Commentators remarked about her Yoga pos. while in the interr. room. Not a Yoga post. Purely a sexual thing, trying to manipulate Det. Flores. She was using her sexual prowess as well when she had him looking at her finger.

   
Warren Levine says:

Are you SERIOUS? Dr. Richard Samuels is the pre-eminent authority on Sexually Violent Predators and the abuse suffered by their victims. Jesus F. Christ! Read the freaking WITNESS LIST!!!

   
april says:

In many cases of abuse there are ties between the man and the woman, ties such as a mutual home, a child or children, money, etc., in other words, the abused woman feels trapped and unable to leave. Abusive relationships tend to develop over time, whereas the relationship between Travis and Jodi was essentially short-lived, primarily sexual by mutual consent, they lived in separate States, and there was nothiong to bind them together. Supported evidence would indicate if any abuse did occur, Travis would be the abused person, Jodi was the aggressor.

   
april says:

She may have placed Travis back in the shower so that the body would bleed out there with the blood going down the drain. She may not have known that after death, a body stops bleeding. Since she made an effort to clean up, this would be a possible explanation.

   
jean says:

That makes sense – more high-functioning during “fog”.

   
april says:

After hearing the bulk of both the defense and prosecution arguments (including the testimony of Ms. Arias), it essentially comes down to the uncorroborated, self-serving testimony of Ms. Arias vs. the evidence and supporting forensics and testimony of the prosecution. Too many things stated by Ms. Arias just aren’t believable and I have no sensible option other than to find her to be guilty as charged. I believe she stole her grandfather’s gun, went to Arizona as discreetly as possible, and killed him to keep him from being with any other woman.

   
jaykay says:

Casey anthony & oj simpson didnt take the stand.scott peterson didnt either, but got life I believe.i know he got convicted.i.m curious if she ever thot of getting s shreader for those journals?trophy’s convict.

   
Cyndi Moore says:

I just went & looked at the pictures of Travis Alexander, she definatly was not abused by him at all. It made me sick the poor guy did not deserve what she did to him. I want to know did Travis live in a house or an apartment? And did anyone living by him hear a gun shot? Or did anyone see her leaving after she killed Travis?

   
Hoosier says:

I am proud to be an American and proud that in the US, that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But ashamed of my fellow Americans for failing to allow our justice system to make those decisions in our courts of law and are so willing to judge in advance. Nothing in this world is perfect, but the burden of proof is still on the prosecution in a court of law in front of a jury. If you don’t like it, the TV and/or computer has an OFF button.

   
april says:

Here we have a situation where the defendant admits to the murder and then testifies in her own behalf. That’s fine, except her testimony is entirely without corroborration and what she offers is, “This is the truth because I say it is.” Hard to imagine how SO MANY things could be unsupported. Listening to the tape of the phone call between her and Travis, what I heard were two intimate friends discussing a consensual relationship. I’m not interested in her explanation and we can’t ask Travis for HIS explanation, she killed him, but I know what I hear.
Her testimony is riddled with contradictions, something which will be brought out when Mr. Martinez cross examines her.

   
Jon says:

Hoosier. I agree with you whole hearted. She is innocent until proven guilty. Right now, there isn’t enough to say she did this out of self defense or murder. Those facts just dont add up for me. Everyone hears “she dragged him down the hall” and think… this woman dragged this guy down the hall!!! Lets look at simple physics guys. Damp skin has more of a friction coefficient that dry skin. This man is 200 lbs… this woman is probably around 120-130. Wearing socks how is she going to drag a body almost twice her size, damp, across a tiled floor? One handed at that because she accidently took a photo doing so. There is no possible way that could have happened even under a adrenaline rush. So that leaves me at not believing the scenario the prosecutors say is what happened. 27 stabs to the back and where is the blood streak across the floor. He obviously at one point fell into the wall as you can see that big blood smear in photos. So let me say that again… 27 open wounds on the back and not one smear across the floor like the throat slit area? Oh and plus coaggulation of blood is also very sticky…hense more force to drag again. Prosecution doesn’t add up at this point so Im not 100 percent convinced. The reason this trial is so crazy is because not ONE story even makes sense….so they decorate her like she was a whore. Its easier to point a finger at a whore…right? So lets all forget about the killing and focus on the sex because then….any story the prosecution can come up with is just icing on the cake.

   
jaykay says:

She is a stain to whores and sluts alike.she is absolutely WORTHLESS.

   
manchoo2 says:

She is so mundane today..sad little deflowered pollyanna..i think her attorneys read comments from everywhere possible for next day..yesterday upbeat in her tails..today mellow and crying no less..oh please..i worked in womens shelter..she is a disgrace to all abused..she sure didn’t mind running back for more and liked it too! hope these jurors are really listening..and prosecutor hammers into discredit her lies and eagerness to please the man she loved and slaughtered. Send back to vampire and let their cult take care of her. Shame her dad is on dialysis and has to listen to this garbage …why would they want to come and hear this mess??? She is well coached..if she goes out of context he stops her real quick to get back on track..wont be able to do that on cross..he will nail her…other attorney is really scanning jury as JA blabs on and on..jane mitchell having new “friend guy” of jodi on show tonight…signing out..she makes me want to vomit!!!!and her pukey attorney..oh “put an end to this crap”

   
april says:

Typically the prosecutor, especially in high profile trials, works with another prosecuting attorney at his side. Is there a reason why Mr. Martinez handles the entire prosecution alone? Mr. Flores, the lead detective, is the only assistant Martinez has.

   
Bence says:

To answer your first question, Martinez is just that good. As for why Flores is at the table with him, I’ve wondered about that myself.

   
JusticeFan says:

My understanding is that the lead detective normally sits in on trials, just in case he needs to be consulted.

   

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *