Sunday, July 13, 2014

Jodi Arias: Does Anyone Really Care About Jodi?

Apparently not.

I say this because over the past year we've seen one bad decision after another in regards to Jodi. Many of the bad decisions have to do with whomever is Tweeting for her, the ill-fated attempts at putting together an appeal fund, the creation of a marketing flyer that was filled with quasi-truths and misrepresented the stance of two of the three people it quoted, the publishing of a famous pop singer's home address with pleas to inundate him with these same flyers and so on and so forth.

The newest bad decision is this:

The text says:

100% of the net proceeds from the sale of Pinwheel will be donated in Travis's name to a reputable non-profit organization that helps children...I am aware that many supporters despise Travis and not agree with my doing this. Please understand that my reasons are complex and ones that I hope to be able to explain in a forthcoming blog post — Jodi Arias

So, what's my issue with Jodi donating the proceeds from a $1800 drawing to an organization that helps children? Seems a noble cause doesn't it? Well let's back up a bit and talk about the history.

First we need to understand who I am. I am Joe Juror. An average guy one might find on any jury across the nation. I am reasonably intelligent and fair. I want Jodi to be convicted and sentenced for only the crimes she committed. The only difference between me and an actual juror for her sentencing trial, is that I'm against the death penalty. But let's put that aside and treat me like an actual juror. 

A couple of months ago, Jodi's mitigation specialist, Maria de la Rosa was sanctioned for removing a drawing of a pinwheel from the jail. Now it's kind of hard getting good info, but the general idea is that she didn't have the proper authority to remove the drawing and the protocol was for her to jump through some hoops--signing it out with jail personnel. Maria claims the picture was to be used in Jodi's mitigation and therefore she had the right to take it as she did. I find no fault with Maria in that regard, and again, we don't have all the details, so I'll give her the benefit of a doubt and assume that was her understanding and intention. Maria lost her jail privileges for a week, but then they were reinstated, and so one must assume she was able to explain the confusion to satisfaction of the higher ups.

Well, there was a lot of speculation online about that drawing, and many non-supporters felt it was intended to be sold for Jodi's appeal fund, and had no demonstratable mitigation value. After all, Jodi had shown several of her drawings an her initial mitigation, and what would be the value of one more? Several surmised that this was a devious ploy by Jodi to remind the jury that she had accused Travis of a sexual interest in children. You see, the pinwheel is the national symbol for child abuse. 

Now it gets interesting. We haven't heard hide nor hair about that pinwheel drawing for the past two months, and then suddenly it shows up on Jodi's website. And herein, lays the problem for me, Joe Juror. This whole thing reeks of manipulation and a calculated attempt to smear Travis one more time.

Jodi supporters please read carefully. Whether you agree with me or not, I am Jodi's jury, and if I think this way, then we can assume there's a pretty good chance Jodi's real jury will think this way. Jodi was found guilty by 12 average people for a reason; it wasn't HLN,  or Juan Martinez or the media, or Travis's friends, or anything like that, it was Jodi. The jury simply could not believe the convoluted story Jodi presented. This next jury will be informed of the previous jury's finding of murder in the first  degree. Their job is to affix a sentence to that conviction. There won't be dumb people on that jury, they too will be reasonably intelligent people, therefore there's a good chance at least half if not all will see this Pinwheel pic the same way I do. Now if half believe the pinwheel to be further manipulation by Jodi, well then they're going to think DP. If the other half don't buy it, then the half that do could easily sway them by pointing out what I will be pointing out in just a little while. If all 12 agree, she gets the DP.

Do you care about Jodi? Then continue reading and learn what she's up against. 

Back to the drawing on Jodi's website. It's a pinwheel. Is it the same pinwheel from 2 months ago? We don't know. With no other evidence to the contrary, some might surmise it is. If so, then this is even worse for her. It shows a bit of a rebel streak, that's not befitting to a convicted murderer. Jurors don't like to see defiance in their murderers, it scares them. It indicates that if the murderer is willing to flaunt authority on this small thing, what are they prepared to do on bigger issues? A jury who is voting for a life sentence with or without parole wants to be assured the murderer is appropriately contrite and that this isn't a pattern in their behavior. They're also thinking what the chances are of the murderer getting out and continuing that behavior. It may not be murder they commit, but no one wants to think they let out someone who will continue to hurt others. 

Let's re-read that paragraph Jodi wrote:

100% of the net proceeds from the sale of Pinwheel will be donated in Travis's name to a reputable non-profit organization that helps children...I am aware that many supporters despise Travis and not agree with my doing this. Please understand that my reasons are complex and ones that I hope to be able to explain in a forthcoming blog post — Jodi Arias

We've already established that pinwheels are the national symbol for child abuse awareness. Jodi indicates that the proceeds will benefit some un-named non-profit for children. It appear to me that she's speaking of a child abuse prevention or care organization. Ok. That's all good and fine. I may see this as a manipulation to curry favor with the jury, but frankly, I don't blame her, and while the jury may see through it, they won't hold too much against her for it either. In other words, it's not outrageous enough to sway them towards a death penalty, and it's expected the defendant will try to play on their sympathies and compassion. Until we come to this part—"will be donated in Travis's name". Ok. Now I have big problems as a juror. 

During her conviction testimony, Jodi explained that Travis had a sexual interest in children and he feared he would eventually cave into his desires. Jodi claims that it was this fear he had, and the concurrent fear she had that he would act upon those desires, that caused her to become a sex slave of sorts to him, in order that he find sexual gratification through a legally sanctioned outlet (although immoral, according to his church). So Jodi would make herself available to him to protect the children.

The first jury didn't buy the self-defense story, nor did they buy the Travis-is-a-pedophile story. There was simply no evidence EVER that indicated Travis had a sexual interest in children. If Jodi thinks this jury will believe those stories, she's mistaken.

In her first mitigation, Jodi trotted out the now famous 'Survivor' tshirt which she claimed was her way of honoring victims of the type of abuse she suffered at the hands of Travis, and that she would donate the proceeds of that effort to a domestic violence organization. That went over badly with not only the jury, but just about everyone watching. The jury and spectators simply didn't believe the domestic abuse claims either, and were offended. At least one juror went on record afterward expressing their outrage. 

To a new jury, this 'mitigator' might be seen as just one more dig at Travis, and just one more piece of evidence of how angry and unremorsful Jodi is. Not a good combo if you're looking for a jury who will vote for anything but death. You can dance around domestic violence a little before  you piss off the jury, but don't even try to dance around child sexual abuse--the statistics are not on her side. Of the 12 people deciding her fate, we can assume at least two have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Those two people know what sexual abuse is. If you thought people were pissed about the t-shirt, you haven't seen anything yet. Every unexpressed pain they've felt will go into delivering their sentence. Is it fair? Actually it is. If you're willing to take the chance on hoping to elicit sympathy on one point, you also have to weigh the risk of the opposite reaction of rage. 

So is this how she intends to present this picture at her mitigation phase?

Hi as you know, Travis Alexander had a sexual interest in young children that he admitted to me. He also admitted he feared he would someday harm a child. I drew this picture of a Pinwheel, which is the symbol for child abuse,  and will be selling it for $1800. I will donate the proceeds to a non profit that helps the kind of children Travis would have hurt had he lived. I am donating it in Travis's name to clear his name somewhat and make it right, so his family doesn't have to live with the dishonor visited upon them by their brother. I didn't want it to come to this, and I could have used the money for my own appeal fund, but I am selflessly donating to those kids because it's the right thing to do.

Because if she does, there is no way she's walking out with anything less than a death sentence. The only thing the jury wants to hear from Jodi in regards to Travis is "I'm sorry I killed Travis. He didn't deserve to die, and I did a horrible thing that I am profoundly sorry for. This is what I've been doing to make it right...." followed by legitimate endeavors such as writing a letter to the family where Travis isn't passive-aggressively blamed for his own death, for admitting she has severe personality issues that drove her to this killing and it wasn't Travis's fault. 

If you really care about Jodi and you're in contact with her, please take this advice:

1. Don't lie to her and tell her that she's gaining supporters by the boatload and your efforts and her efforts are turning the tide and haters are scurrying away because they know the real truth. This compounds the problem. You're gas-lighting her. She can only believe what her trusted supporters and fans tell her. If you're giving her a highly edited view of reality, of course she's going to act upon it. She's going to think what she's doing is working despite all real-life evidence to the contrary.

2. Don't tell her she's smarter than her defense team, or that she mopped up Juan Martinez while on the stand. You're stoking her ego in a way that's dangerous. I heard that she was trying to act as her own attorney on Friday. That hasn't been confirmed by anyone official yet, so I'll treat it as a rumor. But if it's true, it's the stupidest thing in the world for her. It may be a ploy on her part in order to delay the sentencing or to appeal later on the grounds she didn't have adequate council, but this isn't fun and games. Appeals take times. If sentenced to death, she's on death row and there goes most of her privileges she enjoys on maximum security (which, let's face it, are already severely limited). Look how long this sentencing phase has taken--18 months by the time they get started in September. Should Jodi waste away 18 months on death row, in even more severe conditions than she is in now while waiting for her first appeal to wield it's way through the court? If you think max is brutal, it's nothing compared to death row. Nothing. Max is a walk in the park.

Or Jodi may actually believe the many supporters who have told her Nurmi hasn't done his job. Why didn't he question Amanda Webb about the Walmart receipt, for example? Nurmi is a smart guy. He's been doing this for a while. When he didn't raise certain questions, it's because he didn't want to highlight the flaws in the case.  Jodi has a GED she earned in the last few years. She has no legal training, no understanding of the law, and obviously she working under the delusion that somehow she is smarter and more effective than Juan Martinez. She isn't. Juan has been doing this stuff for almost 30 years. He is an experienced and capable litigator. He made mincemeat out of Samuels and LaViolette and they are professionals who have given testimony before. Jodi is lying about her involvement and that's apparent to anyone whose really looked at this case. How will her lies stack up against Juan's grilling? She'll never survive. But then supporters will say 'oh Jodi look at what that bully did...." No, it's look at what Jodi did. 

Tell Jodi her attorneys are her best bet she has going forward. If you support Jodi, then give her a reason to have confidence in the people representing her. You are doing her no favors turning her against the two people who have her best interests at heart, far above what any supporter feels. Do you really want to see Jodi walk herself right into another gas can debacle? Because she will.

3. Don't tell her she's a martyr for a higher cause or calling. She's not. Jodi Arias is a human being, like you or me. She's not a martyr. For supporters to tell her she is, thinking they're making her feel good about herself, is wrong. A martyr willingly puts themselves in a position of suffering. Jodi doesn't want to suffer. She's a prisoner---that's the difference between a martyr and a prisoner---one has a choice, the other doesn't. When you make her feel like a hero, again you send the message that whatever she's doing is good and is effective. It's not. It's hurting her and false promises and accolades only serve to drive her willingness to do more and more harmful things to herself.

When you tell Jodi she's perfect just the way she is, you give her no incentive to change. When you tell her she's fighting for all women, you buoy her up with false confidence that will be deflated in the real world. Jodi is not a hero. There is not one innocent project, domestic violence or partner violence organization that is waving Jodi's banner. You supporters may give her the impression she has that support, but she doesn't and never will. As long as she thinks she does have that support, that she is a golden girl, well she'll continue doing the harmful things that got her to this point. You guys are killing her.

4. Listen for the bullshit. It's there. You, as supporters know it's there. You've seen the conflicting testimony and the conflicting evidence. You know Jodi lied on that stand. If your best friend or family member lied to your face like Jodi lied about not being there, would you still trust them? What if they came up with a second, even more outrageous story about ninjas, would you say still believe them? What if you found out that was a lie too? Would you still be willing to hear one more story with the expectation that it too would be a lie? Or would you do what most normal people do and say 'enough with the lies, I can't trust you, goodbye'. 

Hey I'll give anyone the benefit of a doubt after one lie, but two lies and then another highly implausible story? Nope. If it's a friend, we're no longer friends. If it's a family member, we're sitting at opposite ends of the table at holidays.  Why do you put up with behavior from Jodi that you wouldn't put up with from those you're closest to? I have a 5-year old: when she tells me the cat ate all the cookies, I call her on it. If she tells me the cat ate all the cookies and she has cookie crumbs all over her mouth, well then we're really going to have some problems. She doesn't get the chance to tell a 3rd lie. Jodi supporters would give my daughter a pass and say, well I'm not sure it's cookie crumbs, we need to do a test on the cookies, or maybe she ate those cookies at the neighbors and they weren't my cookies after all, or maybe it was dirt and without a test we will never know, or the one I see often; I eat cookies all the time, doesn't mean I'm a thief. Do you see where I'm going with this?

When you detect bullshit, call her on it. Jodi lies to you. You have to accept that. Everyone lies, everyday. To think Jodi doesn't, even a little, is naivete on your part and could be deadly for her. If someone isn't saying "Jodi you're lying and I can tell you're lying', then Jodi will be under the mistaken impression those lies will fly by a jury as well. They won't.

5. There is something wrong with Jodi. Whether she's a sociopath, psychopath, or has some other personality disorder going on, there is something very wrong with the way she processes info. Even in the face of proof that what she's doing will hurt her, she will proceed on because she want to hurt Travis's family and doesn't think the jury is smart enough to see how transparent she is. She will always have a ready "innocent" excuse for her schemes, that's how Jodi-opaths work. They are cunning. They latch on to people and ideas that fall in line with their ulterior motives. They think bystanders are too stupid to catch on. One reason is because her own supporters don't appear to catch on, so Jodi feels they represent the majority of people and if she can fool the, she can fool anyone. 

In the end that pinwheel picture might be the death of Jodi Arias. Why aren't her lawyers and mitigation specialist clamping down on what some of these supporters  are telling her? Why are they allowing Jodi to be used and abused (albeit unintentionally) by supporters and fans who want Jodi to be their martyr or poster girl for the abuse and suffering they've survived?   

Why isn't someone standing up for her and saying "Jodi stop, this is crazy! You don't know what you're doing, I don't want to see you die!". 

I'm saying it right now. Jodi stop. This is crazy. You don't know what you're doing. I don't want to see you die!

Oh wait, I'm a 'hater', I can't possibly be fair and just....

Please comment below or comment on Facebook

Keep comments on topic and respectful. No fighting, name calling or inciting fights. If I see derogatory terms to describe Jodi, her supporters, any of their sites, then your comments will be removed.  Stick to the topic, take personal comments or issues to other social media. Thanks. I want to keep this a safe place for all views. 

Anonymous comments are welcome, but please identify yourself someway so if others want to reply to you, it's easier. It doesn't have to be your real name, but even something like "Orange" is a better identifier than a dozen "Anons".

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Jodi Arias: Questions 6-20 Rebuttal

This blog is super long! Probably not something you want to read on your phone!

Continuing on with the rebuttal! Remember my initial responses come from the perspective of conjecture, I was asked for my opinion about Jodi's mindset. Of course, not being Jodi, I can only base my responses on a reasonable interpretation based on logic, common sense and the facts as we know them. Therefore my responses are subject to scrutiny and differing opinions.

6. Why does she fill the cans in Salt Lake City if their purpose was to hide her trip into Arizona? Was she also hiding her trip home to Yreka?

Justus you ask a fair question. There is a huge discrepancy that I wonder about. I wasn't suggesting Jodi was committing another crime, as a matter of fact, I hadn't even considered it. It's a pretty big discrepancy though. As someone on JAii mentioned, it could be that after 5 years Ryan forgot what time she left. 

Alexey I may not have been clear in my reply, I was trying to convey that Jodi had killed a man the previous day or so, she knew at any time his body might be discovered, and she also may have felt that she would be questioned, or that the police were on the lookout for her. Her mind may have been racing, her imagination working overtime, and in the event she had to make a run for it, she wanted full gas cans so she wouldn't have to stop off at gas stations. 

We also have to ask ourselves where she used the gas from the earlier gas can fill up. Had to have been in Arizona--there are no receipts from Arizona and this would explain why (the re-fill up in SLC). 

Justus that's why I make the joke about Clint Eastwood, that she could use backroads if necessary and fill up off the grid so to speak. Not a perfect plan, but as Jodi as stated about the 9mm, "better to have it and not need it...."

Interesting word choice there Maria ;)

7. Why tell Ryan she’s on her way if she’s already planning a six hour trip to Mesa and then at least another 10 hour trip to Salt Lake City? What kind of alibi is that?

You're both right. It's a puzzling question, open to many scenarios. It could just be that she didn't anticipate staying with Travis as long as she did and gave an estimate as close to the time as possible. Ryan did know she was on the way, so she had to tell him something. It's interesting to me that if Ryan was the love interest, she spent far more time talking to Travis or trying to contact him, then she did actually talking to Ryan. It's also interesting that during her testimony she stated she got to Pasadena and immediately called Ryan to tell him she was turning her phone off to save the battery, but then immediately afterwards called Travis to tell him she decided to go to Mesa after all (please note if Travis had 'guilted' her into going to Mesa, it was in a previous call where she told him she couldn't, and it was after some time that she initiated the call to him. She could have just left it as is, because Travis obviously wasn't harassing her at that point.

8. Why go to the trouble of removing license plates to hide her presence at Travis’ house when it would have been infinitely easier to just drape something over it or park down the street?

True, but they didn't. The car would have been identified as strange in the driveway. It was only a few days later the police interviewed the roommates, they would have remembered a strange car. That tells me the car was parked aways from the house. If Jodi did indeed meet up with Travis at 4 in the morning, and then sleep until 1:00 pm., there would be no opportunity for the roommates to see her in Travis's room or throughout the house. And they didn't. 

9. Why didn’t she kill him upon arrival at 4 am? She’s already going to be late getting to her so-called alibi by at least five hours.


10. Why didn’t she shoot him (or quietly slit his throat) during the night when he was sleeping? Why wait until he’s fully awake with the capacity to then kill her instead?

Alexey I'm not necessarily with the prosecution on this question. I can see an argument for either the gun shot first or the gun shot last. 

As for the the possibility of slitting his throat at 4:00 in the morning while he slept: true the knife is quiet, but that's not what she has to worry about. The knife doesn't make a sound, but a man who is sleeping and awakens to someone slicing his throat is not just going to lay there and allow it. So much could go wrong with slicing his throat, or trying to slice his throat. He could scream, he could fight back, he could do a whole lot that would alert his room mates. As it was, attacking him in the later afternoon worked out quite well for her--she wasn't detected. 

As for the 13 hour "nap"---that didn't raise suspicion at all with Ryan. He knew she had been on the road for several days, so sleeping half the day away wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. In addition, she claimed she got lost, so that could take another couple of hours to realize it. Again, this was a perfect plan for Jodi -- she had a perfectly reasonable reason for being late, and the plan worked, Ryan believed her. For pretty much any other person in this case, if they had used the same excuse as Jodi, under similar circumstances, the police would had noted the lateness, but without other evidence to support the person actually traveling to Mesa and killing Travis, they would likely just chalk it up to someone taking a nap and getting lost. It was Jodi other actions that draw suspicion and give the appearance of premeditation.

11. Why have sex with him and leave her presence all over the crime scene?

No comments

12. Why have him take time-stamped photos of her and then not think to take the camera with her?

The fact is, Jodi did leave the camera, she went through the trouble of deleting the photos of her and Travis, and yet had the wherewithal to save Napoleon's pictures. No matter what she knew, or what you  thought she knew about cameras, the fact remains she did leave it behind. She did a pretty good job of cleaning up the scene. For all that was going on, a partial handprint, a DNA profile and several strands of hair were all the evidence that Jodi left behind to identify her. She was very careful and methodical about removing evidence. If we are to believe Jodi, she was so methodical about cleaning up the scene that she took the two things that would have lent credibility to her story--the two lengths of rope she claimed were in the area (which would have lent credence to why the knife was in the room) and the gun (which would have proved to be Travis's and not her grandpa's). 

Who knows what happened with the camera. I will say most people assume if a camera is put in a washing machine that it's pretty much toast. Jodi admitted that she knew that it was expensive and time consuming to retrieve deleted pictures, and may have felt that running the camera and card through the washing machine would destroy both. But I don't think she did that intentionally. I think when she was running around gathering up bloody towels and the like that it got lost in the shuffle and once she realized that it got put in the washer, she figured it was a good thing---the water would destroy the camera and card, so she didn't worry about it. 

I saw some responses on JAii regarding the timestamps. Jodi would have noticed the time stamps early in her photo shoot. As a person interested in photography, she would have turned off that preference after the first few photos--when she realized it was on. She simply didn't notice it. I have a Nikon and a Canon, I'm no pro, but on a couple of occasions I've taken bunch of photos and the time stamp didn't register with me,  until I downloaded them and then had to go back and then realized it was set to time stamp.

13. Why would she first attack a man who has martial art skills and at least 60 pounds on her using a knife if she supposedly came with a gun?

Thank you for conceding the point about the MMA stuff Justus. I don't deny that Travis was bigger and stronger than Jodi, but obviously Jodi took him down and she did it in 2 minutes. We talk about how she did and the absurdity of her doing it, but the fact is, she did it. In my opinion Jodi intended this to be a stealth attack---Travis wouldn't know what hit him. It seems it worked. Let's look at the gunshot first theory--on the stand she said something to the effect 'well, I would think if someone had a gun pointed at you, that it would stop you in your tracks. I know if it was me, it would stop me". So she admits that she thought a gun would be sufficient to control a subject. 

Pandora I never said Jodi was a specialist, that's twisting my words. I said as far as having real skills, Jodi had the benefit of training. The reason she may not have beat the living crap out of him when he was "pounding on her verbally and physically", is because maybe he never was physical with her. Even if she did, her skills might not have been sufficient to overpower a guy of Travis's size, but combined with a gun and a knife, she was a force to be reckoned with. 

If Travis was such a "hulk" (as stated on another comment) and had all that MMA practice, and the 16 1/2 biceps (don't know where you got this factoid), and was skilled at high kicks and wrestling moves, then why is he laying dead in a box in the ground? A guy with all that going on would have easily taken down a girl like Jodi. Jodi walked away with no injuries--other than a bump on the head. Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. If there's one question you guys will indulge me, then that is the question--why did Jodi walk away unscathed in an attack where she claims she was body-slammed twice, hit her head on the ground at least once, had the wind knocked out of her and Travis 'chasing her'. In addition to the 'attack' that supporters claim resulted in Jodi being in a death grip in Travis's arms, which is how he received over 80 % of his injuries to his back. Doesn't it make more sense that he was trying to get away from her while she chased him down the hall, raining stabs on him as they went?

Maria: "I am Jodi's size, I could NEVER overpower a man Travis's size." 
But could you do it if you had a gun and a knife? Jodi obviously did, there's no doubt about it. If Jodi could, then you could as well. Guns and knives are the great equalizers in any fight.  Again, don't you think a good question is 'why didn't Travis defend himself with all his 'skills' and strength? I say the element of surprise, the gun and the knife are the answers.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to dodge the question. You're right, most people would use the most powerful weapon. I'm not entirely convinced either way about gun shot first/gun shot last. I can see powerful arguments for both side. The autopsy and the fact the bullet had to have traveled through some part of his brain is one of the stumbling blocks, coupled with the trajectory being way off for how Jodi said the injury was sustained. Even if the trajectory matched up, then it makes the case worse for Jodi, in my opinion if the gun shot was first, he would have been incapacitated to some degree and she would have had the opportunity to escape, but she chose not to. He stood at the sink for at least a couple of seconds with his hands on the vanity (not attacking Jodi), she could have escaped then. She didn't. 

14. Why after supposedly stabbing him in the shower does she let him go stand at the sink?
If Travis had enough in him to go from the shower to the sink, stand there turning the faucet on and off while Jodi is supposedly stabbing him in the back, why didn’t he just turn around and smash her a good one?

You're right Maria, the vena cava wasn't nicked it was penetrated. I was going off Horn's testimony that it was an injury that wouldn't have been immediately fatal because though it penetrated, it didn't penetrate to the point of severing or completely destroying it. Horn believed he could still be alive for a couple of minutes after this injury.

The last injury was either the slashed throat or the gunshot (if we go with Horn's testimony that there was no blood in the wound track). How would it work if the stab to the heart was second (or third) from the last? In your scenario Travis has a gunshot wound to the head, he tries to defend himself with his hands, where he sustains 5 separate injuries, which mean Jodi's blow were at that time concentrated in the front of his body. We have to assume that despite the 5 blows he fended off, a few got through and resulted in the wounds on his chest and stomach. Let's say that the heart stab wasn't delivered at that time, and instead Travis had his back to her, like one would expect from someone trying to escape. He had the majority of stabs to the posterior of his body, so now we have him moving down the hall with Jodi continuing the stabbing. 

At this point, right before the stab to the heart and the slashed throat, Travis has a bullet pass through his head and into his cheek (that didn't kill him outright), and over two dozen knife wounds--why does she then deliver what would be a fatal heart stab? It is beyond logic and common sense to think he is any kind of threat to her at this point. 

But let's move on, if the heart stab was second to last, as you claim, then Travis had to have traveled the length of the hall and slid down the wall (as evidenced by the bloody 'rainbow'). He is weakened by the blood loss and the debilitating stab wounds and drops to the ground. We see a picture of Jodi standing over him while he lays supine. There is no way he is a threat to her, yet at this point you claim she drove a knife into his heart? How do you get self-defense from that?

One thing I've talked about on my blog, and many others have brought up, is at what time was Travis allowed to defend himself with deadly force? Even if everything Jodi said is correct--that she accidentally shot him, didn't he have the right to defend himself at that point? Didn't he have the right to "fucking kill you bitch"? He wouldn't know it was an accident, he would see it as a credible threat---she not only had the ways and means, but she actually pulled the trigger. She couldn't expect him not to want to defend himself. 

And if we extrapolate that further--that Travis at that moment had an equal right to defend himself, and an equal right to kill Jodi, then it's not self-defense, it's mutual combat and that's a whole other animal. 

15. How would anyone, except the one controlling the attack, have the option to stop and stand at the sink?

Maria I don't understand how he was controlling the attack. She has a gun and a knife. He is a naked man with a bullet in his head. He had the right to scream 'fucking kill you bitch" and to follow through on that statement. I don't see how he did much screaming with all the blood that would be pouring down his throat (which is the reason for him coughing it into the sink, right?). Not only that, he has a bullet lodged in the upper jaw, it seems to me it would be tough talking with a bullet in your maxillary jaw and a mouth full of blood. 

So how is he controlling it? He has no weapons, and he's standing at the sink. Don't you think he's mortified that someone he loved and cared about just shot him in the head? Don't you think he wasn't thinking clearly? He was the one that had just been shot in the head, he certainly had no control over his thinking at that moment. Don't you think he was trying to figure out a way to defend himself? At the very least, at the moment he was standing at the sink, he already knew Jodi had a gun and that she would use it, because whether accidental of not, she just did. 

Maria, please answer this for me: did Travis have any right at all to defend himself with deadly force?  If not, why not? Why did Jodi have the greater right? Don't you think that if Jodi was panicked and scared and not thinking clearly, that Travis had not only the right to think the same way, but he also had a greater panic, a great fear and a greater reason for not thinking clearly, than Jodi did?

This subject will come up again in the next question you responded to. I believe you purposefully don't consider what Travis was going through in those two minutes and how if all things were equal his had a greater right to deadly force than Jodi did. 

16. If he still had enough energy to travel down the hallway to the bedroom, why didn’t he just use that energy to stop all the stabbing she was supposedly doing?


17. Why did Travis have only four defensive wounds on his hands, only one on his dominant hand, and none on his lower arms if he was supposedly defending himself against a knife attack for more than a minute and perhaps up to two minutes?

I've combined these questions because they talk about the same thing. I'm going to copy and paste my original responses, because the one comment I captured the other day, is one that has really bothered me for the last couple of days. Here's my responses:

16. If he still had enough energy to travel down the hallway to the bedroom, why didn’t he just use that energy to stop all the stabbing she was supposedly doing?
Another oddly phrased question. What do you mean "all the stabbing she was supposedly doing?" She wasn't supposedly stabbing him, she was actually stabbing him. There is no doubt that she was stabbing him. No doubt whatsoever. Travis was terrified man--he was trying to escape as Jodi rained down stabs on him. He couldn't fight her off,  the tendons of one thumb was severed at the base, which mean he had no ability to use thiat hand. He was losing blood and likely had very little control over his arms--they were likely flopping at his sides with no real muscle control due to the stabs in the back, chest, shoulders and necks. Damaging all those muscle like she did, meant he lost control of his arms. He just wanted to get out of there, he was running for his life, though one could hardly call it running.

17. Why did Travis have only four defensive wounds on his hands, only one on his dominant hand, and none on his lower arms if he was supposedly defending himself against a knife attack for more than a minute and perhaps up to two minutes?
She over powered him and rendered his hands and arms useless with all the other injuries she rained down upon him. I notice that many supporters seem to think that all those stab wounds had  zero physical affect on Travis. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Slicing through tendons and muscles in the upper body has a profound effect on the hands and arms. Many of the muscle that support the biceps, for example are in the chest. If you sustain a chest wound over that muscle, it will weaken the bicep. With the bicep weakened or disabled, muscles in the forearm won't work. Look again at those autopsy wounds and you'll plainly see how disabling those injuries were. He likely couldn't raise his arms after a few stabs, let alone hit or punched her. 

This is the response on JAii that troubles me:

Maria I'm going to call you out on this. First of all, you read the whole thing. There's no reason to stop at 'she over powered him" unless you don't want to acknowledge the rest of what I wrote. First, do you disagree that she over-powered him? That's what it sounds like, please correct me if I'm wrong. If she didn't overpower him, why did she walk away unscathed, and he's buried in the ground for the last 6 years? 

C'mon Maria, you're not dumb, and you know I'm not dumb. You read the whole thing and you don't have a good response to what she did to that man. Read it Maria. Please. Maybe you want to remain in denial about the effect on Travis, but the truth is Travis suffered, he suffered horribly. He was terrified, he was panicked, he was hurt, Maria. He hurt bad. I can't imagine that man not crying like a little boy, begging Jodi to spare him. No matter what the circumstances of how they got to that point, if Travis attacked her first or not, he was begging for her to stop. Crying, screaming in pain, maybe even in his distress calling for his mom or grandma. Read those words Maria and tell me that there is no way he could have been doing that.

Supporters like to tell themselves that "adrenaline would have spared him the pain". No Maria, it wouldn't. Maybe for a moment or two, but the reason human beings have evolved pain receptors is to warn us of danger. Pain tells us 'get away or defend yourself from the danger". Supporters drag out the few instances where a person not only survived a devastating head injury (Phineas Gage, the guy with the metal bar through his head is often trotted out as an example) but as unaware they had been injured that badly. Travis was not a super man, nor was he a crazy man. His only response to a gun shot to the head and all that stabbing was to try to defend himself, and when he realized he was over-powered, his response was to try to flee down the hall, with her stabbing him the whole way. 

Do you think the wounds all over his chest, back, shoulders and neck didn't have an affect on his muscle control? Don't you think he was weakened by those blows? What about the wounds that impacted the ribs and spine? Have you every had a needle inserted next to your spine? It's EXCRUCIATING. The spine is full of nerve endings and even a tiny needle will send you into excruciating pain, can you imagine what a knife would do? I have had spinal shots, and almost passed out from the pain. One session had to be rescheduled because I was in so much pain my entire body was shaking so badly it was impossible for the doctor to continue. And I have a pretty high pain threshold. Now throw in some blood loss and the dizziness and nausea that comes with that, and Travis was completely incapacitated and over powered. 

How anyone can think he had the upper hand, and yet she had not a mark on her is confusing to me.  How anyone can think she didn't overpower him, when the fact he is dead and she isn't, is just as confusing. 

Maria I'm not trying to change your mind, but if you can't even acknowledge that Travis was in terror and pain, and just by virtue of the circumstances his terror and pain was far greater than Jodi's, well then I don't think you're being honest with yourself.  You don't  strike me as a heartless woman. To the contrary, the fact you couldn't bring yourself to admit to reading that passage tells me that it's too painful for you to consider what he went through. It's ok for supporters to admit Travis suffered. It gives more credibility to your stance as compassion and empathetic people. I hope you take a few minutes and read this, and then read that passage again. That's all I ask. You don't have to respond to this, just do yourself the favor of reading what he likely went through.

18. Upon leaving why wouldn’t she have noticed the license plate was upside down while supposedly screwing in those little fasteners?

No comments.

19. How would ultimately arriving 24 hours late at Ryan’s house expect to establish an alibi?

Maria Justus asked my opinion, there are no facts to support anything else, so the only way to respond is with 'gross speculation'.

You say "If the other side is convinced Jodi is guilty of premeditated M1, I demand PROOF from them!" Maria you can't expect every single question you have about the case to be backed with proof. Nor can you expect every single question to have equal weight. The question of the Ryan alibi is not that important it the big scheme of things. It's what's called a 'soft question", it carries no weight in deciding premeditated murder. It's immaterial as they say in the courtroom. 

Something we need to remember is that the whole population who watched the trial does not have to agree if the burden was met in regards to proof. While you may not think it was, the 12 people who matter in deciding her fate did. The jury is there to represent Jodi's peers, ordinary people who examine all the testimony and evidence and come to a decision if her story holds up based on everything put before them. The jury wasn't thinking about Ryan or alibis. They were thinking about how Jodi lied about the gas cans. They're thinking about the unlikelihood that Travis was attacking Jodi and Jodi was running around in the closet getting the gun and then being body slammed twice, and then shooting, stabbing and slashing the man to death all within 2 minutes. The jury was thinking about the big questions, and the state had no obligation to prove every single question. If they did, we'd never finish trials---they'd go on indefinitely. 

General comments:

Maria's right, I am not impartial, none of us are. But I am not "pro-Prosecution". I don't follow party lines, though much of what I believe does follow the prosecution line, just because I believe Jodi is guilty--and so by extension I agree with much of what they presented. I don't classify supporters as 'pro-Defense' because I know many of you don't completely agree and have formed opinions outside the party line. 

I have minions?????? Cool. I love those little guys! Why would anyone be pissed that I said Jodi was pretty? I don't think most of the people I hang out with are of the mindless 'hater' variety who have to shoot down anything positive about Jodi. Jodi was an attractive woman at one time. I no longer think so because it's hard for me to see beauty in the person she has become. I freely admit I think she's a fairly good artist. I also think she's a fairly good singer. I think she's a crappy photographer,  I don't count selfies as fine photography, but that's just me. 

As for "your fame will come at a price..." I don't get that. I don't seek fame. My life is great by the way, so if my 'fame' is responsible for my good life, then I'll freely acknowledge that. 

Thank you Journee. I agree with everything you said. Very well said. 

If Jodi was as 'DONE with Travis!!!!' as you claim she was, then what was she doing in his bed on June 4? What was she doing posing for pictures and having sex with a man who she was sleeping with on her way to a 'NEW love interest"? Jodi moved away, because she was the one who moved there in the first place after she and Travis broke up. Travis had no obligation to move away. He owned a home and had a full life in Mesa. Now if he had left all that behind and moved to Yreka, well then I'd say he hadn't move on, but that's not happened. 

If after Travis baptized her in November, they had anal sex, that goes against what Jodi said happened when she and Travis made it official in February. And that means she cheated on Darryl. So, now we have Jodi cheating on Darryl and cheating on Ryan to be with Travis. Nope, that's not moving on. 

Didn't Jodi boast that she had read the Book of Mormon cover to cover? That she studied the text and discussed her readings with Travis and other Mormons? Is there a reason she didn't understand the many references in the Book of Mormon that described the sins associated with pre-marital sex? Jodi wasn't 14,  she was in her mid-20's she understood what was expected of her, she was generally familiar with the Catholic/Christian religions which share the same believes about pre-marital sex.

Unfortunately the way I think is more in keeping with the way the jury thought. Despite any holes in my answers, they are similar to the way the jury thought to come up with their conclusion. Understanding my answers is key to understanding how the jury came to theirs. The enemy always has more valuable information than your allies. Understand the enemy, and you can begin fighting against them armed with that knowledge--all their strengths and weaknesses are set before you. That's why I value both sides debating the issues. 

While I don't want to be edited, I don't mind being ridiculed. I don't edit people on my sites, unless they break rules or decorum and respectfulness, so I would hope JAii wouldn't have edited me. The invitation was rescinded, so it's a moot point.

That Twitter account doesn't belong to, nor am I familiar with it.  I have never invaded the privacy or posted private information of any individual. I don't see how I would have been a threat to the privacy of JAii members, but rest assured I am not that kind of person.

The only comments I removed were disrespectful to Jodi or to JAii supporters. All opposing opinions  are welcome---that's the reason to set up a debate site, to debate opposing views. I just found out the person who asked if I had removed their comment was mistaken--she had posted it on one blog and didn't realize she was looking for her comment on another blog. She corrected her mistake on the other blog. 

This is just a portion of a longer comment by Alexey. I don't deny that I think Jodi is guilty. Nor do I deny that there is a substantial body of evidence that proves she's guilty. If there's an impression I deny the use term 'bias' it's only because the generally accepted definition of the word is an "unfair prejudice". That is not the case at all. I have watched the trial and researched extensively and come to my conclusions based on the facts as presented--there's nothing unfair about how I've come to my conclusions. 

What inhumane treatment am I in favor of? I don't support the death penalty. I don't support lifetime solitary confinement, and I'm rethinking significant solitary. I support people who correspond with her, fund her commissary and send her books. I have suggested ways supporters can help her when she gets to Perryville. I also support mental health treatment while incarcerated. I think an important part of incarceration is having a job, and Jodi would not be eligible to hold a job in Perryville unless she gets a life sentence. I think Jodi has a lot of wasted talent that could be used to give her a sense of responsibility and benefit the prison and the community.  I don't think Jodi's is worthless, I just think she's guilty and needs to be punished for that. I don't want her punished for anything beyond the crime she committed on June 4, 2008. What is inhumane about any of that? 

Most of my readers who I hang out with on social media are in the same camp. There are others who support the DP, some who believe she should be let out in 20 years, others that want her to suffer, while many who don't

Thank you Pandora. I appreciate your kind words and your efforts to bring the conversation to JAii. I know you went out on a limb to mediate, and I hope you didn't have any backlash for trying to be fair. 

Thank you Justus and Raja for your kind words.

And many thanks to all the people at JAii who indulged my blog with their thoughtful consideration and responses. I appreciate you opening up your forum, if just to comment on my answers. 

Comments are open. Please continue to exercise respect and restraint. This has been a great debate, and I appreciate all efforts to keep it civil and interesting. 

Friday, July 4, 2014

Jodi Arias: Questions 1-5 Rebuttal

See edit at the bottom of the page---just another small thing that needs clarifying!

The other day I answered 20 questions that Justus from JAii posed to non-supporters. While several people felt I should be invited to continue the discussion over there, many other felt it would be disruptive to their board. Rather than make anyone over there feel uncomfortable over my presence, I opened up the comments here on this blog, and will copy and paste their concerns with my blog to clarify my position.

Everyone is invited to comment, but starky or disparaging names or comments will be removed. You are welcome to disagree with me, the only comments I remove are those that break the rules.

I will tackle each set of 5 questions, for a total of 4 blogs.

First I'd like to clear the air regarding the nature of Justus's challenge:

As I understood it, the challenge was to give plausible answers to questions that for the most part, only Jodi knows the answers to. These questions demand a speculative response, because either they weren't asked of Jodi during the trial, or they are questions where their is a dispute over what may have happened.

While I'm not a rocket scientist, I have at least an average intelligence, yet according to JAii supporters I completely missed he mark on every single question. One would think that my odds would have been better, considering 12 jurors who heard every moment of testimony came to the same conclusion I did about her guilt.

Without further ado, here we go!

1. Why stage the gun theft as a burglary such that the police are immediately called and a record is created? Why not just “borrow” it? It might not be discovered missing for months and it probably wouldn’t be known exactly when it went missing.

In the United States we have 100's of thousands of inmates locked up. Many have been arrested and convicted for similar crimes in their past. One would think that after an car thief was caught 3 or 4 times, he'd learn how to be a better car thief, right? No, our jails would be full of first time offenders if criminals learned from all their mistakes. Jodi wasn't a murderer before she killed Travis. What did she know about planning a murder? She did the best she could with what she had. She almost got away with it. Had she not left her DNA and those pictures behind, it would have been much harder for a jury to find her guilty of murder 1 (maybe a lesser crime). Jodi had no intention of leaving her DNA or the pictures behind. She felt she had planned sufficiently well that she wouldn't be a suspect, or have left anything behind that would implicate her. Jodi is far from the first criminal who has fumbled the details. 

The fact is a DVD player and a .25 caliber gun went missing from Grandpa's house. A week later, Jodi happens to have a .25 caliber gun in her hand (after telling the police Travis didn't own a gun, and after none of his friends or family could confirm he had ever owned a gun). In addition, Jodi returns to Darryl's house because she inexplicably had a remote control from his DVD player in her purse. How did the remote control get there? It's a very puzzling set of circumstances and coincidences. As a matter of fact, almost every bizarre happening Jodi encountered within the 24 hours of this trip is attributed to coincidence or bad luck by many supporters.

We don't have proof that the DVD player was the stolen one, nor do we have proof the gun was the stolen one, but it's food for thought and to consider in light of other 'coincidences' and  conflicting testimony. If you were going to bring a second hand DVD player to a friend, where would you store the remote until you got to your friend's house?

But you're right, it's not proof, and the question hasn't been posed to Jodi other than her acknowledging that she returned to Darryl's house to give him the remote. Do you think she would admit stealing the DVD player? She's on trial for murder! That DVD player would absolutely tied her to the crime at her grandparent's, and would cast further doubt on her assertion the gun was Travis's. 

Actually Pandora, it's not a joke. Both Jodi's mother and her father told Detective Flores that the past dozen or so years had been very strained with Jodi. Jodi didn't trust them after they turned her in at age 14. Sandy Arias went on to say Jodi didn't even trust her to come visit her in Monterey because Jodi feared her mother would 'snoop'. Both parents talked about how distrustful and paranoid Jodi was with them, and that was part of why Bill Aria described Jodi as "very strange". 

That being said, you misunderstood what I was referring to.  I said perhaps Jodi didn't trust her grandparents either. She may have felt that they too would betray her just as she thought her parents had betrayed her so many years before. My response has nothing to do with who is smoking pot or the acceptance of it, only that that early experience colored her trust of her parents, and perhaps other family members. 

2. Why, in her master plan to murder, would she change out the bullet type to one less powerful?

Pandora it doesn't take a gun expert to figure out what caliber ammo to put in the gun. Some guns even have their caliber stamped on the barrel or near the grip. If I were to steal a gun to commit a crime, I would certainly change out the ammo. I wouldn't want to risk the ammo being traced back, no matter how improbable that is. Bullets are cheap and plentiful. If the ammo matched, would you  then say Jodi was too smart to use the ammo in the gun, because bullets are cheap and plentiful? Changing out the bullets would be a smart move on Jodi's part. 

Actually, maybe she did call a friend. Maybe she called Matt McCartney. Of course he went missing and refused to testify, but maybe he fielded a phone call from Jodi about ammo. 

Maria I did read the burglary report. It states that Jodi returned home while the officer was interviewing her grandparents and taking an inventory of what was missing. Obviously she was there long enough for the officer to interview her and ask her to inventory her room. Remember she was very lucky in that she hid her laptop in her laundry basket before she left, just to be safe. She also discovered $30 dollars missing. There's every reason to believe that she heard the conversation about what was missing, she arrived at the house 10 or 15 minutes after the officer-- certainly when he left she would ask her grandparents what else was missing, right? Of course that's conjecture, but you have to admit it's not at all implausible that she was aware that the gun was stolen and heard her grandfather describe the type of ammo in the gun.

It could also be considered that her grandfather was mistaken about the gun being loaded. With grandkids visiting, one would hope he would have stored his guns in a more responsible manner.

Maria I didn't make up any information, and my conjecture is just as valid as your conjecture that "Jodi didn't listen to her grandparents stressing anything". You and I weren't there, we can only go by what common sense dictates, and in my opinion it is not beyond probability that Jodi heard the conversation about the gun. 

3. Why visit friends in the rental car if its purpose was to travel in a car not connected with her?

Alexey you're right, you do want to be as inconspicuous as possible, which is why Jodi didn't drive her own car--too many mutual friends could identify her car if it was in the driveway or on the street. As a matter of fact, the car isn't attached to the murder at all. No one noted a strange car in the driveway or on the street. If Jodi parked the car around the corner, no one would be the wiser. White cars are a dime a dozen in any neighborhood, it wouldn't have been noticed as 'strange' or out of place. It would have been noticed in the driveway though because three young men with cars lived there and they'd remember a strange car. 

As far as covering her tracks regarding the car, Jodi was very successful. Had she not left her DNA and pictures, and with no one remembering the car, well that would have been perfect for her. 

Jodi and Travis always snuck around when they were having sex. You do pose a good question about what would have happened if they saw Jodi. Would she not have killed him? Would she have killed him and then denied she was there at that time? We don't know. They would also recognize a car in the driveway, and the fact that they say they noticed nothing out of the ordinary means Jodi had to have parked somewhere other than the driveway. Nothing else makes sense. 

4. Why borrow gas cans from someone who will mention them to the police, should he ever be questioned? Why not buy gas cans with cash in no-man’s land or in some large store where she’d be just one of many customers?

Alexey I don't believe I dodged the question at all. I will expound upon it, and hopefully satisfy your question. Gas cans are $13 each. If she bought 3, that would be $40. She claimed she was cutting corners. More importantly, there is nothing wrong or suspicious with borrowing gas cans from a friend. Even if Darryl was questioned and mentioned she stopped by to pick up gas cans, she had a perfectly valid reason. But Jodi wasn't expecting it to go that far. She didn't intend to ever be under suspicion--she felt she was covering her tracks quite well. Jodi hadn't killed him yet, and so there was nothing to hide yet. I would bet after she killed him and thought back on her actions, she might have kicked herself for that remote. Darryl obviously loved Jodi very much, he wanted to help her. He may not have known the implication of the DVD player or the implication that Jodi told him a week before she was going to Mesa. 

The lie about the gas cans was to remove the appearance that Jodi was trying to travel through Arizona without leaving an obvious trace. Stopping to get gas risked camera picking up her activities. Remember when Jodi was talking to Flores, she mentioned the stop light cams and suggested he look at them? She was well aware there were cameras at some of the intersections and perhaps at the gas stations as well. Why would she tell Flores to try to try to find her on those cameras if she wasn't sure she had done a good job of avoiding them? That also points to premeditation--the only way she could be confident Flores wouldn't find her car on those cameras is if she had gone through the trouble of avoiding them, and if she went through the trouble of avoiding the, you have to ask yourself why.

Jodi didn't realize that she had forgot that receipt. When it came to trying to explain it, she had to think on the fly. This was something neither she nor her team had anticipated, which is why we also see Martinez scrambling to pull in the Walmart expert witness.  Jodi knew the significance of that 3rd gas can, and Martinez was honing in on her. She just said she returned it and hoped he wouldn't be able to prove that she didn't. The Walmart expert, the size of the gas tank and the gas station receipts all conspired against her. Had she not had that Walmart receipt, she would have been better off. She lied about it though. She lied about, there's no doubt about it. 

Jodi told a lot of convenient lies--she talked about Travis having an interest in children. That was a lie. There were many other lies she told. Her first two stories where convenient lies, and those weren't working too well for her, were they? In that regard, Jodi tried telling more plausible stories after learning what wasn't working.  I mean the ninjas??? What kind of story was that? But she told it hoping it would be believed, and yet, who believed it?

5. Why does she make cell phone calls in Arizona heading north from Kingman toward Hoover Dam, thus negating the supposed reason for borrowing the gas cans?

Then the better question is, why didn't she use her credit card in Arizona if she was buying gas? She used the credit card in California, Nevada and Utah. Why omit Arizona completely? As a matter of fact she didn't have any receipts from Arizona. Now, in her defense, she had to get rid of everything connected to Arizona, because when her mother asked her if she had been to see Travis, she offered to show her mother all her receipts that proved she wasn't in Arizona. Isn't in convenient that she decided to use cash instead of her credit card in Arizona, before she would need the alibi that she wasn't even there?

I will post 6-10 in the next day or so. In the meantime, I'd like to clear up some confusion:

Suzanne my Twitter handle is JustDaTruth@justdatruth2012. I have never posted under the Twitter handled you posted, and have never heard of that person. I don't seek out private information, nor do I share information that I know. I don't care if you're friend, foe or anyone in between, I take privacy seriously.


You're right Alexey, I did remove several undesirable opinions, and I stand by my decision. I have asked everyone to post respectfully and to not disparage Jodi supporters, the JAii site or refer to Jodi by snarky, nasty names. When I see comments that are disrespectful to any of those parties, I reserve the right to remove them. Unfortunately, there have been no comments by Jodi supporters to date, and the comments I removed were posted by others (not sure if they were haters, non-supporters or just trolls). When and if supporters comment, they are bound by the same rules of mutual respect. I don't remove comments because my feelings get hurt, you're free to disagree with me all day.

Ok friends, that's it. Please comment respectfully! You can also follow the convo on Facebook: