One can never know what is in the head of a jury member.  Their question can be fueled by many things from the mundane to the pivotal.   You cannot tell with any certainty where the juror who asked the question is at in the case.  Any analysis that states the contrary is false.  The media analysis is often effective to viewers because they are “experts” and the jury is shrouded in “mystery”.  Therefore, they have wide lee-way with what they can say about them, including:  their looks, actions, reactions, interest or boredom, amount of notes, etc.  We cannot see any differently, so they can say whatever they want about them.

(NOTE:  Questions are not in order, but are numbered as they were given.  Keep in mind my numbering may be slightly different than other sites.)

What I have done is group the questions according to their similarity of topic to show the possible “interest” areas of the jury members.  One question might fit into more than one category, so I grouped it in the category I thought was most relevant.  Here is a list of most questions to least questions according to topic (click read more to see each question):

  1. JUNE 4, 2008 (32 questions)
  3. OTHER RELATIONSHIPS (19 questions)
  4. GENERAL (10 questions)
  5. RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY  (9 questions), MEMORY ISSUE (9 questions)
  6. GUNS (8 questions)
  7. GAS (7 questions), “DOCUMENTING” ABUSE PICTURES (7 questions), INTERVIEWS (7 questions)
  8. PHONE RECORDING (6 questions), TRUTH/LIES (6 questions)
  9. INCIDENTS OF ABUSE (5 questions)
  10. AFTER JUNE 4, 2008 (3 questions), JOURNALS (3 questions), LICENSE PLATE (3 questions)
  11. GLASSES (2 questions)
  12. BLONDE HAIR (1 question)


  • 24. You testified Travis Alexander gave you book of Mormon at Starbucks. Did you read it, if so, when?
  • 25. Does the book of Mormon go into detail regarding the law of chastity?
  • 83. In all the 3 hour church events, you were never told that other forms of sexual intercourse – oral/anal – were forbidden?
  • 92. Why didn’t you read the book of Mormon to see what you were and weren’t allowed to do?
  • 93. Why did you ask Travis Alexander about everything you did?
  • 115. Why were the laws of attraction so important to follow but the law of chastity was not?
  • 116. Do the laws of attraction also apply to recording phone sex conversations?
  • 130. Given that there are guiding principles such as the law of attraction and passing down journals to future generations, do you feel the Mormon church encourages burying the truth about negative things?
  • 131. Can you give a few examples of what might be considered negative other than what you’ve already discussed (in regards to journals)?


  • 1. Did Travis Alexander pay for a majority of your trips?
  • 2. If he did pay, was that a factor in you questioning his choices?
  • 3. Was it his money, his choices?
  • 95. Why is it that you cannot remember when Travis Alexander lent you money, but you remember the exact amount you lent him all three times?
  • 7. Why would you continue to sleep with Travis Alexander after you learned of his child porn issues? (similar to # 126)
  • 126. You said you were sick to your stomach when you saw Travis Alexander with child pictures. Why did you sleep with him again? (similar to #7)
  • 52. Why would you continue to stay with someone who had sex with you while you were sleeping?
  • 8. Why didn’t you just change your Gmail password so Travis Alexander couldn’t get into it anymore?
  • 13.  Why did you feel so uncomfortable about anal with Travis Alexander if you’d previously tried it?
  • 47. Why did you confront Travis after seeing him with another woman through his back window if was not due to jealousy? (similar to #48)
  • 48. If you simply wanted to know where you stood because you thought Travis was still courting you, why were you so upset that you needed to call your father the next day? (similar to #47)
  • 59. You and Travis Alexander continued to talk on the phone after you moved. Would it be fair to say you were upset he was taking another woman to Cancun?
  • 49. You mentioned an earlier failed attempt at using rope during sexual encounter. Can you tell us what happened that day it occurred and how Travis Alexander handled that failure?
  • 84. Did you know that Travis Alexander did not like John Dixon prior to your date with John Dixon?
  • 87. When you realized you didn’t connect like you’d expected, why did you continue to speak to Travis? (similar to #156)
  • 156. If you were not going to marry Travis Alexander because of the January 21 & Jan 22 events, why stay with him at all? (similar to #87)
  • 113. You have testified to many occasions where you performed sexual favors for Travis Alexander to keep him happy. Are you saying you never got any pleasure out of it?  (similar to #136)
  • 136. You initially testified that sex was a way to relieve stress, then said it was a way to relieve anger. Which is it?  (similar to #113)
  • 137. How do you know that?
  • 127. Would you classify your relationship with Travis Alexander as a love/hate relationship?
  • 142. If you were scared of Travis Alexander’s anger and violence, why would you go upstairs when he was banging his head and already mad?
  • 152. Is there anyone who saw you shaking during a fight with Travis?

BLONDE HAIR (1 question)

  • 12. Bryan Burns testified that he met you at a Pre Paid Legal event in April 2008 and you had blonde hair. How is that possible if you dyed your hair in March 2008?

RELATIONSHIPS (19 questions)

  • 6. Why did you call cops on your ex-boyfriend, who shook you, but not on Travis?
  • 16. You told Daryl you wanted to abstain from sex until marriage. Why did you have sex with Travis Alexander?
  • 26. Who initiated contact after various break ups? Start with Bobby.
  • 30. How did you know Victor Arias’ family?
  • 31. Please explain the events again that led up to your Dad slapping you.
  • 32. What is your relationship with your Mother like today?
  • 33. What is your relationship with your Father like today?
  • 40. You stated that you tried to call Matt and Daryl about your change in plans about going to Mesa but said they didn’t answer. Why didn’t you leave a Voicemail or text them? (similar to #112)
  • 112. Why didn’t you call Ryan and tell him you were going to Arizona when you decided you were going to Arizona? (similar to #40)
  • 146. Why did you plan on seeing John Dixon when you were on your way to see Ryan in Utah?
  • 85. Why were you willing to get involved with 2 men at the same time? (similar to #94 and #147)
  • 94. Why did you start a relationship with Ryan Burns when you said earlier you didn’t see other guys when you were with one guy? (similar to #85 and #147)
  • 147. How many men were you willing to be involved with at the same time? (similar to #85 and #94)
  • 89. Why did you share housing with Matt at the time you were in a relationship with Travis Alexander?
  • 90. Were there any girls working with you that you could share a room with?
  • 91. How can you be a sister to Matt, someone you had sex with in the past?
  • 99. Who was the main factor in your decision to move from Palm Desert to Mesa? Travis or Rachael?
  • 155. Did you call any men you did not have a romantic interest in, “hottie biscotti”, in text messages, emails or instant messages?
  • 157. Do you feel the guys in your life cheated on you because you were controlling?

JUNE 4, 2008 (32 questions)

  • 103. If your phone had died while at Travis Alexander’s, why not use a wall charger so it would be charged before you hit the road?
  • 86. When you were asked about the video you made with Travis Alexander on 6/4/2008 you said you used your camera. Then you said it was in your car and didn’t use it that day. Which is it?
  • 34. Would it be possible to have Jodi run through the attack on 6/4/2008 using the floor plan…exhibit…?
  • 70. When Travis Alexander got out of the shower to attack you, was he wet?
  • 71.  If so, did he slip on the tile?
  • 69. Were you kneeling when you dropped the camera?
  • 109. If you dropped the camera on the bathmat, how is it that it rolled all the way to the bathtub?
  • 68. If Travis Alexander attacked you on 6/4/2008, why not just tell the police from the start?
  • 100. You testified that you thought you heard his footsteps. If you weren’t sure, why didn’t you run down the stairs and out the front door? (similar to #66 and #144)
  • 72. When entering the closet, why didn’t you go through the door closest to you?
  • 9. Did Travis Alexander’s closet doors have locks on them?
  • 10. If not, how did you have time to get the gun down, if he was right behind you?
  • 128. On 6/4/2008, after you got up and ran towards the closet, is it possible Travis Alexander picked up the camera from the bathroom floor and moved it?
  • 129. Could that also explain the delay in his arrival and his anger in the door threshold?
  • 64. If you climbed on the shelf in a hurry in the closet, how is it nothing is disturbed?
  • 74. Was the gun in a case or was it just lying on the shelf?
  • 66. After you shot him, how come you didn’t run out of the house to get away? (similar to #100 and #144)
  • 67. Why didn’t you call 911?
  • 123. A lot of your answers to the questions you were asked made it seem like you put Travis Alexander’s needs and priorities before your own. If that’s the case, why didn’t you call for help after you shot him? (similar to #67)
  • 65. If you shot Travis Alexander first, how did the bullet casing land on blood?
  • 118. Were you mad at Travis Alexander while you were stabbing him?
  • 102. You stated you remembered dropping the knife and hearing it hit the tile. What did you do with it after that?
  • 55. Why did you place Travis Alexander’s body back in the shower?
  • 101. Why would you take the time to delete the pictures off the camera after you killed Travis Alexander?
  • 4. Why did you put the camera in the washer?
  • 63. Did you try to clean up the scene when you left on 6/4/2008?
  • 61. Why did you take the rope and gun with you?
  • 62. Did you lock Travis Alexander’s bedroom door when you left on 6/4/2008?
  • 56. Do you know what time you left Travis Alexander’s house on 6/4/2008?
  • 57. What happened to the clothes you were wearing 6/4/2008?
  • 58. You say Travis Alexander had attacked you before 6/4/2008, but would apologize, so why was 6/4/2008 so different? (similar to #96)
  • 96. Why did you think that the incident that happened on 6/4/2008 was any different from anything that happened before, so much so that you thought you had to kill him? (similar to #58)

INCIDENTS (5 questions)

  • 19. If you had bruises…why didn’t anyone ask you about them?
  • 46. During your testimony, you mentioned an incident where Travis Alexander hit your car.  Can you explain that story again?
  • 80. Did anyone see you wearing a finger splint? (similar to #79)
  • 97. You mentioned injuries that would not have been seen by others that wouldn’t have been seen by others when you went to Utah in 6/4/2008. Can you explain them?
  • 98. When you injured yourself at Casa Romas on the glass, did your manager have you fill out a form for medical purposes?

PHONE RECORDING (6 questions)

  • 11. Did you record other phone sex conversations?
  • 17. Travis Alexander said on the phone that he didn’t like Spiderman. Why did he buy you underwear with Spiderman on it if he didn’t like that character?
  • 107.  If Travis Alexander wanted the sex conversations recorded why didn’t he record it?
  • 108. If you didn’t want to be tied to a tree, why did you go and look for a place where he could do that?
  • 110. On the phone sex tape, when Travis Alexander was talking about photos and taking videos, was that all part of his fantasy?
  • 111. Did you ever voice anything to Travis Alexander about being uncomfortable with his fantasies?

AFTERMATH (3 questions)

  • 18. Why would you tell Leslie Udy you wanted Travis Alexander’s kids to play with yours if you knew he was into young children? (similar to #122)
  • 122. You stated you would not want kids with Travis Alexander because you would be worried about them. If that’s the case, why’d you tell Leslie Udy you couldn’t wait for your kids to play together at future Pre Paid Legal events? (similar to #18)
  • 104. In your email to Travis Alexander after 6/4/2008 you stated you’d sleep in his bed while he was in Cancun. Did you sleep in his house when he wasn’t there?

GENERAL (10 questions)

  • 27. How far is Crater Lake from Ashland?
  • 28. How far is Medford from Crater Lake?
  • 29. How far is Medford from Ashland?
  • 41. You testified that you reported your cell phone lost in May 2008. When and where was it found?
  • 50. Did Travis’ dog usually bark when someone came into the house?
  • 51. Did the dog usually bark with loud unexplained noises?
  • 60. Why did you send his grandmother flowers?
  • 73. Do you know how tall the ceiling in Travis Alexander’s closet was?
  • 88. What is your understanding of the word skank?
  • 121. You stated you bought a gun to commit suicide, but never ended up doing it. What stopped you from doing it?

GAS (7 questions)

  • 42. Have you taken long trips by yourself like the one in June 2008 in the past?
  • 43. How often did you take such trips?
  • 44. During those trips, did you take extra gas cans with you?
  • 45. If you took gas cans with you, where did you get them?
  • 82. You said you got the 2 gas cans so you could fill up where it was cheaper in Nevada or Utah. Why did you get it in Pasadena?
  • 135. Today, 3/5/2013, you stated before lunch that you think you filled the car up first as we saw in several hypothetical situations after lunch, do you think it’s possible to put 8 plus gallons in the car and then 9 plus gallons and then 2 plus for a total of 12 in the remaining gas cans?
  • 140. If you were driving to a place you’d never been before (Utah), why wouldn’t you map out different towns that had rest stops and gas stations?

GLASSES (2 questions)

  • 20. If you were so near sighted, how were you able to drive?
  • 151. You said you didn’t get glasses until 2010. What’s your prescription?


  • 5.   Did you ever take pics of yourself after he hit you?
  • 14.  You took pictures of shirt and shorts. Did you take pics of Spiderman underwear?
  • 15.  If not, why not?
  • 23. You took pic of t-shirt and shorts, but not the boys’ underwear. Why did you take them so much later (in July)?
  • 39. In an interview with Det. Flores, you talked to him about taking pics of Travis Alexander while shaving. You said he must’ve liked it because he used it on his MySpace page. Can you explain what he used?
  • 78. You have pictures of your other finger injuries with time stamps. Do you have other pics of your other finger injury?
  • 79. Do you have any pics of your wearing a finger splint? (similar to #80)

INTERVIEWS (7 questions)

  • 37. Were you paid for the interview with 48 hours?
  • 38. Were you paid for the interview with Inside Edition?
  • 77. In your interviews you gave on TV, were you forced to answer all the questions they presented to you?
  • 76. Whether you had plans to commit suicide or not, why even say no jury would convict you because you’re innocent?
  • 81. Did you have an attorney prior to the interview with CBS?
  • 105. How is it you were so calm in your interview with CBS?

JOURNALS (3 questions)

  • 114. Why would you continue to carry journals around with you if it was possible that others including Travis Alexander might read them?
  • 117. You stated there were times Travis Alexander made you tear out pages with negative things you said about him. Right before that you said you didn’t write anything bad about Travis Alexander. Which is it?
  • 153. Do any of your journal entries or any other items discuss you blacking out or getting scrambled?

MEMORY ISSUE (9 questions)

  • 80. When did you realize you had memory loss? The approximate date.
  • 141. Did you ever see a doctor for your memory issues?
  • 148. Did you ever seek mental help for your mental condition?
  • 149. Have you ever taken medication for your memory issues?
  • 150. Did you ever tell anyone about your condition prior to the killing?
  • 154. You claim to have memory gaps when you’re being yelled at or stressed.  If this is the case, how do you have such vivid memories of Travis Alexander’s violent episodes during which he’s yelling?
  • 75. Why is it that you have no memory of stabbing Travis?
  • 120. During cross, you were asked if you were crying when you were stabbing Travis and you said no. How do you know that if you don’t remember?
  • 119. How is it that you remember so many sexual encounters, including ex-boyfriends, but you don’t remember stabbing Travis Alexander or dragging his body?

TRUTH/LIES (6 questions)

  • 21. In Travis Alexander’s text to Jodi, ex.444, he talks about a “mysterious man”. Who is this man and why’s he bringing it up?
  • 22. Did Travis Alexander think it was someone you lied about?
  • 106. You stated in 48 hours interview that Travis Alexander’s family deserved to know the truth. If that was true, why didn’t you confess then?
  • 124. Why did you decide to tell the truth 2 years after the killing? (similar to #132)
  • 125. What made you change your mind and tell everyone about Travis’ secret about the child’s picture?
  • 132. How do you determine when you will tell the truth and when you won’t? What are the determining factors? (similar to #124)

GUNS (8 questions)

  • 35. Regarding the 9MM gun in July 2008, you mentioned the purpose having to do with a camping trip. Who was going to be going on the camping trip?
  • 36. Why were you planning on going if you were scared?
  • 53.  When did you find out that Travis Alexander had a gun? (same as #133)
  • 133. When did you find Travis’ gun? (same as #53)
  • 134. Was it kept loaded in the closet? (similar to #143)
  • 143. Did Travis Alexander ever tell you he kept his gun loaded? (similar to #134)
  • 144. If you didn’t think it was loaded, why grab a gun that may not be loaded, instead of going outside? (similar to #66 and #100)
  • 54. To your knowledge, did the police ever find your grandfather’s gun that was stolen?

LICENSE PLATE (3 questions)

  • 138. Would a screwdriver be required to take off the license plates?
  • 139. Did you find it strange that only your license plate was messed with in that parking lot?
  • 145. You stated you didn’t know anything was wrong with the back of car when you came out of Starbucks, so how did it get turned upside down?
  1. Robin Kelly says:

    Oh and what about that Tranglobal Amnesia! Was there even a point to be made there? And Dr. Samuels keeps referring to this “story” about being attacked by Travis as the 2nd story. What’s up with that. Is he not aware that this is the 3rd account from her of what occured. He’s said it several times.


    • Hey, glad to have you back. Here’s my take on what is happening with Dr. Samuels: He is a very competent and experienced psychologist with over 35 years in a variety of different settings. It is nonsense to say he based his findings on what she said. These people know nothing about how any of this works. He even said on the stand that he read all of the documentation and watched all of the interviews, open up your ears people! He is a professional, he knows what he is doing. Any good psychologist knows to get information from different sources to come to the most objectively accurate finding. Plain and simple, all this other stuff is distraction. I find it quite interesting that the prosecutor isn’t waiting for his expert, which he has mentioned a few times… Juan Martinez seems to find it pertinent to attack Dr. Samuels, not on his diagnosis, but on whether or not he got a number right (that doesn’t matter), whether or not he disclosed everything (he did), etc. Juan Martinez and the media have crossed the line several times already with this expert, insinuating an inappropriate relationship with feelings (today was so inappropriate I was floored) [which of course feeds right into the media’s constant attack on female defendants] and that he somehow faked the scores for her! What?!! This is way over the line, way, way, over the line. He can’t even see the line anymore. Why doesn’t he attack him on his actual findings? He seems to try to, but ends up back on the whole, but you liked her right? Idiocy. I find that telling. Many, many people have a false view of the justice system and in that view they have adopted some kind of idea of “hired guns”. While it does happen that defense and prosecution experts can just agree with them because they are being paid to, it doesn’t happen as often as people would like you to believe, especially in high-profile cases. For example, with Casey Anthony, most of her experts were pro-bono, which means free, they donated their time because, I don’t know perhaps, they actually believed in what they were arguing. They never expected to get paid. In Jodi Arias’ case, her experts are not free, but they are paid for by the State. According to law, all indigent defense experts must be unbiased and selected/approved by the court. The whole idea of hired guns goes completely up in smoke when you consider the fact that the State always pays their experts, always. What does that say about them? It does happen, but it is ridiculous to blanket everyone with that. It is a go-to argument when people can’t actually argue with the findings. The only people who have the option to actually seek out such people are rich defendants and at least 85% of all defendants are indigent. You do the math on the “hired guns” idea.
      Back to Dr. Samuels, he is being honest, he made a typo on his report (but included all information in the body), he gave her a book (this is the most outrageous thing to me, he gave her a $9 book because she was threatening suicide and all Juan Martinez can say is that wasn’t your responsibility, really? Shows what kind of person the two of them are and anyone who looks at a situation like that. It makes complete sense to me that he would want to move her mind from the obsession with suicide to get more information for his evaluation. Not much of an evaluation if all she talks about is one thing.), and he found she had PTSD. Dr. Samuels brought up Transglobal Amnesia as a way to introduce amnesia, which is misunderstood by people due to TV. He was trying to get you to understand that amnesia can come from something simply stressful, everyday stressful, have you ever had a panic attack? Some people can’t remember some of it. Anger, Car Accidents, etc. etc. can cause people to forget some things. Amnesia happens more than people think and there are different types as well. It isn’t an untouchable disorder, that’s what he was pointing out. He also was introducing the idea of the hippocampus and how it operates. How we create memories and in some cases don’t or can’t. Chemical reactions in our brains control everything, that’s why when people have certain disorders they are called chemical imbalances (i.e. clinical depression).
      Technically speaking, not being there isn’t an attack story. Besides, he spoke to her after she told the intruder story (which the media so degenerately calls the ninja story, wow!). So she told him 2 “stories”. Like I’ve said before, I believe Jodi Arias, not unlike other people, is a terrible communicator, add on top all the pressure on her, this is her life we are talking about! Most of the discrepancies to me are minor. I don’t check my common sense at the door. Is it really a big deal the difference between tying her hands and tying her hands and feet? Relevance, anyone? Has she made up stuff? Absolutely. Is she making it up now? I don’t buy into that whole once a liar always a liar argument, it is a distraction tactic. Guess what? Everyone lies, including the police. We don’t just stop believing everything they say after that. This liar thing is just a way for people to keep living in their bubble. If you can’t make accurate predictions of a lie vs. not a lie, then just look at the evidence instead of what she says. It’s a pretty obvious solution really. That is where eyes should be. Are the forensics reliable? What do they say? What makes sense with the layout of the scene? What exhibits do we have? No speculating, just evaluating. Speculation can lead you right to the wrong conclusion if you aren’t careful, it has its time and place.
      With the lies in the mix, a prosecutor like Juan Martinez, and a life in the balance, it is important to take a step back. We do not have a gun to say anything about or a knife to say anything about. The gas cans were never used to fill up her car, why would she fill her car and the cans up if she was attempting to hide her movements? The receipts that she kept are being used against her, do you really think if you killed someone you would keep the receipts for taxes?! What’s more important getting money off for your business trip or living? Keep in mind too that premeditation is pre, meaning before the murder, so the flowers don’t matter, the letter doesn’t matter, the voicemail doesn’t matter, the email doesn’t matter, what she said to others doesn’t matter. That goes toward a coverup, which can be motivated over a range of very different reasons (including panic of the sort described by the defense). Covering up and premeditating are different animals unless they can be linked, in this case, they cannot.
      Yes, you can’t premeditate every aspect of a crime and you are right, TV gives people false realities (including the media), but is there any premeditation at all? We can assume until the sun goes down, but this is a human being’s life and regardless of whether you like her or not, that isn’t criteria. We as a society believe killing is wrong, so therefore, we believe that the death penalty should be given only to those so dangerous we cannot risk having them around. I personally disagree with the death penalty 100%, for various reasons. In this case, this is a human life, is it really going to show that we disagree with murder if we put someone to death over an assumption? How is that a standard? What kind of message is that? What happens when we are wrong (having no proof logically increases that possibility)? There is no proof of premeditation. We are supposed to assume the gun was her grandfather’s, which was stolen during a robbery along with other items such as cash, a DVD player, and a stereo. We don’t know that though. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt for a reason, to protect innocent defendants. What if it wasn’t that gun? If you can’t prove it was, is that really beyond a reasonable doubt? And the knife, why would she bring that? Why do you need a knife if you are going to shoot him with the gun you stole from your grandfather? Why take a gun to the scene and then decide you know what I think it is a better idea to stab him to death first despite him being bigger and stronger and stabbing being less immediately fatal, really? Just doesn’t make sense. There were knives found in the dishwasher at the residence, by the way. A piece of proof we can point to, where as the proof she brought the knife is no where we can find. People don’t like to think they are wrong, but you know what it happens, a lot. When you look at all the evidence, you can see that she isn’t this femme fatale cold-blooded devil and he isn’t a squeaky clean suckered man. I think what Juan Martinez did today with Dr. Samuels is just the cherry on top of the proof about what kind of prosecutor he is, I’ve been saying it all along, he has a case why does he feel the need to gussy it up in such a negative counterproductive way? He should have just settled with her on 2nd that’s what she wanted, that’s what he’s got, and it would have saved everyone including the family (who says they live on credit cards now because of the expense of travel to the trial) this debacle. Perhaps the truth is not 1st degree, do people even consider that?


  2. Robin Kelly says:

    I’m back! Just some quick thoughts about last week.

    So how do you feel the whole Dr. Samuels event went? What was your interpretation of the jury questions to him?

    I like him. He seems very honest although sloppy. And I believe that honesty didn’t help Jodi Arias very much. He tried, he really did try. But in the end I found it was not effective in showing Jodi “forgot everything” that would harm her. He kept saying indicative of ” violent criminal behavior” and “perpetrator” and “not a get out of jail free card”. His honest interpretations did not seem to serve her very well.

    And comparing her in ANY way to armed forced or police officers was so very wrong. I get why he did it, but it was poorly thought out.

    And to say the person who “premeditates” a killing wouldn’t be anywhere near the stress level of someone who suddenly found themselves in a situation to kill made no sense to me. Sure if you were a serial killer I would suppose, after a certain number of killings, you might get used to the action of killing. But even for a true killer the first time would be traumatic. I’ve even seen where serial killers have described their first time killing a person as being the most frightning event that had ever occured for them. So unless you have killed before, the first time would be traumatic no matter what the situation, planned or unplanned. I think I mentioned before you can’t premeditate every aspect of what will occur. It’s not like on tv, wham bam you’re dead and I’m outta here. It’s messy and violent and, unless you are psychotic, would scar you for life.

    Also when Martinez questioned her about the shooting and whether she had the knife in her hand at the same time. She replies Tavis might have been holding it. First time ever that was implied and when asked why it wasn’t mentioned previously she said “nobody asked”. Really. I realize it’s a hypothecial but him hanging from the ceiling making monkey sounds is as well. She can just keep interjecting these wild scenarios all day. She’s good at it.

    For example:

    Suddenly we learn after a month on the stand that Travis had actually loaded the gun and taken it out and “done something with it”. Thoughts?


  3. Robin Kelly says:

    Well tomorrow will hopefully bring some real truth and answers for us. Or the next day or the next haha. I always hope Martinez sleeps on his performance of the day and comes back sounding and acting like a professional on the next. But he’s disappointed me more often than not so far lol. Sometimes he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, others he sounds nervous and unsure. To say the least inconsistnat and confusing.

    I want to THANK YOU for being there as a sounding board for me and showing me the other side of my arguments and why the either both could make sense or perhaps not! I might be wrong! And never fear, I’ll be back!


    • I’m glad that you enjoy my blog. Tomorrow will bring more juror questions supposedly. So, we shall see what happens next. Court cases are not scripted, anything can happen. I’ve had quite a few shockers in this case already, to name two: I didn’t expect the defense to bring in un-redacted journal entries that included her concerns about Travis Alexander (didn’t know Juan Martinez was allowed to redact evidence in the first place!) and I didn’t expect the defense to make that powerful demonstration on what Travis Alexander said on the recording (such a good move in my opinion, as I was listening to testimony I thought to myself the defense should point out what he is saying, and then they did!). As well as the personality of the prosecutor, did not expect that at all! Wow. Talk to you later.


  4. Robin Kelly says:

    Jodi may not be a lawyer but she is smart! You gotta admit that! And sneaking messages out of jail isn’t a smart thing to do on ANY level. I’m pretty sure even an idiot would realize this. There is something here that we need to know that might further explain this whole thing. My question here is, she heard they had this “evidence” at the exact same time as her lawyers. Talk about a bombshell. I would have loved to been inside Nurmi’s head when he heard it. No doubt they went directly to her for an explanation yes? “Jodi what the hell is this girlfriend?” She didn’t have much time to come up with a conceivable lie for this one, in my opinion. This one is a bit more complicated than “I don’t know what I was thinking, sorry” And her attorneys never mentioned it again. Will they tell us what it is? Or just this just float around there as an insinuation with no explanation at all? Not good.
    You know I just don’t even think about the fact that she probably watches all this on TV. If I were her lawyers I would tell her to not go anywhere near it and if it shows up while shes watching something else run away. That can’t be helpful AT ALL.
    OMG look, she’s wearing a red shirt today, what does THAT mean! Unleash the lawyers! I almost choked on my coffee when I heard that on TV. So I agree, it’s hard to prove your innocence when you have 50 people on TV saying you are guilty before the trial and ANY evidence is even heard. She’s gonna fry, get ready for a needle to be put in her arm! Brutal. But before the trial started I really hadn’t heard anything regarding this case. So I am TRULY trying to base what I “think” on what is being given as evidence. I must say I mute my TV so much it’s ridiculous. I tend to watch facial reactions after a question is asked. The words coming out of peoples mouths on this one are more often frustrating than informative.
    Now having said that, the only person I have ever heard “attack” her family, is her. I truly have heard not one word disparaging them at all. Even from the hate mongers like Nancy Grace, but I don’t watch them very much so I could have missed this. Perhaps you have and this indeed sad yes. I did hear them mention once that her mother and aunt were giggling in court and they panned the camera to them indeed laughing away but not much more was put to that. I found it odd but thought nothing more of it. Now she, as is par for the course in these cases I guess, has told us her parents abused her. To what degree is really the question. Was she beaten once with a belt, 1000 times? Did her mother pull out that wooden spoon at every turn and just beat them mercilessly? I remember my mother once hitting my sister on the head with a hairbrush ONCE in a lifetime. And I sure got my share of spankings. Is that child abuse? I don’t know. As a child born into spare the rod spoil the child my views would be skewed I suppose. Now I would NEVER say that raising your hand ever to a child is acceptable. But neither is shooting a man, stabbing him 20 somethings times and slitting his throat and saying he made me do it. If a parent abuses, were they abused therefore abusing you and leading you to murder? I guess we could go back to the pilgrims (or whatever lineage we derived from) and do a real study of the cycle.
    I have never agreed with being in jail awaiting trial for YEARS. Well unless we are talking about a serial killer. There’s an exception to every rule. I don’t get how sitting in a jail cell for YEARS is presuming you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. I have never really understood that. Aside from this case, how do you come back from having somebody sit in jail for years only to have them exonerated in the end. They are proven innocent but have been in jail for years. How do you fix that?
    Left camera behind by accident. I actually pondered this and then my brain promptly forgot about it. I thought well it’s in there with a bunch of clothing and towels I think? Could it have been picked up and not noticed and just tossed in with that? Good point, glad I thought of it! LOL LOL
    Do you think if she hadn’t left that bloody palm print and that camera she might have never even gone to trial on this. However, she could have, if she hasn’t, explained away that print with the 2 intruders lie. I put my hand on him after he was injured, I ran away and put my hand on the wall to steady myself etc and so on. So it’s that one solitary unnoticed accidental picture that really is the clincher here. If she HAD taken that camera, where would we be now? She was asked “if you hadn’t been caught would you have ever told the truth” something along those lines. And in one of the few instances where I think she was being 99 percent truthful. She said didn’t know the answer to that. Although I think she does. Hell no.

    Soooo many people when asked who could have done this instantly said “Jodi”. Why? She was the first person mentioned even on the 911 call. That was an instant reaction. What about her made those people think she did/could kill Travis without a second thought? What AREN’T we factually hearing here. I don’t watch all that TV where they are pulling in her friends, which we agree are very few, and his friends and their family and co-workers etc and so on. And I don’t read it on here, internet. Whole reason I found this blog, I couldn’t stomach the other sites where it’s “kill her” or “set her free” with no in between. I am trying so very hard to “stick with the facts” that are being presented. But you can’t help but catch bits and pieces and be curious. But they have to be proven facts, and as in the walmart/cans scenario I don’t see hard proof , yet, that she didn’t return that can so it’s meaningless until they do. It’s innuendo and I don’t think there’s a place for that on a death penalty case. Any case really but this is a life we are talking about.
    So, so far what has been “proven” here? She killed him. Had she just shot him in the head and been done with it this would be over already and she’d get 2nd degree and probably be home by now or very shortly. But she butchered him and put all that into a “fog” and lied and lied and lied and lied some more.
    So she “thinks” she shot him, but even THAT is still up for debate with her and that is that. With a gunshot wound clearly visible in that mans head see will still say “I think I shot him” “ I didn’t mean to” “it was an accident”. All plausible if you take out those 27 stab wounds and a slit throat and dragging a body to remove evidence etc. Seriously. End of story, at least for her. You can’t ask her about what she doesn’t know so don’t even bother to try. You are gonna have to figure out what happened on your own cause I have no clue. Blank stare, blank mind, where it counts.
    Asking us to believe specifically her, has one flaw. Well many flaws. She has lied continually and superfluously throughout this entire thing, from the second it happened until they finally settled upon this scenario. He made me do it. Which, being a logical person, you assume is just more lies. Until there is proof there is no lie here. Lied when she didn’t even have to lie and then lied on top of that. I think that’s why we shouldn’t be expected to just believe her on the face of her words alone. Telling me you were in a fog, don’t remember and therefore are innocent of wrong doing won’t work. Saying you didn’t mean to and don’t even remember it is no defense. Spending 99 percent of their time trying to portray Travis as some devil in disguise isn’t good enough. He like sex and she liked sex and all kinds of it. Nothing evil about it. Sinful perhaps depending on how you believe. “Would you say he had an all access pass to your body?” O M G

    I am 50/50 on even having these trials televised at all. They almost always turn into circuses and I just don’t see the point. On the other side if you are truly interested in the court system and criminal justice as I am, they are valuable tools to learn from IF you can mange to keep the trash out.


    • Did they go to her and say, “What the hell is this?” or “What the hell did you do?” Absolutely, assuming they are competent, which they seem quite capable as attorneys. I personally, believe these are the best attorneys she could get in her situation. She may have had an answer, maybe not, but the important thing is that they can’t explain it anymore than for her just to deny it. The prosecutor will do what the prosecutor is going to do and the defense will do what they do. If they can’t find a way to fix it or explain it, then they probably think they shouldn’t make it worse by bringing it back up. Like I talked about before, the strategy of giving it no credence. Saying, this isn’t important so we won’t talk it about much, concentrate on this stuff instead. Hopefully she’s not watching, her family isn’t watching it, and her attorneys aren’t watching it and people who want to truly understand the case aren’t taking the TV seriously. “OMG look, she’s wearing a red shirt today, what does THAT mean! Unleash the lawyers! I almost choked on my coffee when I heard that on TV” LOL!!!! On a more serious note, people actually believe that stuff!!! WTH is wrong with them!!!

      “But before the trial started I really hadn’t heard anything regarding this case.” You are a lucky person! You might have even been a candidate for the jury (if you lived there of course).

      I have become good friends with my mute button as well, but I tend to only be able to take so much of them these days they have gotten so much worse over the past several years. I just turn them off and watch online when I can.

      You say: “Now she, as is par for the course in these cases I guess, has told us her parents abused her. “ Now she may be lying, she may not, it may have an impact, it may not. The media likes to use what you said maliciously to sway people into believing: oh everybody charged with murder says they were abused (roll eyes). It’s the same excuse given to this belief: everyone in jail says their innocent (roll eyes). We know that many, many people are abused and just because you are charged doesn’t make you guilty and it also doesn’t suddenly make you have a better, perfect past then what really happened. As is the same for the fact that we know 100% that people in jail can be innocent through research into appeals and exonerations. I don’t know whether she is lying about being abused, to me it doesn’t matter in this phase of the case. However, it could show that her relationship structure is unbalanced and therefore she is more likely to stay in an abusive environment because she views it as the norm. Also, perhaps she wasn’t abused, but she perceived abuse, perception is powerful and if it seems real to her then it would have felt real to her.

      They don’t fix having people sit in jail for years awaiting trial and the media makes it worse. The media uses that time to turn the public against them so it won’t matter if they are found not guilty in the end. They say that it was their duty to prosecute the case and they had a good faith basis to believe that it was probable the person committed it. You see to arrest someone you only need reasonable suspicion and probable cause, to indict someone you only need good faith and probable cause, literally a grand jury bases their decision on whatever the prosecutor wants to tell them (no defense, no rules of evidence, nothing), and if that grand jury disagrees, they just get another one. Then they proceed to trial. Trials are a different animal, that’s where it really counts. Sometimes, on the other hand, it is good for people to sit in jail awaiting trial because it gives them more time to better defend themselves at trial through a lengthier investigation. If we didn’t have the camera or the bloody palm print, we would still have: his friends and family’s suspicion, her odd behavior with the police, her lack of an alibi, the upside down license plate, and the caliber of the gun matching her grandfather’s. We would still have no evidence that two intruders came in and killed him while she was there. We would have a different trial though. The trial would be much more circumstantial and the defense may have went with a ‘someone else committed it’ defense. She would have a better chance in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t have been found guilty with that evidence (we still don’t know what the jury is thinking here either). If we can find innocent people who weren’t even within a few miles of a crime scene guilty, they still would have had a case against her.

      “So, so far what has been “proven” here?” She killed him (good point). That’s really it, in my opinion. Premeditation is quite shaky and not normal shaky, reasonable doubt shaky. 1st degree murder is based upon two things: premeditation or in the commission of a felony. There is nothing in there that it was horrible or egregious or cruel or depraved. No, that comes into account when deciding whether she lives or dies in the second phase (different discussion: mitigating vs. aggravating). 1st degree guilt or innocence is solely decided on what occurred, the circumstances surrounding the killing, not the killing itself. I don’t know why felony murder is included, I haven’t heard a peep from the prosecutor on what felony she was committing when she decided to kill him? Strange inclusion in the indictment, if you ask me.

      Saying you don’t remember would be a defense if it were true, you aren’t supposed to lie in your defense. What else can you do, if you really don’t remember? Okay, let’s not believe her: No abuse and she was completely a co-partner in all the activities between the two of them and she remembers everything that happened. What does that prove? Does it prove premeditation? No. The facts separate from each witness must show premeditation, no one testified that she talked to them about doing it, she didn’t conspire with anyone, etc. Does the presentation of the prosecutor put premeditation into perspective for you? It doesn’t for me, so far.

      100% agree with the last paragraph!

      The whole point of my blog is to stay away from the trash or expose it and to look at the case from both sides. To find the truth you have to evaluate both sides fairly. You never know if you’re wrong unless you find out by speaking to or listening to those who disagree with you (with an open mind of course).


  5. Robin Kelly says:

    On thinking further about this camera because not taking it made no sense to me. If a brand new camera he had purchased went missing, because she is SUCH a camera buff/photographer maybe her brain thought if it went missing that would point a finger at her. She stated she never went anywhere without a camera. Who and why would somebody kill him and take only his camera? And perhaps removing fingerprints from a camera might be tough, nooks and crannies and bodily fluids etc and so on. Washing machine would take care of that. Not to mention destroy the camera. Now let’s remember here, she did know there were pictures of her and of him on that camera, whether she believe they were destroyed or not. But she DID NOT know there were pictures of her dragging his dead body across that floor to the shower. She was truly shocked or at least faked shock well, when it was told to her that that camera still had pictures on it and even said “Are you sure it’s me” (you kinda gotta laugh at that one however inappropriate) and “Well it looks like me I guess” but the story of 2 intruders killing him would make any pictures like that meaningless. Yeah we were taking naked pictures of ourselves when 2 people burst into the room to kill us both. Big deal. When these pictures came to her attention and it became crystal clear to her should could no longer lie about being there is when the 2nd lie of the 2 intruders came to be.


    • Jodi Arias is not a lawyer, so she might not and should not be expected to know that inviting people to talk to her defense attorney is okay. It is a normal interview process. Done by both sides. In addition, perhaps it was something she wanted her attorney to do, but they weren’t interested or she wanted to prepare him for when she did get a public defender. Think about this: At the time of all the interviews, she testified during the jury questions that she did not have a “regular” attorney yet (her public defenders), just a deportation attorney for her move from California to Arizona. So either, he/she wasn’t giving her any good advice about talking or not talking to the media and the dangers of supplying their sensationalism as well as the prosecutor with fodder to use against her or she wasn’t listening to them. Perhaps she wanted more people to help her in the media to sway public opinion.

      I can only imagine how hard it is to be on trial during a high-profile case and see all the lies on TV and all the bullying and exploitation of your life. The fears of receiving a fair trial, what will happen to you next, etc. The witnessing of the pain of your family, how they are attacked as well, and the crumbling of your life. Seeing people act out in hatred, doing things I’ve never seen people do. It is scary (even to me and I’m not on trial!). I can understand wanting to counteract the negative pro-prosecution media with some good PR (or in some cases, just a more truthful look at the case in an unbiased way). The media is a powerful influence. There is no doubt that she thought no one would see the message, why would she write it in the binding if she wanted people to read it? He should only say those things if he actually knows them to be true. Obviously, the message didn’t get to him, it was caught and confiscated by the jail officials who gave it to the prosecution to do with what they wanted. Juan Martinez referenced it being discussed in a hearing before trial, not sure why he brought it up or why he was allowed to. Appealable? Maybe. Why do you think the prosecutor didn’t charge her with witness tampering? Because it is just another on of those things he wants to insinuate, but doesn’t have anything beyond assumptions to back up. Yes, it is horribly sad, but there are many people out there who are not true friends. They are with you until something bad happens. It is never right to abandon another person. Perhaps he knows information and just doesn’t want the cameras around. You are right it is ridiculous to value something more than telling the truth when another person’s life is on the line. But, some people just want the public to like them whether they’re scared of HLN or whether they just want to be on the bandwagon.

      I don’t remember the specific question either, but I do recall at least one objection like that. What he is doing is protecting her and making a record for appeal. Objections serve those two purposes to ensure a fair trial through legal vetting and to create a record of issues for appeal. I noticed when the prosecutor cross-examined her he used an age-old police tactic for interrogations, let’s hypothesize! No, NEVER hypothesize! This technique is found to be at fault for a slew of false confessions. Her consistency was challenged in this cross-examination, but some of her inconsistencies were based on hypothesizing and logical assumptions (such as she must have taken the weapons with her if she was there and did it and they didn’t find weapons). She isn’t remembering these things she’s saying it must have happened logically or hypothetically happened under Juan Martinez’s scenario. This happened quite a bit on cross-examination and Kirk Nurmi was probably trying to prevent more of that on juror questions. Like I said in a previous comment, she isn’t a very good communicator on the stand, so she needs his objections.

      Well there is a HUGE difference between prosecutors and defendants. Defendants don’t have to prove anything. This is for many reasons, but one big one is that it is very difficult to prove your innocence in most cases. Alibis and other favorable testimony can be excused away as people lying for you, your experts are just “hired guns” (even if they’re pro bono!), you show no remorse, your only crying for yourself or my favorite, your only upset because you’re caught!, all of this and more before your first day at trial. Presumption of innocence isn’t as widespread as we would hope it to be. There are ways to undermine even an innocent person’s case (just look at all the exonerated people). How would you prove you are innocent? It is tougher than it sounds. Plus, you don’t have to prove anything as a defendant because the state has all the resources and you don’t and they are putting your life at risk (as well as liberty). They are accusing you, so they should have to prove it. They’re interrupting your life, calling you out, blaming you. It only makes logical sense. They have all the “evidence”, so they should have to show it shows you did it. Therefore, a prosecutor should not be insinuating anything, however a defense can. There are multiple strategies to reasonable doubt, insinuating is one. The prosecutor wants to kill her, he should be doing more than insinuating that she didn’t return the 3rd can, she doesn’t have memory issues, she was tampering with witnesses, and she brought the gun with her.

      They can ask you to believe her, what’s wrong with that? She is the defendant she does NOT have to prove anything, just show you that the prosecutor is most likely wrong (reasonable doubt). She needs to raise questions in your mind. People ask us to believe them everyday, on the news, at work, at the store, whenever someone says something it is a choice to believe them or not. Why would her testimony be different? In fact, all witnesses are held under the same rule whether they are friends or experts: you can believe all of their testimony, none of their testimony, or parts of their testimony. Your pick.

      I completely agree with the paragraph that starts with: “This Walmart/gas can thing is bothering me…”

      LOL! I can remember almost everything about certain subjects and nothing about others, memory is a strange thing! Some people have photographic memories, perhaps she does, minus the fog.

      I actually liked her reaction to him, I thought it fit nicely with her defense, which is interesting. I know people on TV were saying that she isn’t acting meek enough, but she has been in jail for 5 years awaiting trial and her “threat” is gone, she has also gone through therapy, so it would make sense that she might be better able to combat with a man and stand up for herself. Also, she is in a safe environment with all the people around and her life is on the line. It is now or never, in most cases. I thought he needed a bit of a smartass to come back at him, anyway. It was funny some of the things she said back to him. At points, I do agree, their bickering was too much, but I thought it was more him than her. Because I remember instances where he would ask her something and she would answer and he would say did I ask you that? She would look at him like he was crazy (which he was) and then they would fight for 10 minutes and end up back on her original answer and he would act like she never said that before!! What?! This is because he did ask that question. It was maddening and confusing. I believe his strategy with her was to try to do what is called “improper impeachment”. This is when an attorney attempts to impeach someone through confusion and not actually using facts. He weaved this in with proper impeachment, it is an odd sight to see.

      I always think when I see a group of people who don’t like someone else and treat them badly, why? It could be because she was different then them. People can be cruel and groups can have a bully-mentality, an us vs. you. Especially after she killed him, sometimes people rally together and hide the flaws of the victim in order to preserve the fight against the assailant whether the fight is completely true or completely false. Some people feel as though their loved one was worth so much to them that even if they did something to someone else, they should be avenged. It’s sort of like when a person is exonerated the family of the victim is angry and still believes that they killed their loved one. Despite evidence that they didn’t, such as DNA, prosecutorial misconduct, junk science, etc. This comes from the perception of the case as given to them by police and prosecutors years earlier. They transferred all of their pain onto that person and to find out they didn’t do it is too much for them to accept. Instead, they remain in the false belief of infallibility of investigations and don’t seek out justice. Some of his friends and family have gone on TV and talked a bit about the case and her and Travis Alexander. When I see people talking to these news shows, I often think to myself what if that person is disgruntled? They could be lying or just want the limelight. Do you have someone who doesn’t like you, who would go on TV and lie about you to get back at you? Or maybe they’re a fame monger? You always have to be careful who you believe in a high-profile case, people crawl out of the woodwork to be in front of the cameras. It creates a whole extra layer of muck to travel through to the truth.

      “I assumed she took them off while it sat at Travis’s and then attempted to put them back on as she left. Being “in a fog” would certainly lend itself to putting them upside down.” Even though you don’t believe in the fog, you made an interesting point about it.

      No, it is not known how much time for the clean up was taken. It doesn’t look like much however. The cleanup consisted of, putting his body in the shower (at some point), taking clothes, etc. down to the washer, putting the knife in the dishwasher, picking the gun and the rope up and taking it with her, and possibly wiping up some surfaces, but not many. Her not taking the camera is a hard one on the premeditation theory as well. Clearly, they did this sort of thing together (they were discussing it on the recording). She knew there was evidence of this, she testified to knowing the camera doesn’t completely delete. She may have in a panicked rush thrown the camera in the washer by accident and then couldn’t find it, so she gave up and left before anyone could walk in. While I do see fully that her lies coincide quite well with the changing evidence being presented to her, I believe this is often used by the media to villanize people unfairly. Look everyone lies, we all know it. Being a liar doesn’t make you a murderer. It has to be in conjunction with other better evidence. Here, they have a case (not for 1st degree), but like you said, the prosecutor is being inept for no reason. I don’t know what’s wrong with that man. You are correct, she did not know the camera had those pictures on it, her reaction seems genuine to those photos. I don’t think she took them on purpose at all. It would have been very easy for her to just take the camera and the camera bag, wouldn’t it? I don’t know how many people knew he bought the camera, seems like he possibly bought it just for them (secret relationship). It was a fairly recent purchase. But, the camera was very expensive; someone could steal it in a robbery gone bad. Why not make it look like that? The question is was it bad premeditation or no premeditation?

      I find it interesting that she said she made up the story about the two people because she thought it would match the evidence. Why? How? Fascinating to ponder.


  6. Robin Kelly says:

    “It is common place, nothing suspicious or underhanded.”
    If that is indeed the case why go to all that elaborate seemingly secretive coding in 2 different magazines. Why not write a note and put it in an envelope and say “here give this to so and so”?
    I think this is a case where she thinks she’s smarter than your average bear and that message would get missed by all. However, if these messages had gotten to him, how would he know where to look for any message or if there even was a message? Something here is fishy.
    This man needs to not wait for a suponea. He needs to step up and say I have personally witnessed and been told things directly by Jodi, well in advance of this trial that will put this whole thing to rest. To not do so would be criminal in my opinion. A woman’s life is in jeopardy not to mention a great friend of his. I believe she said he asked her to keep him out of this. Ridiculous
    I would never presume that a lawyer, ANY lawyer would tolerate much less encourage any lie. However to be an attorney for someone who has told so many lies so far would be a precarious position to be in and scary! However I did witness her about to elaborate further on a question from the jury on something she “supposedly” had no memory of. If fact her attorney objected to HER answer saying she can’t speak to that because she has no memory. I don’t know which side of the fence this lies on. I don’t remember the question and will try to see if I can find where this happened so I probably shouldn’t even comment on this yet. Maybe you might remember it! I found that fascinating.
    Your statement that the prosecutor only seems to insinuate things that are superficially true interests me. Her whole case is based on alleged abuse that began once she found him “pleasuring himself” to pictures of a little boy. Nothing anywhere near abuse happened before this “incident”. This was the “game changer” in their relationship and lead ultimately to his murder. Not only do I NOT think this is true I don’t think there’s a shred of anything even superfically true about it. Absolutely nothing to base this on but a well documented, proven liar’s word. Nothing at all. If this can’t be proven to be true then can anything in this case based on her word be taken as truth? They cannot ask us to just “believe her” can they?
    This Walmart/gas can thing is bothering me. Oh my goodness this is huge. It could either be proven entirely wrong or be the lie she is caught telling in court to the jury and that would not be good yes? I certainly hope Martinez did very detailed, extensive investigation into this before putting this out there to the jury. If not I find it underhanded. You CANNOT insinuate things such as this without definitive, absolutely irrefutable proof in my opinion. There is a life on the line. We are only human, and humans make mistakes and the clerk who handled this transaction certainly could have slacked here. Maybe she was being lazy, on the phone, distracted by thoughts, in a hurry, whatever. Concerns me. And the only person I know regarding this case who can remember exactly what happened that day to the very last detail, true or false, is Jodi.

    I have actually sat here and tried to remember, with some detail, what I did last week. LOL forget about it!!!

    Martinez. I agree to a “degree”. When he first started his cross examination I actually had to mute the TV because I thought he sounded like a bumbling fool. I was like OMG what is this!??? But as time went on I thought there might be a method to his “madness”. I just don’t think he gave Jodi the credit of being able to handle herself against something like that. But that’s another thing. What “normal” person could be cross-examined and be so condescending and smug? At one point I was screaming at them both to shut up already! Seriously if Martinez had said the sky is blue Jodi would have disagreed and been happy to go on for 5 minutes as to why. Admit it! LOL Boggles the mind.

    Your comments that she was out of her element essentially makes sense. I can’t imagine what that would have felt like. I do believe he did try to assimilate her into his Mormon world however. He took her to many events and social gatherings. She met many of his Mormon friends and acquaintances and of course his family. However I do believe she was ostracized by most of them, why is a question. And of course he encouraged her conversion into the Mormon faith. Perhaps too many friends and family were whispering why he shouldn’t be with her than why he should? I am sure friends will come out of the woodwork to answer these questions eventually.

    OK your reasons for reasonable doubt.

    The receipts. I had to laugh when you said Martinez said she wanted to keep them for tax purposes. He’s certainly reaching on that one I would say and how that would fit into a murder trial I have no clue. Why in the whole world…… Anyway, I assume the fact there were receipts for everywhere she went EXCEPT Mesa was the main point. And a valid one in my estimation but I’m really not clear on that aspect and will educate myself a bit more here.
    License Plate. I assumed she took them off while it sat at Travis’s and then attempted to put them back on as she left. Being “in a fog” would certainly lend itself to putting them upside down. However as I don’t assume any fog existed in my opinion, after having just brutally murdering somebody, she didn’t even notice she was putting it on upside down and as for the front plate just left that to put attached later. Police are more apt to notice a back plate missing before a front plate, etc and so on. I’m starting to think like a criminal!

    Time line. 8 hours there, 2 minutes to kill and sloppy clean up. I truly believe she thought she loved Travis and could not stand being without him. I think she wanted to spend as much time as possible with the man of her “dreams” before killing him. And the 2 minutes to kill, well you’d better be fast make sure your first strike is a incapacitating one as this is a 200 pound physically fit young man. That’s why I believe she stabbed him in the chest first in that shower. He ran down hall to threshold, stabbed in the back all along the way, he turned defensive wounds to the hands, he collapses, still not dead, slit throat hurry up and die already, drags body to shower area realized this knife isn’t getting the job done fast enough, gunshot to the head in the shower. BAM dead. I don’t believe she used that gun except as a last resort. He’s not dying fast enough and I have to get out of here. Sloppy clean up. Has it been said how much time she was there for that clean up? I don’t recall however, You can’t possibly be aware of the mess that will occur, having never killed anyone before, how would she possibly have a clue here. I think that’s why this whole thing happened in the bathroom. WAY easier to clean tile than carpet. But once he made he way to that carpet, she was in over her head, it was too late. And it was determined there was an attempt to clean that bathroom. Of course when asked she can’t remember.
    Camera. If she knew for a fact that those pictures weren’t actually deleted why put it in the washer at all. I’m not sure why she didn’t take that with her or just take the chip out, BUT I assume, while she is smart, she has also just butchered a man and everything she does isn’t going to be well thought out. I mean really now, she was doing everything in her power to NOT get caught. Leaving pictures that prove not only were you there but you did it would seem not conducive to this scenario. Not meaning she left them knowing she would get caught but rather her belief at the time that indeed this would ruin that camera. Perhaps she did know that deleting pictures didn’t mean they were really gone, hence putting it in a tub of water, bouncing it around for a while and ruining the camera will work? Again why didn’t she take that camera?
    The whole blonde hair, brown hair thing went in one of my ears and out the other. Sloppy prosecution errors here if you ask me and that’s scary too. Made Martinez look inept to me.

    Not sure if I touched on everything but hopefully!

    And thank you for not telling me I’m a zealot out for blood! LOL if you were my mother she’d be screaming that at me non stop!


  7. Robin Kelly says:

    Further ponderings!

    These magazines that she “tried” to get out of the jail and handed over to Matt McCartney. Obviously hidden messages inside. “We can fix this” Matt McCartney is the only person mentioned throughout everything I’ve seen as a person she “confided” in. Told things to that would possibly exonerate her on many levels. The only person who would never “betray her” to use her own words. But he’s also the one she’s telling to stop talking as he has said things that “contradict everything she’s been saying for a year.” And he should come see her so they can “fix this”. Now I wondered why this wasn’t gone into further but I believe the first law of lawyering (haha) is don’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. This is an enigma and of course will be “explained” in closing I assume. With no real answers possibly. Your thoughts on this?

    Gas cans. I think she might be in trouble here? If she bought a 3rd gas can at all is a problem for me. Why? That’s A LOT of gas to think about hauling around. But that she said she returned it, which is in the process of attempting to be proven a lie, is even worse. Why not say you decided you didn’t need it and gave it way, tossed it in the back and forgot about it. See here it is and it’s never had a drop of gas in it your honor. But to try to totally remove it from the scene by “returning it”? Why? Why try to convince people you didn’t have it at all. What was wrong with having 3 cans as opposed to 2? Now the defense could come back and say here something or other was returned for the exact amount she paid for this can and while we can’t “prove” it’s the can she bought “it could be”. But does Walmart work like that? I have no clue. Do they take a thing you walk up with, hand you cash for it and put it under a counter with no record of the transaction whatsoever? Who knows. I would hate to think that some errant clerk at a Walmart not recording this transaction correctly could cost a person their life. Hope they have some video from that far back. To be continued……

    Her lawyer is 95 percent focused on their sex life. ie hasn’t mentioned at all that I’ve heard, about the possibility that somebody could walk into that house at any moment, totally throwing doubt on premeditation. Sex , sex, sex sex, could he have a problem? haha This one is bothering me. There has GOT to be more detail here, ie the roommates telling Travis they either would not be home at all or going out, will be back soon or at some hour etc and so on. Where is this testimony!? You remove premeditation and the death penalty is GONE!

    Pretty much the only sex they haven’t accused Travis of is bestiality. Anal, vaginal, oral, bondage, 3 somes. And I wouldn’t be surprised to hear more at some point. Not to say I don’t believe any of that happened, I do. But I also completely believe she had 100 percent agreeable participation in all of it. Not just some, ALL of it. No other girlfriend he has EVER had mentioned anything anywhere near this level of sexuality and absolutely no violence. How is that explained? Why with only Jodi? Where is the difference here and why is there a difference?

    There’s almost always a tiny bit of truth in every lie. Just a thought.

    Her alleged abuse, she says, didn’t go unnoticed. She stated others supposedly “saw things” and “had
    questions” and “joked about it”. We haven’t heard from them but they supposedly exist according to her. Meaning her “abuse” didn’t go unnoticed at all. No vacuum here, she says she just “lied” about it when asked. If the abuse happened SOMEBODY SAW SOMETHING that was questionable. Can’t wait to meet these people if indeed they do exist. That would be a blockbuster. Why yes I saw massive horrible bruising that looks like fingers around her neck but she said it happened from a scarf mishap etc, I didn’t question her further but not being an idiot I had my suspicions….. I mean game over. She’s been horribly abused and/or injured, it’s been documented by others. So far we’ve got a “broken” finger to go on and that injury is in serious trouble of being discounted completely.

    I really am hoping for something to definitively prove my thoughts very wrong. So far nothing has. I still don’t see any reasonable doubt here. Thanks for listening!


    • I believe that the secret messages that she was trying to get to Matt McCartney were not looked into more because they are not what the prosecutor is making them out to be. They were secret messages, but when put all together, you can see that there is no mention of fixing any type of testimony or what topic she is even talking about. In addition, if it was about witness tampering then why does she provide a number to a news guy? I remember her saying it was about getting him to talk to her attorney. If that is the case then him talking to her attorney about testifying is no different than a prosecutor’s witness talking to them. It is common place, nothing suspicious or underhanded. My thoughts on the contradicting everything she has been saying for over a year statement, that may reference what she was telling her attorneys at the time was different then what he was saying. Maybe her attorneys wanted to talk to him and he refused, so she thought she could get him to. Or maybe he told her attorneys something different then what she was saying and they weren’t happy about it and she wanted to “fix that misunderstanding”. It’s like in the Casey Anthony case, Jose Baez, her attorney, made sure through investigation (his job) that he wasn’t flat out lying for her. He tried his best to ensure that he wasn’t breaking his oath to the court. Good defense attorneys do this. They investigate what their client tells them because (1) they have an oath to the court and (2) they have an obligation to their client. It doesn’t help their case, their career, the court, or their client to put on some lying defense, despite what the media says, because it won’t jive with the facts, won’t look good to the jury, and they could get in trouble for what? Nothing. In addition, it will easily be torn apart by a prosecutor. That’s why the defense in the Anthony case, for instance, did not go with the kidnapping. They looked into it, followed leads, discovered it wasn’t true and if you read Jose Baez’s book you know how that story ends. Back to Arias. Perhaps she provided the number for the media guy because they were open to putting on an unbiased presentation and thus would interview with him, so he could speak out for her defense. This prosecutor seems to have a knack for insinuating things that are only superficially true. It’s part of his strategy.

      I’ve been to Walmart my fair share of times, it depends upon who is working the returns desk if they record your transaction. This is due to the fact that you can return items without showing a receipt! So how do they even know what to write down? They do have a returns system that records transaction numbers, etc. But its accuracy depends upon the accuracy of the person working the customer service desk that day. Could her life hinge on a horrible employee who can’t do their job? Sadly, yes depending on how serious the jury takes this kind of argument. The tragic reality is people’s lives in cases have hinged on less. To me, the cans are nonsense. They aren’t important to either case and I don’t understand why the prosecutor spends so much time on them. Just like you said: “Why try to convince people you didn’t have it at all[?]” Why does the prosecutor have to convince us she had 3 and not 2? I think he concentrates way too much on stupid side things. The best description I’ve heard of this prosecutor was on In Session on TruTV, when Dawn Cates, an attorney from Arizona said, “He is so far out in the weeds he might as well be pheasant hunting!” He spent about 4 freakin’ hours one day on whether or not it was possible for her to not see the numbers on the license plate leaning on a sidewalk!!! Come on!

      The defense should have pursued the roommates coming home angle in conjunction with them being with him 8 hours before anything happened. It casts doubt on the premeditation. But, I hate to second guess them, they are the experts of their case. They are behind the scenes. They seem like competent attorneys. Perhaps Kirk Nurmi went with the sexual angle because that is his comfort zone, his specialty.

      You said: “No other girlfriend he has EVER had mentioned anything anywhere near this level of sexuality and absolutely no violence. How is that explained? Why with only Jodi? Where is the difference here and why is there a difference?” Well, there is actually a huge difference between Jodi Arias and his other girlfriends. The first being she isn’t from around there and doesn’t have a support system there. The second being she was new to Mormonism, so he was able to shape her view of this unknown religion to her. This made it easier for him to convince her as opposed to the other “marriable” girls. She also may have had other issues from past relationships that contributed to her being a “pleaser”.

      I agree that most lies are based on some truth (which serves as a base to build the lie).

      She can’t produce these people because like I mentioned above she was out of her element in this PPL, Mormon world. As you can see, she didn’t have many friends that were her own. She was basically living in his world. She admittedly has a rocky relationship with her family as well. The people who noticed her bruises and joked about them (totally rude, by the way) were people that she was at a meeting with. These weren’t people who would see her everyday and notice (perhaps I should say care to notice) that something was wrong. They weren’t her friends. In her story, she mentions that they knew Travis as well. The people around him perceive him, seemingly, as infallible, so they probably would not have believed her anyway.

      My reasonable doubt for 1st degree: I see a woman with a history of rocky relationships, a small support system, who met a guy she liked more than he liked her. She was working at PPL and then became a Mormon, both things the guy was very “successful” at. They had a dating relationship for a few months, but in the Mormon tradition, you have to marry by a certain age or its bad, so he didn’t see her as “marriable”, he gave up on her and moved on to other girls. He went to singles events at the church while sleeping with her, we know this for a fact because of the recording, texts, and emails and his other girlfriend’s testimony. We also know that he was about to go to Cancun with a woman he was interested in right after he slept with Jodi Arias. So, he was sleeping with her for fun and looking for a wife, at the same time! He had two lives, a womanizer and a family man. Two of his friends admitted on the stand that he had two sets of friends (for his two different sides) and these friends didn’t mix. From the circumstances of the case, it is clear, as you said, it was a mutual relationship. Perhaps she let it go further than she was comfortable with because she liked him so much. I believe that, like I’ve said before, she was going on a business trip, he called and persuaded her to come over, she did and they spent the day together before she was to get back on the road. They may have gotten into some kind of argument about where their relationship was going, maybe she had hopes they could get back together and he crushed that. He obviously didn’t respect her, as we can see in the kinds of things he told his friends about her (while sleeping with her no less). She “snapped” (for lack of a better word) or they got into a physical altercation and in less than 2 minutes, he was dead. It seems very clear to me this was not premeditation.

      Here is a list of things that negate each piece of premeditation:
      – Gas – She kept the receipts to everything, the prosecutor says it was for taxes! Really? Her big premeditation plan is to hide this murder, but use the evidence for tax credits!
      – Upside down license plate – I find it very hard to believe that she traveled almost her entire trip with an upside down license plate without being caught. What about the Hoover Dam checkpoint? How did they not notice that? The license plate could have been turned upside by anyone at anytime. It just doesn’t seem like you would do that to not be stopped by police, quite the opposite.
      Time – Arriving and spending the day with the person for 8 hours before spending only 2 minutes killing them and cleaning everything up doesn’t seem planned.
      Weapons – No weapons have been found. You can only assume it is her grandfather’s gun, it cannot be proven. When you have the option to kill someone, assumptions shouldn’t be enough. There is no evidence of the knife either. It could have easily come from his house. She could have easily stuck it in the dishwasher like she said, she stuck everything else in the washer didn’t she? This would line up with her story, by the way.
      Leaving Evidence Behind – She doesn’t lay in wait, apparently not her plan. No, her premeditation is to go to his house, spend 8 hours there so no one else knows where she is at (no alibi), take pictures (which she testified she knows can be retrieved by police no matter whether they are deleted or not), leaves DNA and fingerprints everywhere, a bloody palm print, and she knows that none of his friends like her so she’ll be suspect numero uno. Also, she has no idea whether people are coming back or not. One of the roommates told the police detective that he had spent most of the weekend with his girlfriend during the day before coming home, but the things he said they did didn’t seem like normal plans (watch a movie, going shopping) that Travis Alexander would know (especially since he described their relationship as not that close, just acquaintance friends).
      Sloppy Coverup – She’s been missing for 8 hours while on a trip that people know she is taking. People are looking for her. These people can tell the police she was “missing” during that time period. She doesn’t actually perform any sort of actual coverup to be honest with you. She, basically, throws some stuff in the washer and leaves the house. She calls and leaves a message on his phone and sends him an email and then hangs around the police until they suspect her more! Plan? or Panic?

      The guy who testified she had blonde hair when she rented the car is not credible. He is wrong. She did not have blonde hair as evidenced by several photographs shown in court. There was a juror question about the hair dye, I think they sense it doesn’t add up month wise (hair dye doesn’t last forever). There is actual proof of her hair being brown. It is in the prosecution’s own evidence! The prosecution wanted to use this as a way to given credence to the rental guy’s testimony because he said the car had no mats and there were “kool-aid stains”. They wanted him to say that. Problem is their own evidence shows her hair wasn’t blonde. They can’t have her hair be both brown and blonde. What probably happened is he saw the photos of her with blonde hair in the media and that overshadowed his memory of her.

      Here’s something else to think about: What kind of sense does it make that his roommate said he saw Travis and Jodi fight about her moving there (because Travis said she was a stalker-ex-girlfriend) and they also fought when she left?

      Thanks for having an open discussion, it is nice to speak to someone who doesn’t tell me I live in a fantasy world because I disagree with them (pompous idiot). My number one rule in life is to always be open minded, it’s the best policy. Because you never know, you could be wrong and if you aren’t willing to find out if you are, then you’ll never have a free mind.


  8. Robin Kelly says:

    The point you make about premeditation not being possible if she didn’t know if roomates would be home is a valid one. She talked with Travis numerous times beofre she arrived and I am assuming here that she knew nobody would be home from talking with im. But if that hasn’t been a huge issue in her defense I have to wonder why. I mean if she had no clue whether or not they would be there and the possiblity of the place being run over with other people at any time would throw doubt on the premediation. A good defense posture to take yes? It is curious that neither the defense or prosecution has even mentioned it that I have seen. I did miss portions of the trials and perhaps it was mentioned there. However his bedroom was most apparently a sanctuary where NOBODY who wasn’t invited in ever went. It was a whole week before his body was found in a house full of people coming and going. Nobody even knew his door was locked. Those questions should be looked at more thoroughly. In order for premediation to work here she would have had to know absolutely nobody would be home from the time she hit the door to the time she was long gone. Perhaps she would have abandoned the plan entirely had somebody shown up. Perhaps that’s why she waited so long to actually do it to have a sense of security that nobody was coming home and she had some time? Speculation, speculation!


    • I have not seen the defense pursue this point thoroughly either. They’re strategy appears to be to rest on their mental experts to show she was always in imminent fear of him due to his repeated abuse of her. They did pursue quite heavily on cross of the ME that the shot could have come first (according to the detective, this was the ME’s original conclusion). Other than that they haven’t concentrated on the forensics or the timeline. Their pursuing of the timeline mostly surrounds around her intention to go on a business trip and then diverting to see Travis Alexander in mid-trip when he called her and requested her come (this does go toward lack of premeditation too).
      Yes, it is speculation, in relation to the defense not actively discussed its implications, but there is speculation on both sides, for instance, to believe there were 3 gas cans (no proof she didn’t return it), there was no abuse (absence of documentation doesn’t mean she wasn’t), she stalked him (hearsay), that the gun belonged to her grandfather (it was the same caliber, but so are thousands of other guns), and that she brought the knife with her, among other things. This case is full of speculation madness due largely to the confusing prosecution presentation. Not to mention the fact that the media goes well beyond speculation everyday.
      I do however, believe that the premeditation is lacking especially when one considers the 8 hour time difference proportionate to the 2 minute attack, plus the sloppy coverup. I do think they should drive this point home. Will they? Perhaps in closing, but it may not fit into their strategy.


  9. Robin Kelly says:

    First of all this entire episode occurred inside 2 minutes. Sit there and time it for yourself. She drops camera, he yells, he comes at her and body slams her with her head slamming on the tile. No concussion whatsoever, not even any fog yet cause she rolls away from a 200# pound guy in a supposed rage and gets up and goes into a closet, climbs up on a shelf without disturbing a darn thing, grabs a gun without even having to look for it at all, first grab she’s got it, all the while he’s right behind her, goes back into the bathroom, points guns at Travis, he doesn’t stop but linebacker grabs at her, she shoots him (she thinks), he’s just fine enough to scream at her “kill you f’ing b” they struggle a bit more…. and then……. she stabs him 27 times, more than a few in the back and slits his throat. 2 minutes. Took me longer than that to type this one paragraph. Are…..you…..serious?

    I would like to know why there is no record of Travis ever purchasing a gun. I mean he was by all accounts, except Jodi’s, a completely and perfectly “normal” human being. He wasn’t dealing drugs, running a brothel, a bookie or robbing banks that we are aware of. If he wanted to own a gun does is it not common sense to believe he would go through proper channels to get one? He had friends who owned them. Wouldn’t he have ammunition for it somewhere? He had roommates and I’m sure at one time or another also children visiting that home. To leave a loaded, cocked weapon (remember she didn’t do a thing to that gun but pick it up and shoot, allegedly) just laying on a shelf anywhere is completely irresponsible and dangerous. I believe Jodi is now saying Travis told her to keep the fact that he owned a gun a secret? Really? Is there evidence anywhere that he had a secret life nobody knew about? Some nefarious goings on that nobody on earth knows about but Jodi? An important fact that should have been stated from the beginning, if indeed it was true, yes? Fog?

    So he’s a pedophile to her account, having seen him once and only once, pleasuring himself to a picture of a clothed child and only a short time after they themselves had had a sexual encounter. He had no porn of any kind on his personal, private computer, phone or any other device. No porn magazines, they didn’t find this “picture” or any other pictures of this type in his home. No one other than Jodi has ever witnessed or heard anything alluding too this behavior before or after that happened, except her. She herself never witnessed anything to that again. Yet, to explain WHY he would want her to wear spiderman underwear when he didn’t like spiderman she states there is yet another real life “boy” Travis knew who also liked spiderman underwear and “maybe” that was why. This would have been a crucial fact to mention when asked about those underwear the first time, yes? Did she go into yet another fog here and just forget that very important “fact”?

    She has mentioned several times, 100 maybe. That he called her an “f’ing idiot” before savagely attacking her for dropping his camera. Yet I distinctly remember in the beginning of her testimony, the first time she testified to the killing on direct, she said he called her a “stupid idiot”. Which was it? F’ing sounds angry where stupid just sounds upset. If you were up for the death penalty which would you pick ultimately?

    How does someone in a “fog” brutally stab someone 20something times, slit his throat from ear to ear and shoot a person THEN go about the place cleaning up, removing incriminating items (your brain has to process that these might have your DNA on them). A fogged up, insane brain will not do completely logical things like cover up a murder you just committed. Would a fogged brain even realize something horrific had happened, enough to do these things just moments afterward? She stated she didn’t even think she had shot him. If you are truly in a mortal terror fog don’t you just walk out of the house get in your car and leave driving randomly until you run out of gas, etc? How can a fogged brain start the process of covering your tracks, putting a knife in a dishwasher, putting a camera and bloody clothing in a washing machine and starting that machine, wiping blood away, shoving a body in a shower and turning on the water to remove DNA. I assume the experts will have some answer to these questions. But I heard her state that while in a fog she doesn’t even know where she is much less what’s going on UNTIL she snaps
    out of it.

    I heard her state she has an “excellent” memory except for this one anomaly, the killing. However with key questions being asked that would hurt her in any way she “forgets” regardless of the time, place, event. She stated she was “still in the fog” when she was with Ryan. However she also stated before she even got to Ryans, she “came out of the fog” in the desert suddenly realizing she had blood on her hands and that “oh crap something bad happened”. This
    is also where she searches her car to find a gun and a rope and she’s not wearing any shoes. Also here or relatively close to this time she “finds” her phone charger. Realizes she has many calls, returns them to realize somebody called Travis to see if she was there and her fogged brain realizes she has to call him to cover her tracks by leaving a message. Does she go BACK into a fog after destroying evidence and making all these calls? She sure does manage to accomplish a lot in these fogs, yes? And she sounds a calm as a cat on that call to Travis but says she realized he was probably dead and needed to cover up.

    Their sex life is meaningless to me and should be to others. Who among us would want what goes on in our bedrooms paraded out in front of the whole world! No matter how vanilla or how spicy? Not one thing they did is in any way extraordinary, it might not be your cup of tea but believe me it is for many others. I hate to think that couples out there with vibrant, imaginative sex lives now might think they are somehow “deviant”.

    I can only say this having been a victim of domestic violence. I consider myself a relatively normal person. If I had just murdered someone by butchering them, slitting their throat then shooting them, no matter the reason for it, you’d have to put me in the looney bin for a very very long time. Fog is a very mild term for the state of mind I would be in. I would not be able to pull myself out of any said “fog” within a couple of hours saying “oh crap I think I killed my boyfriend, now what?” Oh yeah cover up. No way. I really wonder what kind of person it would take to do that. I tend to think I would have somehow gotten myself together enough to drive to the nearest police station and explain my situation having just run for my very life. I continue to be baffled by the whole entire situation


    • (Thank you for self-censoring, it is much appreciated.) I understand your position and you make very good points. Like I said, do I buy her memory problems? It is a legitimate thing, but I’m not sure that she has it (or has it as bad as she says). Could she have blocked this out over time because it is a horrible memory? Plausible. When you say “I hate to think that couples out there with vibrant, imaginative sex lives now might think they are somehow “deviant”,” I completely agree. I think we set people up for failure with all the language and derogatory comments made in social media and in the news after everyone tells you to be “comfortable in your sexuality”. Yeah, until something happens and then they can exploit it to make you look bad! I disagree, however, that it is a normal, vibrant imagination to say that your girlfriend sounds like a 12-year-old girl having her first orgasm and that’s hot! Wow. First off, no one should think it is okay for anyone to be sexually active at that age, way to young and wrong for their mental and physical health. And to think that fact is hot, is sick in my opinion and yes, deviant. He was a 32-year-old man as well! I would hope that fantasy is no one’s cup of tea and if it is, I would hope that they would seek help. I’d like to add another scenario, is it possible she isn’t lying about what she walked in on? Perhaps she misinterpreted the situation. Perhaps the picture was just coincidentally there and he wasn’t actually using it or thinking about it at all. But it bothered her because of what she perceived he was doing and she would think, like anyone, of course he is going to make excuses (could you blame her if you saw that and he said, it isn’t what it looks like?). I don’t even want to get into how wrong it is to believe it is okay to have sex with someone who is sleeping because “not every guy does it”. There’s a reason for that!
      You make an excellent point when you said, “Who among us would want what goes on in our bedrooms paraded out in front of the whole world[?]” I completely agree, however, the media does not. They “need” that stuff because they are now just sensational talking tabloids. They have no boundaries and have completely exploited sexually and graphically both Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias, they have no shame, and enjoy making money off this kind of stuff. They don’t care about the people who are the subject of their hand-picked story, all they care about is keeping the story alive and keeping the money rolling in. These people are just objects of their storyline, characters in their drama.
      I disagree that everyone would come to and find themselves with blood on them (not theirs) and think to go to police. Especially if they actually remembered any of what happened. I think a lot of people would probably panic first, which it seems is possibly what she did because she acted normal afterwards, called and left a message on his phone, emailed him, and hung around the police to see what they were doing. Lots of young people cover up accidents out of panic. You might have the “why would they believe me?” idea rolling around in your head, as well. All coverups are out of a want to “get away with it”, but not all are motivated by extreme guilt.
      I have another scenario for you to think about, have you ever heard the stories of people taking sleeping medication and they lead double lives? Cook, date, sleep with people, drive, go to work, everything they would normally do. It is documented. So if people can go on auto-pilot (for lack of a better word) while sleeping, why could she not function up a “coverup” (to use your word) in a fog? I believe what she means by fog is like a daze or fuzziness. It isn’t a blackout, she specifically said that. I believe that Jodi Arias is a good witness as far as her movements and her ability to withstand Juan Martinez (she rivals the best trained prosecution witnesses in these departments), but overall I think she is a bad communicator.
      I’d also like to have you think about this, he didn’t have any porn in his possession yet on that phone recording he knew a very, very nasty word and what it meant, how did he come to know that? It wasn’t Arias, she didn’t know what it meant, she asked him!
      The 2 minutes is my point as well. It seems more like a frenzy killing than a premeditation. Why would you wait 8 hours to kill someone that you plan on killing? Why would you risk his roommates coming home? Why would you risk being missing for so long? Why do you not have an exit plan or a coverup plan, if you planned it? The ferocity of the murder seems more on the spot and driven, then thought out. We will see some of why she does what she does when the experts testify, though.


      • Robin Kelly says:

        Thank God I found this site lol. I’m so very tired of hearing nothing but 100% negative reactions on the subject with no thought going into whatsoever. And those lawyers on TV are the very worst. Actually even the defensive lawyers are bad. Sometimes they just make no sense at all. I hear Nancy Grace spout outright lies sometimes……BOMBSHELL TONIGHT! It’s scary really. THANK GOODNESS those jurors can’t watch any of it or even talk about it at all. Anyway I just wanted to thank you for offering a place to actually debate the whole thing rather than build a big bonfire, throw her on it and light a match. I often think, oh my gosh, what if that was me or a family member who found themselves in a situation that was blasted on TV and 20 members of the media with absolutely no knowledge of who that person is just starts “talking”. BLAH BLAH BLAH let’s ruin his/her life, it’s good for ratings and it’ll be fun! Makes a chill go up my spine.

        In saying that, I’m not a fan of Jodi Arias. The words “you souls like a 12 year old….” are just that. Words, a very bad thought. Not something to be killed for, perhaps, as you said, counseling is in order here? I believe they took that thought and grabbed onto it as a life preserver, in my opinion. “OK here’s what that sounds like to us Jodi, do you think perhaps he was a….. pedophile?”. Light bulb moment. Why yes, that’s it, he’s a pedophile. That will certainly work in our favor and while it’s can’t be “proven” you also can’t unring that bell the moment the jury hears it. GOOD let’s go with that, next. So in essence doing the same thing being done to them. Making assumptions based on nothing but a few words however inappropriate. His family will carry that forever. Why would you continue to see a man whom you believe to be a pedophile? I think she said he gave a “tearful explanation” and she forgave him. Come on now. Either it really didn’t bother her, or it did not happen as this explanation has yet to be put into words. As for me, and I believe most people I’d run so fast! The “laws of attraction” don’t fix child molesters. You can’t pretend it didn’t happen to make it all go away. FOR REAL. She keeps referring to the fact she has alleged he’s a pedophile as “his problem” “his situation” “the incident” “when that “thing” happened. There’s a reason she can’t use that word in any context. It….is….not….true.

        Now I believe she did it and I believe she premeditated it, not well but certainly better than the average Joe. I believe she’s a very, very good liar. I believe she’s very smart and thinks she’s smarter than most. I believe she has low self-esteem. I believe men have “abused” her verbally rather than physically. I just don’t see that woman sitting there taking a beating without aggressively defending herself, in my opinion. I know I didn’t, BUT not once ever, even in a fleeting moment, did I even think about picking up a weapon. And I’ve had a shotgun pointed at me. She wants to please and she wants to be rewarded for it. She has made it VERY clear she would do anything to please, nothing wrong with that, however that comes with a price. Travis refused to pay, marry her, take her to Cancun, whatever and ultimately he was “punished” for it.

        I don’t think I said everyone would go to the police. I said I would being relatively “normal”. Why wouldn’t they believe me? I’ve never been arrested for any violence. I’ve got documentation of injuries, people have witnessed abuse. Abuse never happens in a vacuum, somebody sees or hears something at some point in time, however small. There’s not a million dollar life insurance policy for me to take advantage of. I think I can say the very first thought after killing somebody would NOT be how do I get out of this. I also never spoke about injuries I received and I often lied when they were noticed. It’s embarrassing having people know you are in that situation and being a smart person can’t find a way out. And my injuries were often seen but lies were always told about how they occurred. However my mother knew, and I didn’t have to say a word. I also had a finger broken, interestingly enough, and I never told a soul about how it happened. But I DID get it seen and have it treated with a splint. I still remember being at the emergency room thinking “they know”. I’m not stupid and neither is Jodi. There are about 1 million lies you can tell about how you broke a finger. I believe I used car door slammed on it excuse. She certainly had no problem lying about other “injuries”. Broken fingers are very very painful and nasty business, one small touch and forget about it. Not something you just go about your business with take it from me. And certainly not conducive to writing, which I believe she did immediately afterward and to a great extent. Just some thoughts.

        There is just no way, in my opinion, that this woman was abused to the extent she is saying she was with not one person on the face of this earth, so far, to corroborate one word of it. Physically, sexually and/or verbally.

        Now these are obviously observations made by me. I don’t have a clue as to thoughts going on in her head or his. I never saw anything, I don’t know these people. I “try” to base my thoughts on true, proven facts. Sometimes I throw an observation in but again using basic common sense, I will often say “in my opinion”. Words coming out of Jodi’s mouth with nothing more to back them up are meaningless to me. I base my thoughts on logic and that ever faithful common sense and having been a domestic violence survivor and heard more than my share of stories regarding this matter.

        Something I don’t think I was clear on with the last post. She said to a jury question, “where you in the fog at Ryan’s” Simple answer “yes”. Meaning she was in the fog when she left, came out of the fog to destroy evidence and make phone calls and leave a message for Travis and went BACK into the fog at Ryan’s yet remembers everything they did. Really? Are there different levels to her fog?

        I have to end again with, if every naughty, nasty, evil thought we’ve ever had in our head, and told to any solitary soul we thought were on the same wave length and that related to us, were put onto a recording what would people think of us? OH MY GOODNESS!


        • You make some very good arguments, however I disagree with one big point: you said, “Abuse never happens in a vacuum, somebody sees or hears something at some point in time, however small.” I think this is a big problem in our society. This requirement to document abuse, this pressure placed on victims is wrong in my opinion. This standard to hold people who are abused up to and this comparison with others in similar situations, I think sets people up for failure. An inherent symptom of abuse is, like you said, feeling stupid or bad about yourself or blaming yourself, or feeling like others won’t believe you, the atmosphere we live in supports this more than doesn’t, sadly. The media always portrays that we will believe people when they say they’ve been abused, we have shield laws, yet when someone says hey I’ve been abused, we are very quick, especially on social media, to immediately discount this without any thought given. You know it is a very good defense for an abuser to use, the types of things Juan Martinez has said on cross-examination to Jodi Arias, I find that point quite ironic actually. The truth is that we tell victims not to feel as though they will not be believed, to be courageous and stand up for themselves and then we don’t believe. There aren’t always people to corroborate, abuse does sometimes happen in a vaccuum, it definitely usually happens behind closed doors. Some witnesses also know the abuser and won’t say anything (keeping up appearances, kind of deal). Women who are abused wear makeup and make excuses, children just pretend like it didn’t happen, etc.
          There are 6 million children abused every year, 1 in 4 women suffer domestic abuse at least once in their lifetime, there are almost half a million women who report rapes each year and all of that is just what is reported. In addition, it has been estimated that there are as many as 9 million pedophiles in the United States. It happens more than the media likes to admit.
          Her finger is clearly crooked to me. I don’t buy that it somehow isn’t really broken or happened some other way, I see no evidence to deny her allegation (perhaps he caused it by accident though). Just like there is a reason why she won’t call what she saw what she wants to, could be said about why she won’t say he was a user like she should (since it actually is her defense). It could be that she won’t say those things because they aren’t true (but that really doesn’t support a pathological liar profile that people want to put on her), but could it also be because she is enamored with him, possibly through his dominance of her?
          I also agree that having pedophile issues isn’t anything to kill someone over, they should get help, as I said. But, it can be understandable how that might add to the other things that she has said (if they occurred or were even perceived to have occurred).
          I completely agree with your last point, I would add that that is exactly what the media does. It is seemingly their job these days. They take things that people do in life and change them into something fantastically strange, bizarre, and something that points toward guilt only. For example, Jodi Arias’ kinky life (like you said), Casey Anthony’s single motherhood (her going out with her friends once in a while was no different than the way people encourage each other to have a night out or a break from your kids), and George Zimmerman volunteering for neighborhood watch (turned into him being a wanna-be cop). It is amazing how once you have been charged with a crime, all of a sudden you are automatically guilty and everything you’ve ever done is not normal and proves you are a sociopath, psychopath, and narcissist. It is quite outrageous.
          The fog is a hard one for me too in this case, but I do still believe that it is possible she could have been on auto-pilot, I have to wait to hear the experts to be sure though. It doesn’t seem to match the facts very good, but I haven’t heard the diagnoses yet.
          I was extremely glad and refreshed to read your first paragraph, completely agree with that. The light bulb moment that you speak of in reference to a defense meeting of sorts could have occurred, but remember that defense attorneys are held to an oath with the court as well and do you think that they would ruin their careers over a lie in a case like this? Perhaps she came up with it then, that’s possible.
          I personally can’t wait to see the psychologists I believe their testimony is key to the defense.


  10. Barb Ivory says:

    It is clear to me that Jodi has had time in jail and access to books as she is studying to look up PST and abuse etc. She knows all about it for her lies, I can’t see any remorse just a me me person in her. She is not as smart as she thinks, as I have heard so many contradictions. It is blatantly obvious that she feels she is superior to the prosecutor. Here is my take, she was obsessed, she tried to get hold and keep him with her sexuality, and when it wasn’t what he wanted, he didn’t want to marry her, she snapped, planned to murder him and did. She told her lies until there was proof she did it, then had to confess, but this defense is all a farce. She will not take responsibility for her actions, and will probably only act out remorse in the sentencing phase to save herself.


    • Well we could say that about anyone. People spend so long in jail without relief or trial because of the process, not because of some twisted attempt to garner a false defense. Can they read books that tell them that stuff? Sure, if the jail clears the book, there are rules to what books inmates can read. Can the PTSD and abuse be real? Absolutely. We set people up for failure with every turn. Especially the remorse game we like to play. I understand in this case, she has admitted to doing it, but in other cases where someone is charged and they don’t show “remorse” during trial, no one thinks to themselves maybe it is because they’re innocent! People have this fallacy stuck in their heads where everyone charged is guilty, it defies logic. The police and prosecution are not perfect. People like to say they’re angels protecting us from bad people, not true. They are human beings who have faults of their own and their job is to win, which doesn’t always align with the truth.
      I don’t think she thinks she is superior, I do think that the prosecutor is very annoying and that was why she had the reaction she had to him. I don’t see any proof that she was obsessed or a stalker, they had a mutual, sexually strange relationship. The obsession bull comes mostly from Nancy Grace and unproven assumptions. No proof she slashed tires, in fact no proof it ever even happened. Also it is really stupid to think she crawled through doggy doors when he invited her over for sex all the time. Don’t get me started on the stalker accusation. Stalker really? Who invites their stalker over for sex? Who texts their stalker, calls their stalker, goes on trips with their stalker, and has phone sex with their stalker? That isn’t a stalker. The proof is in the pudding.
      People want to put this all on her, but I think it is insulting to say that he basically had the mind of a child. He wasn’t incapable of figuring things out. He was a successful salesman, inspirational speaker, and Mormon elder. He knew what the two of them were doing. He wasn’t seduced and magically forced into these things. He was just as equally deviant from the church as she, if not more since he was a pillar in the community. He didn’t want to marry her, that’s true because even though he wanted to run around and do what he wanted with women, he wanted a “proper Mormon” wife. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too! I think he strung her along, maybe he’s done it before, I don’t know. I think she liked him and he liked having a double life. I think he emotional toyed with her one to many times and he said something to her that day that set her off. Maybe it was some kind of ultimatum about not marrying her. I don’t think it was planned. Who plans something and then waits 8 hours with the person to execute it?
      She has taken responsibility, she has said on the stand for days on end that she lied, that his death was her fault. She has answered all questions posed to her by the people that matter. I don’t believe in that whole people who are convicted are only remorseful for themselves, we don’t know that. We can think those negative things about anyone, it doesn’t make it true. Regardless of what the media tells you or TV shows tell you, reality is not every person in the world is a heartless, sociopath, narcissist, who only cares about themselves. The facts are she is up on the stand defending herself (which is her right) and part of that is to say it was her fault and she did those things. Take that as you will. I just don’t get why this is all her fault? He was there during those sexcapades wasn’t he? You heard his voice on that recording. Those were his thoughts. They speak for themselves. Juan Martinez wants to yell all day long about how she was an active participant, but so was he! That’s important. Why does that bother people? The truth isn’t always pretty and to accept the fact that he wasn’t a straight and narrow kinda guy is just facing reality. Did she kill him? Yes. Does she admit it? Yes. Was it BWS? I haven’t heard from the experts. It isn’t the conventional case with that defense, but let’s be honest. BWS is real and people don’t like to accept it when it clearly happens, so why think they’ll accept it in this kind of case? Was it justified? That’s what we are deciding. 1st degree? I don’t see a premeditation. Can I assume a premeditation plan from what the media has told me? Sure, but 99% of the time that’s more spin than facts. I’m not sure where the jury is at, but I think the prosecutor should have stopped his ego at the door and taken the plea deal from the defense and saved everyone from this whole mess.


  11. Judy says:

    YCBW I so agree with your thoughts on Juan and prosecution. All over the place and could have accepted half her answers without arguing, but I think he wanted to point out how controlling she was and she played right into it. But I so agree with you! Also the casing could have been kicked by the roommate who discovered the body too as it was very near the shower that he would have had to look into. Nice blog BTW 🙂


  12. This is what happens when a person talks too much says:

    Arias’s testimony was that she saw no blood after shooting Travis, yet, she wants us all to believe the bullet casing floated in mid-air until blood pooled on the floor and then it dropped. Has she even seen the casing?? There is no blood on it other than where it lays. She thinks she is the smartes person in the courtroom, she just didn’t expect Juan Martinez to do his homework. The best is yet to come.


    • Well here are some plausible theories:
      1. Travis Alexander or Jodi Arias kicked the casing in the frenzy. Travis Alexander has stab wounds/cuts to his hands, assumed to be defensive wounds, so he did fight back a little.
      2. The casing was bumped by her when cleaning up the scene.
      3. Someone on scene before CSI documented the casing bumped it. (police, friends, etc.)
      4. The blood ran along the grout and pooled under the bullet casing after it hit the tile.
      I personally think this case would have went much easier had a different prosecutor been on the trial. Juan Martinez is too picky, too one-uppy, and way over the top. I find him disrespectful and confusing in his presentation. He is way too confrontational to everyone, including people who don’t deserve it (usually anyone who disagrees with him, even his own people who have to admit things on cross). He is always at one level, loud, and he should learn what strategy means. He doesn’t have continuity to his questioning at all, he fails to make points half the time, jumps around when he goes off on a tangent, focuses on things that don’t matter that much, and the list goes on. I’m not saying he won’t win, but it won’t be his style or expertise.


  13. Karen says:

    At one point Jodi did admit to taking a shower before leaving on the day of the murder. But no mention of TA…
    I’d like to know what clothes she was wearing, types of clothing, colors etc. And surely if she got rid of them in the desert, she didn’t drive naked after?? So she must of had more with her, being she was going to visit away from home anyhow…….
    So many lies, not enough truth has been spoken…..


    • Logically, there are answers already to these questions that match both the defense and prosecutor’s cases. She did take a shower before Travis Alexander and then got dressed. We can see in the pictures that there is a woman (assumed to be Arias) wearing a pair of pants and socks. She left the house in those clothes. She stated in her testimony that when she begins to remember again, she wasn’t wearing shoes, which is corroborative of the socks. So, she cleaned herself up using the water and changed her clothing. She had luggage with her, remember she was going on a road trip both for business and to visit various people, which lasted a few days. What happened to the clothes? Neither side makes any claims. She got rid of them. She didn’t go anywhere naked, certainly the Hoover Dam checkpoint officers would have noticed that.


  14. Paula says:

    I want to know why the jury hasn’t asked about the shower she took before leaving after she killed him, di she in fact take a shower with him while he was dead? Doesn’t~ wouldn’t this show how sick / empty she is???


    • Interesting thought, but there is no evidence that she took a shower with his dead body. The prosecution doesn’t even insinuate that in the least. She testified she found herself covered in blood in the desert, so the jury might believe that she did in fact change and use the water bottles to clean herself up like she basically testified to. The prosecution went along with this theory on cross when talking about the placement of the Hoover Dam checkpoint.


      • thornton831 says:

        Then why was there no blood on the doors or carpet or anywhere other then the bedroom?? No blood on the outside door of the bedroom that she closed and locked.


        • There is blood in the bedroom and bathroom. There is also a blood spot on the stairs, I believe and blood on the washer, as well as a palm print on the wall. If you think it is weird there is a lack of blood on the walls, etc. think about blood spatter and her stabbing him. We know that she did some level of clean up. It isn’t clear how much. She may have wiped some of the blood up. You’re right about the door knobs, etc. The dog banister door thing on the outside of his room was closed at the top of the stairs as well. So she must have closed the door and the dog door to make it look as if he wasn’t there. However, those actions alone don’t make it 1st degree murder. Those actions are post murder, not pre.


    • Judy says:

      When she “came to” in the dessert she was full of blood on hands and clothes. She hadn’t showered after the Heinous Brutalizing of Travis just after sex before his! She is certainly sick and empty!!!


      • Let’s keep the usage of sick and empty to a minimum. This site does not support bullying, degrading, or disparaging on any level. I don’t know her personally. I believe a person being “empty” is extremely rare (as rare as true sociopathy). Judy is correct, if you believe Jodi Arias, she showered before Travis Alexander did. The photo proves that the woman (assumed to be Arias) was clothed in at least pants and socks. She didn’t really “come to” since she said she didn’t black out. She remembers that part, according to her testimony. It isn’t unbelievable that she would forget doing what happened to Travis Alexander, would you want to remember that?


        • Judy says:

          @ YCBW The words sick and empty wouldn’t be my choice, I couldn’t even put mine in print. Those were the rest of the reply to Paula in her words. I do not buy the “convenient forgetfulness” defense.She is too much of a pathological liar. When asked yesterday if she would have told the truth about the “incident” if she hadn’t been caught, she paused 10 seconds and said “I couldn’t answer that question”. She is only sorry she got caught. She was a totally preplanned, lying, calculating, mission driven with a purpose, jealous girl who will never admit accountability. Also experts have proven that he was stabbed first and then shot at the end. Just from the forensics and bleeding. so her story can’t even be near truth including any memory loss. She has caught herself up dozens of times already and can’t keep her lies straight. I have been thru many traumatic deaths and medically painful procedures including 4 very difficult births and have full memory of the most traumatizing of events. So no I don’t get her self help claim as truth at all.


          • I understand Judy and you are entitled to your opinion of another human being, I just like civil conversations between adults. The way to the truth isn’t through labeling and name calling. Here’s the thing about the “convenient forgetfulness” defense as you call it, it actually does happen. For example, people with PTSD (not saying she has it) have a level of amnesia (for lack of a better word). It is convenient, if you look at it that way, but doesn’t make it any less true. Sometimes people see what they want when they’re looking with a biased perspective. Pathological lying is used in this society incorrectly like a lot of other words: sociopath and narcissist being two of the most frequent. They are used to mean two things: 1. a way to label people to give people an automatically negative perspective on someone to shape your view of them and 2. the real meaning, which is a diagnosis by a psychologist.
            I’m sure that you don’t think she has any mental illness, wouldn’t want to give her a medical reason for why she lies would you?
            I believe in the condition she is describing, do I think she has it? I’m not completely convinced, let’s just say that. Could she not remember? Sure. Does it prove anything? Not in this case. I wasn’t entirely convinced of the accuracy of the medical examiner’s conclusion as to which wounds happened first. First off, the detective lied or was mistaken when he told the court that the ME told him he was shot first (defense theory), which gave the single aggravator, which allowed the death penalty. The ME said he never said that, the shot was last. So, either the ME was lying or the ME changed his mind mid-analysis and doesn’t want to admit it, or the detective lied or just doesn’t know what he is talking about. This whole conspiracy-like event is appealable, very appealable. If the detective did lie, which is what the ME said during trial, then the death penalty shouldn’t even be a consideration. If the ME lied, then his testimony at trial is wrong. It can’t be both.
            Remember, also, Travis Alexander was undiscovered for a while, which can affect the accuracy of an autopsy. And the defense is right, people can be hit in the head or get a projectile in their head and still be able to function for a period of time, sometimes for life. Keep in mind that projectiles in the brain can cause immediate personality changes, including anger (documented cases). Isn’t it common sense, anyway, that someone shooting you in the head might upset you? Or you might defend yourself?
            Some people can remember traumatizing events, but you can’t say because you can everyone can, that’s a bold, generalized statement. Everyone’s brain is different. You may have a healthy support system and healthy coping skills as well as grief techniques, doesn’t mean everyone does. Would you say because you got away from an attacker that self-defense is never real? Or because you don’t have schizophrenia, no one does?
            Did she kill him? Yes. Should she be held culpable on some level? Is it first-degree murder? Premeditation wasn’t explained well by Martinez at all. The trial isn’t over, so no one should be making final judgments anyway, we haven’t heard all the arguments or evidence. My opinion, Juan Martinez should have spared the family all the embarrassment of the things Travis Alexander said on that recording (that stuff came out of his mouth, it wasn’t Jodi Arias, and it tarnished his upstanding community image) and the pictures of his dead body and sex pictures being spread everywhere by the exploitative media who have no respect for anyone. In fact, they use it as a selling point, it is disgusting when they say, we have all the graphic injury pictures come look! Horrible. She wanted to plead to 2nd degree, they should have given it to her. No, instead the prosecutor plays the recording over and over and over and throws up graphic photos for no reason, but to shock everyone.


  15. Ms Davita says:

    Interesting. Thank you!


    • Robin Kelly says:

      I do agree that Juan was beating a dead horse in the end with Dr. Samuels. Make your points and move along Juan! However it is his job to point out the flaws and there were flaws, important or not, one mistake means the possibility of others is more likely than not. I assume this was the point. Let’s face it Dr. Samuels was sloppy in handling this death penalty case.

      However the same goes for lies as for mistakes yes? You tell one or thousands to help yourself odds are you don’t stop there, you’ll tell many more until you start getting diminishing returns.

      Agreed the first story wasn’t an “attack” story BUT it was a completely false story otherwise called Lie #1. Absolutely chock full of lies as was the 2nd story, Lie #2. And with details beyond the imagination. One can only “assume” she didn’t stop there. Keep going with Lie #3 but throw in some truth this time cause that other stuff wasn’t workin out for ya!

      This Dr. LaViolette. Did she ever personally “treat” or “diagnose” or “evaluate” Jodi Arias? Or is she just making general statements about abuse? They have yet to even mention Jodi and/or Travis but perhaps that is coming? If she has not personally been involved with Jodi how can she be effective here? She’s doing an awesome job of teaching the jury about abuse and kudos for that. But what can she say about this particular case. Apparently you can murder someone, never having exhibited anything about abuse in the past, never having had anybody witness this abuse, never having documented in any way either verbally or with a written word the abuse, never having been treated for any abuse aside from a band-aid, never having missed a day of work for abuse, never having anyone else see signs of abuse and never exhibiting any true fear of the person who is abusing you. Absolutely Nothing. She says she shakes when Juan is questioning her, however I never once saw her even wince while describing supposed abuse from Travis. Will this not set an awful precedent for any woman who’s fed up with her husband and decided to shoot him in the head and stab him 29 times and slit his throat to say “I was abused”? But I don’t remember anything BUT the abuse. Scary stuff that. There is much reasonable doubt that she was abused in my opinion.

      I have to tell you, I think most of what Dr. LaViolette is saying speaks to Jodi being the abuser here. Not physically mind you, who knows, but emotionally and sexually. And not just with Travis. I heard from Dr. Samuels himself she treated her mother like “crap” something Jodi herself admits to, however some physical abuse was aluded to here as well, kicking her mother. A person who can treat a parent in such a manner, a parent who has been there non stop from the beginning of this, tells me much about the mother and the daughter. I think she said she loved her mother, I have to wonder how she shows it because she also loved Travis.

      Now I’m sure somebody will say she never abused her mother. Really? There’s certainly a history of discord. Where’s the proof other than her words? Well for one, thankfully, her mother is alive and well to say it didn’t happen. There are no pictures of her mother with bruises after being abused. Her mother never told anybody she was abused. Her mother never wrote it down or sought medical attention for the abuse. She doesn’t tremble with fear when she hears her daughter’s name. She sits there stoically beside her daughter supporting her 100 percent. Who would do that for someone you love who abused you? Does this mean the abuse never happened. Dr. LaViolette doesn’t think so. She says, based on history, odds are that it indeed DID happen. Interesting.


      • Yes, it is the prosecution and the defense’s job to point out flaws, however, it is also the prosecutor’s job to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, half the time I feel like he is trying to create reasonable doubt in the defense’s case to win by default! I don’t think that one mistake can lead to others necessarily and certainly not a minor mistake leading to major ones. If a defense attorney pointed out that a police officer got his page numbers wrong, would that mean police negligence? Doubtful. Same thing here. The psychologist forgot to write down codes that refer to criteria that he wrote in the body of the report and he got his sums wrong, but they weren’t important. Besides, another test, evaluations of other documents and interviews, plus his interviews with her, supported this conclusion. It isn’t like the test was hanging out there by itself. Not all flaws are created equal.
        Everyone lies. The lies are not important, especially all by themselves. By the way, lies have nothing to do with this diagnosis. The Dr. explained that no matter how the trauma manifests itself, that fact it manifests is the problem. His analogy is perfect, if two people have a cut on their arm does it matter how they got it? No they still both have it. While, some of the questions were dependent on her answers, not all were. And besides, she lies so she can’t have PTSD? What sense does that make, they aren’t dependent on one another. Mental issues don’t happen to just truthful people, especially considering that hardly anyone is 100% truthful. Lying has different motivations. How can you be sure she is lying to deceive due to guilt and not due to, for example, covering up for the man that she loved? Logically speaking, if you kill someone and cannot recall what occurred, would you not feel helpless? Could this not cause a person to lie out of fear?
        I have no idea whether this expert ever spoke to Jodi Arias, but I have seen cases in the past where experts who have not personally met with the defendant have testified to generalities about the subject. It’s just a matter of putting before the jury facts, hoping that they can put together her expertise to the case by themselves. Sometimes it is a strategic decision not to have an expert meet with a defendant before testifying, however most times it is a matter of time and money. I’m sure that she at the very least went over the materials, like the phone recording and the test messages, as per what Travis Alexander said and the way he spoke to Jodi Arias, among other things. Facts are that not every abuse victim has someone to confide in (her family lived so far away and admittedly they had a terrible relationship), report it (you heard the expert, 80% of women who actually get to the point where they report it don’t proceed with any charges), there aren’t witnesses in most cases (for obvious reasons), and most abuse victims cover up their scars (if they are even visible).
        Why are we all of a sudden requiring abuse victims to make documentation? Doesn’t that give a scary precedent?
        Why would she write anything down? Other people could read it, as a victim she would be embarrassed and what if he sees it? Do you really think that Jodi Arias has started a trend of women killing their lovers and then claiming self-defense? No, it has happened forever, right beside women who did kill in self-defense.
        Kicking your mother once isn’t abuse. It’s a teenager acting out. Just because a parent shows up to court doesn’t mean they are parent of the year, it just means that they aren’t the worst parent. We can’t know that they tried everything they could to help a “delinquent” child, we don’t know anything about that stuff. Parents can be good and they can be terrible and they can be there and then not be there just as fast. I would need more information. The fact that Jodi Arias admits to treating her mother badly means that she can feel remorse and can empathize with others and cares. That’s important. As far as I know, her mother hasn’t said that stuff didn’t happen, besides what abuser admits it?
        Her turbulent childhood isn’t a necessity to suffer abuse when older, but it makes it more likely.
        When one suffers abuse from someone, they can often recall the details in a detached manner, it is a common subconscious self-defense mechanism (usually by childhood survivors).
        I see evidence for emotional abuse by Travis Alexander. You just don’t say the things he said, especially to someone you have an intimate relationship with and the person that people describe him as just doesn’t match the things that he said to her or about her to others. It is possible that there was sexual abuse, especially since on the recording, he admitted to having relations with her while she was sleeping. The physical abuse could very well be true. Travis Alexander, as described in testimony today, had a more troubled background than Jodi Arias did. While that doesn’t mean he is an abuser it means that he would have issues of his own, how deep those issues are is the question?
        I don’t believe for one second that Jodi Arias was sexually abusive to the men in her life. Just like Juan Martinez keeps yelling about, Travis Alexander was completely happy with their relationship the way it was. He was interested in other women, while sleeping with Jodi Arias on the side, as testified to by another girlfriend. I heard the phone sex recording, I can read the text messages, and hear the testimony. How did she emotionally abuse Travis Alexander? He was interested in other women, he couldn’t have cared that much! The person who is cheated on is the victim, not the cheater.
        Would it surprise you to find out that a lot of people abused, especially by a parent, still express love for that person? It’s hard to deal with the feelings of attachment like a parent, child relationship and the effects of abuse. Some people get a similar effect from the man or woman that they love. Why do you think that some women can stay with their husband when they know they are a pedophile (what about when the victim is a child they share)? Abuse is a very confusing experience for people, especially when they are close to their abuser. Add on top, Jodi Arias has issues from her turbulent childhood.


Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s