[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=16212.msg1213370#msg1213370 date=1236918855]
According to those who have been there to take pictures there is no electricity on.
[/quote]
Yep! No electricity or water. Still vacant. Went by today.
[quote author=deeply shaded link=topic=16212.msg1213370#msg1213370 date=1236918855]
According to those who have been there to take pictures there is no electricity on.
[/quote]
Yep! No electricity or water. Still vacant. Went by today.
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
[quote author=tawnidilly link=topic=16212.msg1213379#msg1213379 date=1236919704]
Yep! No electricity or water. Still vacant. Went by today.
[/quote]
did anything change from the last times you've been there?
[quote author=hollisann link=topic=16212.msg1213129#msg1213129 date=1236900904]
Like Katie said, she did live in AZ for a period of time. I only lived there for 2 years and that was plenty long enough for me to see the need/want for a pistol. Not the point - the point is even if 100% of the population owns and carries a gun, it's whether or not you use it that matters.
[/quote]
Oh and...
Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone.
Maybe why people in Arizona carry guns :-(
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
[quote author=Hotsauce McGilacuty link=topic=16212.msg1213383#msg1213383 date=1236919929]
did anything change from the last times you've been there?
[/quote]
No, its all the same. Checked the MLS listing to see if anyone had put a bid on the house and it is still active. (no bids as of yet)
The "cleaners" had been there :lol: They swept and mopped but left all the fingerprint dust and luminol. They did put some new air fresheners in though.
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
[quote author=tawnidilly link=topic=16212.msg1212421#msg1212421 date=1236831521]
ETA: I think she showed up unannounced. On the news and in some of the articles in the paper, it said she had a history of just "showing up"
[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing!
Another reason that the intruder story makes no sense, is because of Jodi's description of what they were wearing. They were completely covered, including their faces, and they were all in black. If I remember correctly, everything happened during daylight hours. How could someone not notice two people in their neighborhood, covered in black, on a hot summer day in the desert? We are easily over 100 degrees in June!
[quote author=Gemini link=topic=16212.msg1212624#msg1212624 date=1236866013]
First off, Sorry for the loss of your friend. After watching 48 hours which talked a bit about Travis's background, I have a lot of respect for him for doing so well for himself, despite a less than ideal start in life.
Secondly, thanks for coming and joining in the conversation and explaining the deal with the rental car.
I have said that going by what the media has reported, I am inclined to think Jodi freaked out and killed Travis. But, (I have said this before that) the cop (on 48 hours) looked pretty adamant that it was premeditated and I am waiting to see what evidence comes out at the trial to show premeditation, so your details obviously do affect my original opinion.
[/quote]
I did not know she had a rental car until reading the latest posts......which made me wonder if she even announced in advance to Travis that she was coming by, she said she called, but who knows if she told him she was on her way.......she may have just showed up, ensuring that he wouldn't mention her visit casually to anyone, like his roommates. Driving a rental would not put her car in his driveway the next day by anyone who knew her or of her and Travis's relationship. She may have even had a key made to his place, or borrowed one before and "forgot" to return it..........he may not have invited her to stop by at all, she already had everything well planned in advance.
Her motive? You can tell by all the pictures of herself she has on her "MySpace" page that she thinks she is a pretty hot ticket, and she was not about to let him make her look like a fool after parading her around his friends like they were an item and her converting to his religion. I'm sure she was counting on this relationship turning into marriage, and when he broke things off, (he even canceled the trip he was going to make to see her at the end of May), she couldn't take it the embarrassment he caused her. Add to that he was taking someone else to Cancun in front of the same friends who had talked Travis into breaking it off with her that night when they were staying there for the weekend. It was too much humiliation for her to endure. Obviously, she is used to getting what she wants, and she had tried so hard to project herself as the demure, spiritual, sweet girl, but this rejection was just way more than she could play off, and the true nature of her inner beast came out.
I also totally think she will not go to trial, she will take a deal, life w/o parole, even though she said she would rather die than spend her life in prison. If she wants the death penalty, then she should proceed and take the stand and let the prosecutors rips her story to shreds. No way in the world can she beat this. Even if there were "intruders", I believe she would still be found guilty because of all the lying she did in the beginning and for not calling 911. I think that right there would push any jury to convict.
Heres a question I have. If she had a rental car, you have to have a credit card. If she drove from California to Arizona you have to stop for gas. Wouldn't there be ( if she used her credit cards ) proof to show where she had been. Also when she first said she had not been in Arizona, can't they tell from cell phone towers, where you have been?
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213435#msg1213435 date=1236924992]
I did not know she had a rental car until reading the latest posts......which made me wonder if she even announced in advance to Travis that she was coming by, she said she called, but who knows if she told him she was on her way.......she may have just showed up, ensuring that he wouldn't mention her visit casually to anyone, like his roommates. Driving a rental would not put her car in his driveway the next day by anyone who knew her or of her and Travis's relationship. She may have even had a key made to his place, or borrowed one before and "forgot" to return it..........he may not have invited her to stop by at all, she already had everything well planned in advance.
Her motive? You can tell by all the pictures of herself she has on her "MySpace" page that she thinks she is a pretty hot ticket, and she was not about to let him make her look like a fool after parading her around his friends like they were an item and her converting to his religion. I'm sure she was counting on this relationship turning into marriage, and when he broke things off, (he even canceled the trip he was going to make to see her at the end of May), she couldn't take it the embarrassment he caused her. Add to that he was taking someone else to Cancun in front of the same friends who had talked Travis into breaking it off with her that night when they were staying there for the weekend. It was too much humiliation for her to endure. Obviously, she is used to getting what she wants, and she had tried so hard to project herself as the demure, spiritual, sweet girl, but this rejection was just way more than she could play off, and the true nature of her inner beast came out.
[/quote]
There is a code pad outside the garage of his house. Maybe she had the code?
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213437#msg1213437 date=1236925617]
I also totally think she will not go to trial, she will take a deal, life w/o parole, even though she said she would rather die than spend her life in prison. If she wants the death penalty, then she should proceed and take the stand and let the prosecutors rips her story to shreds. No way in the world can she beat this. Even if there were "intruders", I believe she would still be found guilty because of all the lying she did in the beginning and for not calling 911. I think that right there would push any jury to convict.
[/quote]
Oh I totally disagree. She is nuttier than a fruitcake, but she knows she comes off as this sweet, innocent girl. I think she truly believes the jury will believe her story - If she didn't, then why would she tell it? Aside from that, if she were going to take a plea bargain then there would be no reason for her to hold press confrences and participate in documentaries claiming that she is innocent.
Balls.
[quote author=tawnidilly link=topic=16212.msg1213438#msg1213438 date=1236925812]
Heres a question I have. If she had a rental car, you have to have a credit card. If she drove from California to Arizona you have to stop for gas. Wouldn't there be ( if she used her credit cards ) proof to show where she had been. Also when she first said she had not been in Arizona, can't they tell from cell phone towers, where you have been?
[/quote]
The police were saying that she had like 20 unaccounted for hours from the time she left California until she was in Utah....which made me think that if you turn off your cell phone, the "pings" from the cell phone towers may not register your location. I'm quite sure she researched that beforehand, and when the police look into her confiscated computer, I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to find a "search" for "how does a cell phone work with cell phone towers" or something like that. I just say this because if the Arizona police were able to determine from cell phone towers where her exact location and at what time she was there, they probably would have already brought that out. That's a fairly well known method for determining someone's whereabouts and has been used in many investigations and trials.
[quote author=kateisgr3at link=topic=16212.msg1213441#msg1213441 date=1236926828]
Oh I totally disagree. She is nuttier than a fruitcake, but she knows she comes off as this sweet, innocent girl. I think she truly believes the jury will believe her story - If she didn't, then why would she tell it? Aside from that, if she were going to take a plea bargain then there would be no reason for her to hold press confrences and participate in documentaries claiming that she is innocent.
[/quote]
I don't know who is representing her, I think I read it was a public defender, or it could be some other lawyer that may take it pro bono for the publicity. I don't believe I saw where her family hired anyone, nor do I believe there is money being raised for her defense fund, but any lawyer worth his salt would have to see all the inconsistencies in her various versions of her story, and either lay it out for her, and talk to the prosecutors before a trial, or go with an insanity defense. You can go right up to a few minutes before court is in session the day of the trial, and still have the option of taking a deal...it happens all the time. She may think she can pull it out, but a decent lawyer will tell you the truth.
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213442#msg1213442 date=1236926989]
The police were saying that she had like 20 unaccounted for hours from the time she left California until she was in Utah....which made me think that if you turn off your cell phone, the "pings" from the cell phone towers may not register your location. I'm quite sure she researched that beforehand, and when the police look into her confiscated computer, I wouldn't be surprised if they are able to find a "search" for "how does a cell phone work with cell phone towers" or something like that. I just say this because if the Arizona police were able to determine from cell phone towers where her exact location and at what time she was there, they probably would have already brought that out. That's a fairly well known method for determining someone's whereabouts and has been used in many investigations and trials.
[/quote]
But on 48 Hrs, she said she called Travis "after" she fled the house. I assume she was using her cell phone. Even if she brought this to light for 48 Hrs, shouldn't the police have seen the call? What about the call records TO Travis' phone? SO many questions! :2huh:
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213443#msg1213443 date=1236927451]
I don't know who is representing her, I think I read it was a public defender, or it could be some other lawyer that may take it pro bono for the publicity. I don't believe I saw where her family hired anyone, nor do I believe there is money being raised for her defense fund, but any lawyer worth his salt would have to see all the inconsistencies in her various versions of her story, and either lay it out for her, and talk to the prosecutors before a trial, or go with an insanity defense. You can go right up to a few minutes before court is in session the day of the trial, and still have the option of taking a deal...it happens all the time. She may think she can pull it out, but a decent lawyer will tell you the truth.
[/quote]
Prepaid Legal? :lol:
People hate in others what they lack in themselves.
Okay,  I know I have asked before, but I am still trying to figure out why her "20 unaccounted-for hours" have anything to do with..anything. What is the big deal?
Jodi admitted to being with Travis, she admitted to "seeing his murder" and she admitted to leaving and driving for hours and hours into the desert. She admitted she didn't call 911, and she admitted that she lied to the police about not having seen Travis for a few months prior to his death. How do the 20 hours unaccounted for play into the investigation? Detectives said there is absolutely no evidence showing that her story is true at all...yet there is plenty of evidence showing that she was involved. So why are those unaccounted-for hours important?
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213443#msg1213443 date=1236927451]
I don't know who is representing her, I think I read it was a public defender, or it could be some other lawyer that may take it pro bono for the publicity. I don't believe I saw where her family hired anyone, nor do I believe there is money being raised for her defense fund, but any lawyer worth his salt would have to see all the inconsistencies in her various versions of her story, and either lay it out for her, and talk to the prosecutors before a trial, or go with an insanity defense.  You can go right up to a few minutes before court is in session the day of the trial, and still have the option of taking a deal...it happens all the time.  She may think she can pull it out, but a decent lawyer will tell you the truth.
[/quote]
I understand that, but we are talking about a woman who has absolutely no guilty conscience what-so-ever...in fact, she probably really believes that she didn't kill him. And honestly, if her lawyer hasn't already explained to her that there are too many inconsistancies in her story, then he probably doesn't realize it himself....that, or he has explained it to her and she doesn't care.  She admitted in a press conference that she knows there is very "compelling evidence" against her, yet she is going to fight to prove she is innocent. I highly doubt she will take a plea bargain. Just my opinion, though.
Balls.
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213443#msg1213443 date=1236927451]
I don't know who is representing her, I think I read it was a public defender, or it could be some other lawyer that may take it pro bono for the publicity. I don't believe I saw where her family hired anyone, nor do I believe there is money being raised for her defense fund, but any lawyer worth his salt would have to see all the inconsistencies in her various versions of her story, and either lay it out for her, and talk to the prosecutors before a trial, or go with an insanity defense.  You can go right up to a few minutes before court is in session the day of the trial, and still have the option of taking a deal...it happens all the time.  She may think she can pull it out, but a decent lawyer will tell you the truth.
[/quote]
Her attorney will have to come up with something very creative, like this:
*fixed image*
Ma'am, what is hard to explain about a person breathing or not breathing? what is so difficult? why is that a difficult concept for you?
Didn't Jodi say the last time she saw Travis he was on all fours at gunpoint by the intruders before she fled downstairs with her purse?
"Arias' bloody left palm print was found on the bathroom wall, the report said. Arias' DNA also was found in hair recovered from a bloody wall.
The report said the photos are important because they show Arias lied about not seeing Alexander since April 2008."
I didn't know she lied about not seeing Travis since April.
[quote author=kdenum link=topic=16212.msg1213332#msg1213332 date=1236915925]
Nobody lives in the home. It is vacant and for sale. Maybe they are trying to leave lights on to keep creepers out from taking pictures!! HAHAH :2smiley: :2eyesbleed:
[/quote]
I figured not. I just drove by, but there were 2 vehicles in the driveway and kids playing in front of the house. I know, I joined the party late--still catching up. :2wave:
[quote author=aquatwins link=topic=16212.msg1213450#msg1213450 date=1236928972]
Didn't Jodi say the last time she saw Travis he was on all fours at gunpoint by the intruders before she fled downstairs with her purse?
"Arias' bloody left palm print was found on the bathroom wall, the report said. Arias' DNA also was found in hair recovered from a bloody wall.
The report said the photos are important because they show Arias lied about not seeing Alexander since April 2008."
I didn't know she lied about not seeing Travis since April.
[/quote]
When it first happened and all of Travis's friends kept telling them to check Jodi out, they talked to her and she told them she hadn't seen Travis since April 2008. After they arrested her for finding the pictures and stuff, she then told them she lied about it and started telling them the intruder story.
Balls.
[quote author=tawnidilly link=topic=16212.msg1213446#msg1213446 date=1236927655]
Prepaid Legal? :lol:
[/quote]
OMG, You are too funny.......
[quote author=kateisgr3at link=topic=16212.msg1213447#msg1213447 date=1236928282]
Okay, I know I have asked before, but I am still trying to figure out why her "20 unaccounted-for hours" have anything to do with..anything. What is the big deal?
Jodi admitted to being with Travis, she admitted to "seeing his murder" and she admitted to leaving and driving for hours and hours into the desert. She admitted she didn't call 911, and she admitted that she lied to the police about not having seen Travis for a few months prior to his death. How do the 20 hours unaccounted for play into the investigation? Detectives said there is absolutely no evidence showing that her story is true at all...yet there is plenty of evidence showing that she was involved. So why are those unaccounted-for hours important?
I understand that, but we are talking about a woman who has absolutely no guilty conscience what-so-ever...in fact, she probably really believes that she didn't kill him. And honestly, if her lawyer hasn't already explained to her that there are too many inconsistancies in her story, then he probably doesn't realize it himself....that, or he has explained it to her and she doesn't care. She admitted in a press conference that she knows there is very "compelling evidence" against her, yet she is going to fight to prove she is innocent. I highly doubt she will take a plea bargain. Just my opinion, though.
[/quote]
Actually the 20 unaccounted for hours were important in the beginning of the investigation because that prove there was a "window of opportunity" for her to commit the crime. After they found the pictures, and she admitted she was there, if there were proof of her being in that area, it would just reinforce the prosecutor's case. She could not go and change the story again, and say she really wasn't there, she lied because she was afraid......I have seen a lot of cases where the (crazy) defendent changes their story several times. The more irrefutable evidence the prosecutors have, the better chance of conviction.
Also, does an attorney have to believe thier client to represent them? If they believe them to be guilty, can they ask to be released from defending that person? I know attorneys have to sound like they believe their client is innocent, but I can't see how one can look at this case and have any doubt about her being there, about her motives, about the lies of ommission and the missing gun......I mean who would want to defend a case like this?
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213477#msg1213477 date=1236939032]
Actually the 20 unaccounted for hours were important in the beginning of the investigation because that prove there was a "window of opportunity" for her to commit the crime. After they found the pictures, and she admitted she was there, if there were proof of her being in that area, it would just reinforce the prosecutor's case. She could not go and change the story again, and say she really wasn't there, she lied because she was afraid......I have seen a lot of cases where the (crazy) defendent changes their story several times. The more irrefutable evidence the prosecutors have, the better chance of conviction.[/quote]
Oh, okay...that makes sense.
[quote author=Lizzie link=topic=16212.msg1213477#msg1213477 date=1236939032]
Also, does an attorney have to believe thier client to represent them? If they believe them to be guilty, can they ask to be released from defending that person? I know attorneys have to sound like they believe their client is innocent, but I can't see how one can look at this case and have any doubt about her being there, about her motives, about the lies of ommission and the missing gun......I mean who would want to defend a case like this?
[/quote]
No no no..an attorney does NOT have to believe their client to represent them! Yeah, they can drop the case but I am not really sure how often that happens.
A lot of them will defend high-profile cases because if they win, they will get a good reputation and more clients. Then there are the ones that are convinced they can win any case. And who knows, maybe her attorney believes her? :lol: I am sure there are plenty of people willing to do it.
Balls.
I always hate making this argument because it always makes me look like an absolute jerk, but as an adamant supporter of civil rights she has every right to competent representation. Innocent until proven guilty.
If I were a lawyer I would take cases that I thought were guilty just to ensure a fair trial. Because I know in my mind I am not my client, I am merely legal representation meant to deliver her message, her case in a manner that is clear and concise. All while maneuvering through the stacks of paper work that is the American judicial system. I just hope that if I ever stand trial for a crime, guilty or not guilty, I would be afforded the same luxury.
If we decided to let just the "guilty1" ones represent themselves then we'd be back in the dark ages burning witches before a constabulary. And I don't know about you but my complexion really suffers when I catch a bad case of the black death.
1Guilty - adj.
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime.
3. Poor
4. Mentally disabled so as to not be able to represent one self in a professional manner. See also: Scapegoat
http://formspring.me/atm142 - To stare into the abyss is to invite the abyss to stare into you.
My opinion is that defense attorney's know they'll be defending mostly guilty people, and many of them, guilty of heinous crimes. They probably convince themselves that it is ok because they are not defending the guilty, they are defending the RIGHTS of the guilty. There is a difference.
But it does make me mad when I see cases like this one where I know for a fact that the defense has essentially concocted a story and told their client to go with it. Even though they and the client know that is not what happened.
[quote author=Necromancer link=topic=16212.msg1213530#msg1213530 date=1236950630]
My opinion is that defense attorney's know they'll be defending mostly guilty people, and many of them, guilty of heinous crimes. They probably convince themselves that it is ok because they are not defending the guilty, they are defending the RIGHTS of the guilty. There is a difference.
But it does make me mad when I see cases like this one where I know for a fact that the defense has essentially concocted a story and told their client to go with it. Even though they and the client know that is not what happened.
[/quote]
I do not believe this is true. I think she is too arrogant and self absorbed to need someone else to concoct her ridiculous story for her and wouldn't go along with anyone else to save her life, literally. Attorneys always tell their client to STFU yet she's giving interviews left and right. No way is her attorney behind that.
Originally Posted by beli
There are currently 15 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 15 guests)
Posting Permissions
