This Thread Sucks: A Thread For People Who Hate The Jodi Thread(s)

[Freaktab]

What has bothered me about this case from the beginning is the overpowering almost maniacal way that people have made Travis Alexander into a saint.
I am not saying he deserved to die or to be hurt, but he kept her around to keep his bed warm. There is absolutely no disputing this fact!

Travis liked for others to think he was virginal and pure, he had quite an ego and be nurtured his image carefully. He told all his friends that JA was stalking him and that she vandalized his stuff and broke into his house, but then he would fuck her and who knows what kind of pillow talk they had.
If he thought she was so scary, why did he let her stay in his house?

In a perfect world, both Travis and JA should have walked away from each other. It was so unhealthy and such a cluster fuck that most people would have gotten a restraining order and ran away.
All of Travis' friends talk about how JA was always "off" but he kept seeing her and sleeping with her!
So, did Travis' preoccupation with his image and his ego keep him asking Jodi back. Something like "hey, I can fuck her but no one has to know"?

All it takes is one juror!

[coconut]

I love you guys but these are perfect examples of the kinds of posts that don't belong in this thread. We are not asking anybody to disprove the reasons why jurors would have doubt. We are not even talking about if you think it was premeditated. Please read the first post. This is more along the lines of what doubts jurors would bring up after the case.

She had a plan, that's all premeditation requires. It doesn't have be a good plan, just a plan.

She's a Psychopath. You're trying to apply the reactions/motions/feelings of a normal human being to her. She is not.

AND I totally disagree on the "she was emotionallyl abused and controlled" thing. I think SHE abused and manipulated him.

So either come up with a reason why a juror might have doubt about premeditation or get your ass in the fan fiction thread and write some porn.

Back to reasons why jurors might doubt premeditation - Jodi has zero experience with guns. There was no evidence that she practiced shooting, googled any terms related to shooting or murder, or even knew how to load and operate a weapon.

If I planned to use a gun for a crime I would definitely get some practice with that weapon. Maybe ask a trusted friend (McCartney?) for help.

[sheesh]

What about the anal Coconut?

What kind of a sicko would do that to a coconut???

[Metis212]

Everytime I have been tied up we used ties. OMG did I confess that and will coconut hate me?

[Freaktab]

I apologize Coconut.... I gave reasons that jury members might use to give JA a lesser charge not reasons against pre-med.
Trying again:
No proof that JA brought the gun from Grandparents house and no proof that she brought a knife upstairs. If she didn't bring a weapon with her, there goes that theory.
JA is a tiny girl and she looks very frail in court, if Travis was threatening her, it isn't a big stretch to think she would pick up the knife from earlier rope play to defend herself.

[coconut]

Everytime I have been tied up we used ties. OMG did I confess that and will coconut hate me?

Ties are good, I'm partial to the bathrobe belt myself.

Back to juror doubts. One word:

TYPO?

[Metis212]

Ties are good, I'm partial to the bathrobe belt myself.

Back to juror doubts. One word:

TYPO?

I already explained this on the main thread.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

So either come up with a reason why a juror might have doubt about premeditation or get your ass in the fan fiction thread and write some porn.

Back to reasons why jurors might doubt premeditation - Jodi has zero experience with guns. There was no evidence that she practiced shooting, googled any terms related to shooting or murder, or even knew how to load and operate a weapon.

If I planned to use a gun for a crime I would definitely get some practice with that weapon. Maybe ask a trusted friend (McCartney?) for help.

The only evidence we have that she was not familiar with guns is her word and her word only. Her dad had guns, Darryl Brewer had guns. Why bring Matt McCartney? He never testified so any speculation about him is just tha, speculation.

There is no evidence that she had experience with guns.

[Metis212]

I could tell you stories about young women with BPD that would make your head spin 360. They do not think logically.

For instance, what man on the thread would stay with a woman who threatens suicide if he breaks up with her?

[coconut]

Reading comprehension test.

If the jury returns a verdict of less than first degree murder, what reasons might they give for their decision? Is there anything from the trial that makes you doubt premeditated murder?

This is the place to discuss. Please keep the discussion on-topic.

Here are some examples of what is NOT WELCOME:

1. It WAS premeditateed murder!
2. I hate Jodi, she's a killer!
3. Nurmi is fat and a liar!
4. Juan DID prove premeditated murder!
5. I am going to DISPROVE these doubts for you!

If you can't follow those guidelines, kindly GTFO.

[Brillig]

If the jury returns a verdict of less than first degree murder, what reasons might they give for their decision?

I guess I skipped the most obvious reason the jury might give for not buying premeditation.... that they actually believe Jodi's incredibly stupid, filled with endless coincidences story that 'explains away' all the elements of premeditation.

Pretty simple, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Jodi was able to look the jury in the face and sound super sincere and explain away every single aspect of premeditation as some kind of coincidence. Since none of these many coincidences are flat out impossible, jurors could think there is reasonable doubt.

[AgathaAppleswine]

I think that a reason a juror could give for going for a lesser charge would be that the ME couldn't prove the precise track of the bullet wound, or a step-by-step walk-through of the murder.

Some people watch too much CSI, and think that there are answers to everything, when in RL that simply isn't true. There's ALWAYS room for doubt in any case. I know from other cases I've seen that jurors will latch onto the stupidest shit to let someone go.

One case I recall is when a woman was raped. The man accused was acquitted, because the jury didn't believe that he could have removed her skinny jeans.

Another case, a man was acquitted of rape (even though there was a witness who came up on the scene and witnessed the end of the rape) because the woman didn't remember every single little detail about her surroundings. The jury theorized that since she messed up the color of the car he was in, she may have 'misunderstood' the situation.

So any stupid thing like that could get Jodi off if there are nitwits on the jury. I think someone on the jury could find Jodi to be attractive, and that could be more than enough to sway them from an M1 conviction.

[*crickets*]

I already explained this on the main thread.

Why was there not one word in SuperJuan's closing, (either one) about how the gunshot HAD to be last because Dr. Horne said the frontal lobe injury would have been 'immediately incapacitating'? The only evidence he offered for the gunshot being last was the shell casing being on top of the blood, despite going full bore with the frontal lobe/immediate incapacitation line right up until it was noted by Dr. Geffner on the stand that the ME's report clearly stated the dura was intact. The very next witness was the fabulous Dr. Horne who was asked by a juror how the bullet could have gotten to the frontal lobe without piercing the dura, and we got the "Oh, um, I guess it must have been a typo" farce.

The next day was closing statements, and a deafening silence on the subject of the frontal lobe. Why would Martinez not use it if it was valid? Give me one reason, please. The reason is this: Dr. Horne, the Prosecutor and the jury all knew there was no frontal lobe injury. SuperJuan fucked up.

[coconut]

Things don't line up between Flores, Martinez, and Horne. There was an obvious lack of consensus or an about face in their death scenario. At one point they were claiming gunshot first, now they are claiming gunshot last.

Why would the prosecution change their interpretation of the evidence? As a juror, that makes me doubt the certainty and objectivity of their findings.

[Metis212]

Why was there not one word in SuperJuan's closing, (either one) about how the gunshot HAD to be last because Dr. Horne said the frontal lobe injury would have been 'immediately incapacitating'? The only evidence he offered for the gunshot being last was the shell casing being on top of the blood, despite going full bore with the frontal lobe/immediate incapacitation line right up until it was noted by Dr. Geffner on the stand that the ME's report clearly stated the dura was intact. The very next witness was the fabulous Dr. Horne who was asked by a juror how the bullet could have gotten to the frontal lobe without piercing the dura, and we got the "Oh, um, I guess it must have been a typo" farce.

The next day was closing statements, and a deafening silence on the subject of the frontal lobe. Why would Martinez not use it if it was valid? Give me one reason, please. The reason is this: Dr. Horne, the Prosecutor and the jury all knew there was no frontal lobe injury. SuperJuan fucked up.

Nothing, I repeat, nothing I can say (and I have said quite a bit about this) will open your mind to an alternative to what you've decided. So I wont bother to answer the question you answered yourself.

[*crickets*]

Here is the link to the judge's ruling on the 2009 hearing confirming the State's position that the gunshot was first (with the fabulous Dr. Horne on board, despite his later denials):

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...9/m3846408.pdf

It says among other things that the State's position was that the gunshot was first and may or may not have rendered the victim unconscious, and the victim did not remain unconscious based on the location of blood-spatter evidence in the bathroom sink and blood in the hallway. The blood in the sink was consistent with what would have happened after the gunshot to the face.

They changed their position to gunshot last when Jodi came up with her self-defense story. Martinez had Dr. Horne testify about the frontal lobe, immediate incapacitation, blah blah blah in support of the gunshot being last, then was forced to abandon that at the last minute when Horne was outed on the dura being intact.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Riddle me this:

If the gas cans weren't part of the premeditation then why did she she lie about returning it to Walmart?

[AgathaAppleswine]

Why was there not one word in SuperJuan's closing, (either one) about how the gunshot HAD to be last because Dr. Horne said the frontal lobe injury would have been 'immediately incapacitating'? The only evidence he offered for the gunshot being last was the shell casing being on top of the blood, despite going full bore with the frontal lobe/immediate incapacitation line right up until it was noted by Dr. Geffner on the stand that the ME's report clearly stated the dura was intact. The very next witness was the fabulous Dr. Horne who was asked by a juror how the bullet could have gotten to the frontal lobe without piercing the dura, and we got the "Oh, um, I guess it must have been a typo" farce.

The next day was closing statements, and a deafening silence on the subject of the frontal lobe. Why would Martinez not use it if it was valid? Give me one reason, please. The reason is this: Dr. Horne, the Prosecutor and the jury all knew there was no frontal lobe injury. SuperJuan fucked up.

I think he did address the issue. He scoffed at the idea that Travis would be shot in the head, getting stabbed, and then make it to his feet to be able to stand at the sink. The combination of the stabbing and shooting would have weakened him considerably.

By the way, you are still absolutely incorrect with regards to the ME report. He did make a typo, but the rest of his report clearly states what happened. The only thing he couldn't tell was the exact trajectory through the brain. But just because he couldn't determine the exact route doesn't mean that the bullet didn't go through the brain. IT HAD to go through the brain to get to where it was going.

Sorry, coconut, but it had to be said.

[AgathaAppleswine]

Here is the link to the judge's ruling on the 2009 hearing confirming the State's position that the gunshot was first (with the fabulous Dr. Horne on board, despite his later denials):

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...9/m3846408.pdf

It says among other things that the State's position was that the gunshot was first and may or may not have rendered the victim unconscious, and the victim did not remain unconscious based on the location of blood-spatter evidence in the bathroom sink and blood in the hallway. The blood in the sink was consistent with what would have happened after the gunshot to the face.

They changed their position to gunshot last when Jodi came up with her self-defense story. Martinez had Dr. Horne testify about the frontal lobe, immediate incapacitation, blah blah blah in support of the gunshot being last, then was forced to abandon that at the last minute when Horne was outed on the dura being intact.

The dura could not have been intact. It's not possible. It was a typo.

[*crickets*]

Nothing, I repeat, nothing I can say (and I have said quite a bit about this) will open your mind to an alternative to what you've decided. So I wont bother to answer the question you answered yourself.

It's not about what I've decided. The question is, why did Martinez decide to abandon the frontal lobe injury in his closing?
I await your answer.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Here is the link to the judge's ruling on the 2009 hearing confirming the State's position that the gunshot was first (with the fabulous Dr. Horne on board, despite his later denials):

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...9/m3846408.pdf

It says among other things that the State's position was that the gunshot was first and may or may not have rendered the victim unconscious, and the victim did not remain unconscious based on the location of blood-spatter evidence in the bathroom sink and blood in the hallway. The blood in the sink was consistent with what would have happened after the gunshot to the face.

They changed their position to gunshot last when Jodi came up with her self-defense story. Martinez had Dr. Horne testify about the frontal lobe, immediate incapacitation, blah blah blah in support of the gunshot being last, then was forced to abandon that at the last minute when Horne was outed on the dura being intact.

A theory of a crime is just that, a theory. Theories can be changed based on relevant facts as they become known. No one was in that bathroom but Stabby and TA. One is dead and the other is a proven pathological liar.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

It's not about what I've decided. The question is, why did Martinez decide to abandon the frontal lobe injury in his closing?
I await your answer.

Why did Nurmi? He didn't go there either. They hung their whole case on typo and it but them in the ass.

[coconut]

IF the prosecution really thought, and could really prove, the murder was premeditated...

Why the fuck would they tack on this fancy, complicated felony burglary first degree murder thing? Wouldn't every single crime qualify for this? "As soon as you start stealing my Lucky Charms, you're no longer welcome in my house, now you're a felon!"

Martinez said that Travis didn't own a gun but Jodi committed a felony by stealing his gun. WTF?

Why throw in a backup strategy to still get first degree murder? I've never even heard of this idea that you're a burglar once you start stabbing someone you're not welcome. Maybe legally it makes sense on some level but it doesn't pass the WTF test for me.

ps - All you smartypants geniuses trying to "disprove" the doubts that others have submitted, you are relentless fucktards! You've already done it ten times in the main thread! This is not the place for that. We are simply compiling all the reasons the jury may have doubt about premeditation. So please fuck off until you can follow the directions or I will make you take the MMPI, MCMI and PSD and even the fucking literacy test, then you will have to handscore that shit all by yourself.

[*crickets*]

Why did Nurmi? He didn't go there either. They hung their whole case on typo and it but them in the ass.

I don't understand your question. The defense story is gunshot first. The prosecution's is gunshot last. Nurmi didn't need to 'go there'. It was the prosecution's position that was undermined by the Horne debacle. Juan's ass is the one that got bit.

[Angiebla]

IF the prosecution really thought, and could really prove, the murder was premeditated...

Why the fuck would they tack on this fancy, complicated felony burglary first degree murder thing? Wouldn't every single crime qualify for this? "As soon as you start stealing my Lucky Charms, you're no longer welcome in my house, now you're a felon!"

Martinez said that Travis didn't own a gun but Jodi committed a felony by stealing his gun. WTF?

Why throw in a backup strategy to still get first degree murder? I've never even heard of this idea that you're a burglar once you start stabbing someone you're not welcome. Maybe legally it makes sense on some level but it doesn't pass the WTF test for me.

ps - All you smartypants geniuses trying to "disprove" the doubts that others have submitted, you are relentless fucktards! You've already done it ten times in the main thread! This is not the place for that. We are simply compiling all the reasons the jury may have doubt about premeditation. So please fuck off until you can follow the directions or I will make you take the MMPI, MCMI and PSD and even the fucking literacy test, then you will have to handscore that shit all by yourself.

I think they included that charge just in case some members of the jury believed Jodi's story that Travis owned a gun. They were covering all of their bases. I didn't try to disprove you-I even gave a +1!