Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death

[Justice11]

I can't see it from Australia - what is it?

It's an article written by Jonathan Leach...he was the one to make contact with Jodi and do the initial interview for 48 hours. He talks about meeting her and how her details would change, etc.

[jlydia]

Ooo dammit I'll have to try on the pc later. For the record justice11 I think you nailed it - your idea is what i have in my mind after seeing the evidence

[Justice11]

Ooo dammit I'll have to try on the pc later. For the record justice11 I think you nailed it - your idea is what i have in my mind after seeing the evidence

Why, thank you. Let's just hope the jury can see it as clearly as we do.

[Justice11]

48 hrs is doing a new jodi arias show - but i have 48hrs on saturday nite - so saturday nite is "prosecuting casey anthony" on lifetime - then 48 hrs

Sounds like a great night! I'm going to have to DRV both of them...I'll be out with my friends all evening.

[Kristinella]

For those who have yet to see the original 48 Hours episode:

[Poppycock]

Why, thank you. Let's just hope the jury can see it as clearly as we do.

Amen to that, let's hope and pray Kirk Nurmi is no Johnny Cochran or Jose what's his name!

[Justice11]

For those who have yet to see the original 48 Hours episode:

If this is the one that I watched I noticed that it is missing the part where she explains why she wanted to put on makeup for her mug shot photo and why she smiled. I know it was in the original airing of it...but it doesn't seem to be in the one I re-watched on youtube the other day. Weird.

[Justice11]

Amen to that, let's hope and pray Kirk Nurmi is no Johnny Cochran or Jose what's his name!

It seems the defense council is definitely not in the same league as the prosecution...but honestly, we really haven't seen what they can do yet. I am annoyed that Nurmi feels the need to cross examine EVERY witness...even if he really doesn't have anything to prove or disprove. But, he is just doing his job. And as much as we may hate them...it is important that people are willing to be defense attorneys...there are a lot of innocent people wrongly accused that need to be protected.

All in all, I think our judicial system is messed up. If you are guilty...you do best with a jury deciding. If you are innocent, you do best with a judge deciding. It is so easy to get a few dummies on a jury to hang it or not see things for what they really are.

I wish we had something like "professional jurors"...people who can prove to be fair and partial, while also having a brain and the capacity to understand what they are supposed to be doing. (Of course, I think I would be perfect to be one of these jurors...seeing how I am ALWAYS right. - insert sarcasm.)

[Ron_NYC]

There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that she was strong enough to do it alone.

When I was in high school...many moons ago, I weighed about 115 lbs, 5'4" and I took a weight training class. I was this tiny girl, but by working with weights for 30 minutes, 5 times a week, I was the strongest girl in the class. I was able to max out bench press 120 lbs...more than I weighed. (That is my shot at my big claim to fame...pretty sad, huh?)
Some people just have stronger muscles than other people. I have a 16 year old son who has huge biceps...from barely working out at all. It must be in our genes.

This is how "I" think it happened...for what it's worth (which I know is not much, but oh well.) Jodi is a fit girl who freaked out on a guy sitting in a shower naked. A few good stabs to his chest, neck, and heart, and he was quite disoriented...stumbles out of the shower, over to the sink...and then tries to run away down the hall....during this time she is stabbing his back. He falls (perhaps slipping on his blood and water from coming out of the shower) and she goes for the slice to the throat. Next she grabs a blanket and moves his body back to the bathroom. This is where she shoots him in the face. Then she crams his bloody and lifeless body in the shower.

On a side note...I have tile floors in my bathroom. When they are wet it is like being on ice. I can't even imagine how slippery it would have been with blood and water. I can see Travis running away and wiping out. I really don't think she even needed the sheet to drag him back...but it seems obvious from the pictures that he was dragged using a sheet of some kind...also from the big spot where there was no blood in the middle of the tile by the end of the hallway leading into the bedroom it appears something was laid there that kept the blood from being pooled in the middle.

I also believe it was premeditated. She died her hair. She even made the comment in the police interview that his neighbors couldn't recognize her because they had only known her as a blond. She was Johnny on the spot with that when Flores said they had neighbors who had seen her there. Then she rented a car...which she didn't need to do, asked for a nondescript color. She turned her cell phone off ahead of getting there so it wouldn't show she was there!!! Then you have the whole license plate weirdness. She didn't want anyone to be able to see the numbers quickly and memorize them...leading back to her.

As for the camera...imagine....it had to have been COVERED in blood. I think she deleted the pictures and thought washing it was a great way to remove her blood and fingerprints. It is possible it was washed by accident, but I don't really think so. She at least attempted to clean up the crime scene. I think that her plan of murdering him in the shower was so that she could run the water and wash away all kinds of evidence after he was dead. But...he ran out of the shower and down the hall, which complicates her clean up efforts. I think she started to clean up...realized there was no way she could get it all cleaned, especially with the blood in the carpet. So, she splashed water around a bit, washed the bedding, washed herself up and took off.

This is just my opinion....I am likely wrong on many things, but this is what makes sense in my mind when I see and hear the evidence.

First time it sounded in any way plausible. Well done.

Basically, Ron's entire basis for her innocence is based on sexism. A psychotic chick with a knife usually has the drop on a naked wet guy who isn't expecting it.

If a dude were her size, I'd have just as hard of a time believing it too.
Being a woman makes it even worse though, cause she's gong to be weaker unless she fucking weight trains.

I agree that she would have outed someone if she could. She already pointed the finger at that guy with the last name Brown...why wouldn't she do point to someone else that they might actually be able to link evidence to?

But I am not one of those people who claim to know her so well. She is a mystery...like most sociopaths. I think that is what interests so many of us in these murder cases...they mystery behind not only what happened, but by the mystery of what would cause a person to do these awful things.

Jodi said it well when she said "There is no reason." That was the truest things she ever said. Yet, she, by her own admission DID do it. I don't think she can even in her own crazy mind understand "the reason" she did it.

And Ron...I'm not one of those girls who think she is ugly or whatever either. She is obviously beautiful...my goodness...look how perfect her hair and skin look while she is in jail. I would look like a hot mess. But, as I tell my children everyday...beauty is only skin deep. What really matters is if you are beautiful on the inside. I think a lot of people see her as "ugly" because they see her inside as ugly. Anyhow...that's just more of my two cents....

I dunno about her outing anyone. But as for the rest, I think I smell what you're cooking.

[Justice11]

Sounds like a great night! I'm going to have to DRV both of them...I'll be out with my friends all evening.

I am seriously going to go insane if I see anymore of my stupid typos that I can't correct. "DVR" both of them...I promise I'm not a total idiot.

[Justice11]

First time it sounded in any way plausible. Well done.



If a dude were her size, I'd have just as hard of a time believing it too.
Being a woman makes it even worse though, cause she's gong to be weaker unless she fucking weight trains.



I dunno about her outing anyone. But as for the rest, I think I smell what you're cooking.

WoW!!!! Thanks Ron. I appreciate you saying that. :)

[Kristinella]

It seems the defense council is definitely not in the same league as the prosecution...but honestly, we really haven't seen what they can do yet. I am annoyed that Nurmi feels the need to cross examine EVERY witness...even if he really doesn't have anything to prove or disprove. But, he is just doing his job. And as much as we may hate them...it is important that people are willing to be defense attorneys...there are a lot of innocent people wrongly accused that need to be protected.

All in all, I think our judicial system is messed up. If you are guilty...you do best with a jury deciding. If you are innocent, you do best with a judge deciding. It is so easy to get a few dummies on a jury to hang it or not see things for what they really are.

I wish we had something like "professional jurors"...people who can prove to be fair and partial, while also having a brain and the capacity to understand what they are supposed to be doing. (Of course, I think I would be perfect to be one of these jurors...seeing how I am ALWAYS right. - insert sarcasm.)

I forget what the case was but I remember watching a clip where a judge was sentencing a person who was obviously innocent of the crime they were convicted of. He was like, "I don't know why you are being charged with this but that's what the jury decided and you wanted a jury trial so we have to uphold that." It was fucked up. I've learned the majority of "everyday folk" are stupid and would not want them determining my guilt or innocence.

[songbirdsong]

I'm trying not to be upset about the jurors' questions, but you have to remember that a lot of us have been obsessing over this thing for, what, almost 5 years now? I seriously doubt that all of the jurors are as familiar with everything as we are. These people are going to ultimately have a say in whether or not this lunatic bitch (oh, I'm not biased) lives or dies. That's something that I hope they don't take lightly. I would ask a lot of questions, too.

[Ron_NYC]

WoW!!!! Thanks Ron. I appreciate you saying that. :)

Well you really laid it out there. I can kinda see that if she were super strong or something. Kind of.

I forget what the case was but I remember watching a clip where a judge was sentencing a person who was obviously innocent of the crime they were convicted of. He was like, "I don't know why you are being charged with this but that's what the jury decided and you wanted a jury trial so we have to uphold that." It was fucked up. I've learned the majority of "everyday folk" are stupid and would not want them determining my guilt or innocence.

You're starting to come around.

[Justice11]

I forget what the case was but I remember watching a clip where a judge was sentencing a person who was obviously innocent of the crime they were convicted of. He was like, "I don't know why you are being charged with this but that's what the jury decided and you wanted a jury trial so we have to uphold that." It was fucked up. I've learned the majority of "everyday folk" are stupid and would not want them determining my guilt or innocence.

Isn't that the truth! The whole "jury of your peers" thing is baloney. By the time both sides weed people out, you are left with a crapshoot of possibilities. Most people are just too dumb to have that kind of power. It should scare us all to death...especially if someone is innocent. It can come down to who the jury likes better...the defense or the prosecution. And that is NO way to get justice served. I think that played a HUGE factor in the Casey Anthony case...Jose Boaz played well to the jury, and they prosecution came across as jerks. (But, please don't let me get started on that case....) ;)

I know in some cases...maybe not criminal, I don't know, but you can have a judge decide instead of a jury. I know someone who went to court over a business dealing, and they were praying a judge would be deciding instead of a jury.

[Ron_NYC]

Isn't that the truth! The whole "jury of your peers" thing is baloney. By the time both sides weed people out, you are left with a crapshoot of possibilities. Most people are just too dumb to have that kind of power. It should scare us all to death...especially if someone is innocent. It can come down to who the jury likes better...the defense or the prosecution. And that is NO way to get justice served. I think that played a HUGE factor in the Casey Anthony case...Jose Boaz played well to the jury, and they prosecution came across as jerks. (But, please don't let me get started on that case....) ;)

I know in some cases...maybe not criminal, I don't know, but you can have a judge decide instead of a jury. I know someone who went to court over a business dealing, and they were praying a judge would be deciding instead of a jury.

I know criminal cases you can opt for a judge. Cops are notorious for doing that shit.

[Justice11]

I'm trying not to be upset about the jurors' questions, but you have to remember that a lot of us have been obsessing over this thing for, what, almost 5 years now? I seriously doubt that all of the jurors are as familiar with everything as we are. These people are going to ultimately have a say in whether or not this lunatic bitch (oh, I'm not biased) lives or dies. That's something that I hope they don't take lightly. I would ask a lot of questions, too.

You are right...they have not studied this case and learned as much as we have.

Having the questions from the jurors is like a sneak peak into the deliberation room. The prosecution needs to LISTEN to these stupid questions as much as the defense will. Obviously, they are showing some doubt about involvement with other people. Martinez needs to show them why they don't have to even have a moment of doubt about that. Hopefully he will when he presents his rebuttal and closing.

[GlassHat]

I'm trying not to be upset about the jurors' questions, but you have to remember that a lot of us have been obsessing over this thing for, what, almost 5 years now? I seriously doubt that all of the jurors are as familiar with everything as we are. These people are going to ultimately have a say in whether or not this lunatic bitch (oh, I'm not biased) lives or dies. That's something that I hope they don't take lightly. I would ask a lot of questions, too.

Aside from being worried that the jury is looking at Jodi is the poor little pretty girl being bullied and manipulated by big bad Travis, I worry about them being off for 12 days before going back inside the courtroom. They have plenty of time to look up and read all of Travis' blogs online. Travis was a pretty arrogant, self-centered prick if we are to go by his writings. his friends say he was the most gentle, caring soul you'd ever meet. The jury won't see that, though. There is more online to harm the prosecution than help them, imo. Also, I think we'd be lying to ourselves if we believe these jurors are actually adhering to the courts admonitions.

[M Joy]

You are right...they have not studied this case and learned as much as we have.

Having the questions from the jurors is like a sneak peak into the deliberation room. The prosecution needs to LISTEN to these stupid questions as much as the defense will. Obviously, they are showing some doubt about involvement with other people. Martinez needs to show them why they don't have to even have a moment of doubt about that. Hopefully he will when he presents his rebuttal and closing.

I agree with this. And I believe he will do just that.
I'm looking forward to his cross-examination of Jodi - assuming she takes the stand of course.

[Justice11]

Aside from being worried that the jury is looking at Jodi is the poor little pretty girl being bullied and manipulated by big bad Travis, I worry about them being off for 12 days before going back inside the courtroom. They have plenty of time to look up and read all of Travis' blogs online. Travis was a pretty arrogant, self-centered prick if we are to go by his writings. his friends say he was the most gentle, caring soul you'd ever meet. The jury won't see that, though. There is more online to harm the prosecution than help them, imo. Also, I think we'd be lying to ourselves if we believe these jurors are actually adhering to the courts admonitions.

I agree! The jury has to keep everything fresh in their minds for a long time. The breaks in this case are ridiculous.

I do NOT agree with jury sequestration...but obviously there is a need for it *sometimes. The things that bother me about the sequestration are that the jury starts to socialize and form opinions about EACH OTHER. This can greatly affect deliberations. Think about it...if there is a super nice person that everyone likes, then that person is going to have more pull with the jury. Opposite is also true...a jerk is going to have less pull. The jurors' opinions about each other should play NO part in deciding if someone is guilty or not. But, you know it does...it is only human nature.

The thing I like about sequestration is that there is less of a chance of the jurors being swayed by the media. And honestly....the media is INSANE. They should have NO part in a jury deciding if someone is innocent or not. The other thing I like about sequestration is that when the jury is sequestered the judge makes that case the number one priority. They are in court everyday, all day with very little breaks. They want to let the jurors get back to their lives, so court is run very efficiently. This helps the jurors get a better sense of the entire case with out so much time off in between witnesses, etc.

Oh...if only I ran the world...everything would be so perfect....(sarcasm again.)

[Crazy Lady]

Justice, I have imagined that's the way the murder went down too. I was wondering how she got the knife and gun in there, but it could have been as simple as "Travis, close your eyes, I have a big surprise". Travis is expecting something kinky and gets a knife to the chest.

I'm not concerned about the juror questions YET. The jurors don't officially know yet that Jodi confessed. They could be simply looking for anyone else who could have done it. I don't trust jurors very much, too many cases screwed up. This trial is the only one where I've seen jurors ask questions, I'm trying not to read too much into it.

[Justice11]

I agree with this. And I believe he will do just that.
I'm looking forward to his cross-examination of Jodi - assuming she takes the stand of course.

Oh, I hope and pray she takes the stand. Her attorney's would be idiots to encourage her to, but ultimately it is her decision. That she actually thought she could represent herself at one point is the only thing that makes me think there is a chance she will take the stand. It fits with her narcissistic sociopathic nature to want to take the stand and get the attention and use her powers of persuasion.

She should have kept her mouth shut this entire time. But, she kept calling Flores and coming in for interviews, etc. I think she really thought she could persuade him that she was innocent. I think she thinks she can do the same with the jury. But, her attorneys will undoubtably try to dissuade her from doing that, rightly so.

Think about the other notorious murderers who wanted to represent themselves. Manson and Bundy are just two examples of murderers who thought they were so convincing that they could represent themselves and convince anyone of anything. They have/had the same type of narcissistic sociopathic tendencies. I'm sure there are lots more out there as well.

[songbirdsong]

Aside from being worried that the jury is looking at Jodi is the poor little pretty girl being bullied and manipulated by big bad Travis, I worry about them being off for 12 days before going back inside the courtroom. They have plenty of time to look up and read all of Travis' blogs online. Travis was a pretty arrogant, self-centered prick if we are to go by his writings. his friends say he was the most gentle, caring soul you'd ever meet. The jury won't see that, though. There is more online to harm the prosecution than help them, imo. Also, I think we'd be lying to ourselves if we believe these jurors are actually adhering to the courts admonitions.

Yeah, I'll admit that the 12 days thing makes me a bit nervous.

As for his blogs, I don't really get a negative vibe from them. Motivational speakers all seem kind of cocky to me, but then again I think he was justified in being confident. I don't think it would adversely affect any of the male jurors' opinions of him. I'm always surprised at the differences between males' and females' perceptions of things like this.

[GlassHat]

I agree! The jury has to keep everything fresh in their minds for a long time. The breaks in this case are ridiculous.

I do NOT agree with jury sequestration...but obviously there is a need for it *sometimes. The things that bother me about the sequestration are that the jury starts to socialize and form opinions about EACH OTHER. This can greatly affect deliberations. Think about it...if there is a super nice person that everyone likes, then that person is going to have more pull with the jury. Opposite is also true...a jerk is going to have less pull. The jurors' opinions about each other should play NO part in deciding if someone is guilty or not. But, you know it does...it is only human nature.

The thing I like about sequestration is that there is less of a chance of the jurors being swayed by the media. And honestly....the media is INSANE. They should have NO part in a jury deciding if someone is innocent or not. The other thing I like about sequestration is that when the jury is sequestered the judge makes that case the number one priority. They are in court everyday, all day with very little breaks. They want to let the jurors get back to their lives, so court is run very efficiently. This helps the jurors get a better sense of the entire case with out so much time off in between witnesses, etc.

Oh...if only I ran the world...everything would be so perfect....(sarcasm again.)

Sequestering can be straining sometimes, I agree. I do think it's necessary in some cases, though. I think it would have been beneficial in this case, BUT only if the courtroom were ran more efficiently. If this jury were sequestered the way things are going right now, they would set Jodi free just from being pissed off at the judge. Seriously. They do that shit. Cory May (whose sentence has since been overturned and is a free man now) is an excellent example. One of the jurors that convicted him gave an interview after the trial and said she voted guilty because she hated his lawyer and that they were wasting her time. That she needed to get home and take her xanax. I'm not even kidding. This.shit.happened. This mans life was on the line and he WAS given the death penalty. Thank GOD he was vindicated.

Justice, I have imagined that's the way the murder went down too. I was wondering how she got the knife and gun in there, but it could have been as simple as "Travis, close your eyes, I have a big surprise". Travis is expecting something kinky and gets a knife to the chest.

I'm not concerned about the juror questions YET. The jurors don't officially know yet that Jodi confessed. They could be simply looking for anyone else who could have done it. I don't trust jurors very much, too many cases screwed up. This trial is the only one where I've seen jurors ask questions, I'm trying not to read too much into it.

On three states allow juror questions.

[Crazy Lady]

"The Sociopath Next Door" is a great book, it's filled with people just like Jodi. I bet she can't wait to take the stand, to try to talk her way out of it with the jury. Her lawyer must be very nervous, not sure what she will say if she does. Her story has changed too many times for him to be confident.