Gonna say it again Ron...Originally Posted by Ron_NYC
Plus it's my favorite smilie!!
Gonna say it again Ron...
It's not a helper person. She had no part in it. She was sleeping with a roommate and he got jealous. He did it and pinned on her. She is protecting him because she knows she will not get death whereas he would. She is altruistic.
The defensive wounds prove that this guy struggled, no matter what the sequence of events.
I pray to God that this jury will see through all the bullcrap to the heart of the matter- she viciously killed a guy. Overkill. Not self-defense.
Yeah, i was thinking that last few days....WHAT if...there is just that WHAT IF she didn't do it. Wouldn't that be wierd? I mean, we know she is an evil bitch and could do all that happened..women kill men all the time...BUT, did she or didn't she? There is just too much evidence and she even said she did it but man.....Too bad he got mixed up in her shit. Al i know is the case is fucking cray cray!
I feel like a used piece of toilet paper.
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.Here it is. I had just joined and Ron agreed with me, kind of. I was so proud.Well you really laid it out there. I can kinda see that if she were super strong or something. Kind of.
You're starting to come around.
And now it all means nothing.
(Reading my long post up top, the only thing I might change now is the hair color comment. She may or may not have played with her hair color to disguise herself. I would add in the fact that she bought and borrowed gas cans to use as a way to avoid stopping for gas in AZ, and/or to burn evidence in the desert.)
Last edited by Justice11; 02-18-2013 at 07:46 PM.
"You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts." D. Moynihan
See my profile page for the location of my "Dear Diary" posts in the Jodi thread. http://mydeathspace.com/vb/member.php?82091-Justice11
I know we will never know the sequence of events, but I guess what I have a hard time reconciling is someone who apparently did so much planning to cover her tracks and then who chooses such a risky approach as attacking a guy bigger than her with a knife in a house where other people lived.
Its like a mixture of a lot of planning and then a murderous rage.
Maybe those two things don't actually contradict themselves, but on some level they seem to, for me.
My husband tends to think like Ron. In his mind, he finds the roommate called Enrique to be a bit shady, being as his room literally shared a common wall with Travis' room, yet he claims to have not seen anything or smelled anything in those mysterious 5 days.
My husband's theory is that Enrique was behind on his rent and thus just didn't acknowledge Travis' absence or the pungent smell permeating their shared wall, and maybe even came home, saw Jodi and Travis struggling, and jumped in to help her out.
While I agree in that I don't necessarily buy into the fact that Enrique didn't see/hear/smell anything (probably the perfect roomie in that he obviously minded his own business, lol), I'm not too sure I'd make the jump that he'd help snuff out Travis without some pretty significant evidence to back up the theory.
The case makes for great discussions in our house, as you can tell. O.O
ETA: My husband also thinks Jodi may have been banging the sensory-challenged Enrique as well, just like Ron and Artemis.
Last edited by MorbidlyLovely; 02-18-2013 at 07:43 PM.
Given how quickly this creature will throw, and does throw, anyone she knows under the bus, one thing I feel very certain about is that she had no help in this.
your finally getting followers! you can't leave now!
You are. -1
Look what they did to Travis.
I dunno. I mean....possible for her solo? Um....I just can't. I mean, I guess it's possible like Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by aliens, possible.Ron, don't you remember agreeing with me that she could have done it? I'd pull up the post and quote it, but that was like a million pages ago.
You are breaking my heart. I felt so proud for getting you to admit that it was possible. And now you act like that never even happened. I feel like a used piece of toilet paper.
Gonna say it again Ron...
Sounds like your husband has a brain. This Enrique character was banging her and got jelly.
It is physiologically possible. But she didn't do it.I dunno. I mean....possible for her solo? Um....I just can't. I mean, I guess it's possible like Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by aliens, possible.
OK, I remember (kind of) now.Here it is. I had just joined and Ron agreed with me, kind of. I was so proud.
And now it all means nothing.
(Reading my long post up top, the only thing I might change now is the hair color comment. She may or may not have played with her hair color to disguise herself. I would add in the fact that she bought and borrowed gas cans to use as a way to avoid stopping for gas in AZ, and/or to burn evidence in the desert.)
haha I meant "get the fuck out of here" I wasn't literally using that as an exit.
Ron_NYC I can't say she is guilty or not guilty but you are on the wrong site to think she had someone to do it with her. If she had she would have been pointing the finger a long time ago. We are too far down the line to even think of an accomplice. If there was one she would have ratted him out or made one up by now.
And I am not a follower, Harlot. You lot think she did it. Are you a 'follower' of them? No. It's just my opinion.
She is too selfless for that.
She pointed the finger at someone(s) from the very beginning. Does anyone remember that?
I was snooping around the internet and found an interesting article about Juan Martinez.
Justice Delayed
Star prosecutor finds himself on the defensive over fast-track flap
By Paul Rubin Thursday, Aug 29 2002
Felony prosecutor Juan Martinez is despised by many defense attorneys, mainly because he relentlessly plays hardball on the job. He rarely plea bargains, seemingly is always in trial, prepares his cases meticulously, and usually wins.
No matter what Martinez's adversaries may think of him personally or professionally, though, no one could ever righteously accuse him of being lazy.
And those on both sides of the fence -- prosecution and defense -- agree Martinez is just about the last person they expected to get slapped around recently by Maricopa County Superior Court presiding judge Colin Campbell, for allegedly causing a delay of the first-degree-murder trial of David Wayne Carr.
But it happened at a public hearing May 31 when the powerful judge accused Martinez of "flagrantly" breaking the rules in the Carr case. An angry Campbell then ordered Martinez to prove at a subsequent hearing why he shouldn't be held in criminal contempt, a charge that can mean up to six months in jail for the accused.
What did Martinez do to merit such punishment? Did he destroy evidence, lie, or, God forbid, treat the judge rudely?
No.
Simply put, Martinez was tardy in providing assistant public defender Dennis Jones with the names and addresses of all possible witnesses he might call at Carr's trial, which had been scheduled for May 30.
That failure, according to Campbell, meant Jones couldn't be adequately prepared for trial on time, a cardinal sin in the fast-track justice system championed by the judge and other jurists.
The case of the Superior Court vs. Juan Martinez, which ended rather tepidly August 5 with a letter of apology from the prosecutor to the judge, underscores the schism between the judiciary and the bar that continues to widen at the county courthouse.
The contempt case was "settled" only after County Attorney Rick Romley had hired heavy-hitter attorney (and former judge himself) Mel McDonald to defend Martinez. For its part, the court hired John Lundin, a veteran Phoenix barrister who chairs the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review, to serve as "special prosecutor" in its case against Martinez.
"Juan technically did violate the law by not submitting the names of his potential witnesses on time," McDonald tells New Times. "But it wasn't done to subvert justice, and no one can honestly argue otherwise. It was a real-life situation, with Juan working on murder trial after trial, and he and the defense attorney not being able to coordinate on interviews and other things. I didn't look forward to questioning Juan's accuser, Judge Campbell, on the witness stand, in front of a jury. But I would have. And I'm convinced we had a winner in this case."
The clash between Campbell and Martinez came during a session of the court's so-called "continuance panel," a controversial practice that Campbell started soon after he took the helm in July 2000. The panel -- actually one senior judge -- meets regularly with a roomful of attorneys to consider requests for trial postponements of more than five days.
(The panel was formed amid increasing public concern about the length of time it often takes to resolve criminal cases.)
Most lawyers in the criminal-justice system consider the practice of having to plead for more preparation time personally demeaning and rarely in the best interests of their clients. And many judges say privately it irks them that the "continuance panel" has usurped many of the time-tested duties of trial judges, like deciding when it is appropriate to schedule trials.
On May 22, defense attorney Jones asked the trial judge in the Carr case to issue sanctions against Martinez for not providing him with a list of potential witnesses and other materials. Jones also asked for a four-month postponement of David Carr's murder trial. The 50-year-old Carr is charged in the July 2001 shooting death of another Valley man whose remains were found in the mountains north of town.
The request for delay landed the Carr case before Judge Campbell, who was manning the "continuance panel" on May 31. Campbell -- who declined to comment on the matter -- clearly didn't accept Martinez's explanation that his failure to file the witness list hadn't delayed prosecution of the case.
Instead, the judge accused Martinez in writing of "willfully" violating the rules of the court. The word willful is important, because, by definition, a person cannot be held in criminal contempt unless he or she intentionally ". . . obstructs the administration of justice, or lessens the dignity and authority of the court."
That, says Paul Ahler, the chief deputy at the County Attorney's Office, just never happened.
"We were extremely upset over here by what Judge Campbell was accusing Juan of," says Ahler, noting that Martinez twice has won his office's award as prosecutor of the year. "Juan is an extremely hard worker who plays hard, but fair. He could conceivably have lost his ticket to practice law because of this. We decided that we had to fight this charge as hard as we could, and we did."
In court papers filed in the Carr case, Martinez pointed out that defense attorney Jones himself hadn't filed a "notice of defenses" until mid-May, "about five months late in violation of the [rules]. Presumably, this is also a willful' and flagrant' violation."
Martinez wouldn't discuss the brouhaha, saying only that he's still planning to prosecute David Carr at trial, now scheduled to start September 10.
"That's about all I should comment on," he says. "I have to work in that courthouse."
Please NOTE: I do not know what the outcome of this trial was, but I found it interesting that even 11 years ago Martinez is known for being a tough prosecutor who rarely loses.
RIP Travis
Yes, I remember. The ninjas!
Not by name, though.
Yes it would. What do you think IMBatman?
Ron, don't you remember agreeing with me that she could have done it? I'd pull up the post and quote it, but that was like a million pages ago.
You are breaking my heart. I felt so proud for getting you to admit that it was possible. And now you act like that never even happened. I feel like a used piece of toilet paper.
This is about as likely as the conspiracy theory that Scott Peterson got framed by Gary Condit to get the media distracted from the Chandra Levy disappearance.
True. The defensive wounds mess up my theory. Plus the wounds on the hand were deep which says he had enought strength to be pulling hard on the knife. I will always wonder where the 'gun jammed' lie came from. She wasn't familiar with guns so that has to be a part of something.
Ron, don't you remember agreeing with me that she could have done it? I'd pull up the post and quote it, but that was like a million pages ago.
You are breaking my heart. I felt so proud for getting you to admit that it was possible. And now you act like that never even happened. I feel like a used piece of toilet paper.
There are currently 65 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 65 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
