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

[Justice11]

Here it is. It says 8-26-07 at the top, tho it's suspicious that the writing is darker on the 8-26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlQLSaTY20E

WAIT!!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!!! It wasn't until Jan. 2008!!!!! Nice catch!

I'm praying Martinez nails Jodi on this on Wednesday. Poor Jodi. It's hard keeping track of all those lies.

[TC1234]

I'm praying Martinez nails Jodi on this on Wednesday. Poor Jodi. It's hard keeping track of all those lies.

How did everyone on HLN and In Session not pick up on this?

[Chauncy]

Exactly. So how can she tell the jury she was referencing his pedophilia on August 26, 2007 when she didn't know about it until January 21, 2008? How does everyone miss this?

People like to leave their house sometimes you know!

[TC1234]

People like to leave their house sometimes you know!

That's funny coming from someone with almost 30 thousand posts.

[M Joy]

Exactly. So how can she tell the jury she was referencing his pedophilia on August 26, 2007 when she didn't know about it until January 21, 2008? How does everyone miss this?

oh wow. You made some great points. A lot of people missed this. Hopefully JM will mention this on Wednesday when he continues his questioning of her. And perhaps that might be one of the pending juror questions? Even if it doesn't get asked - assuming it is one of the questions - it is still in the mind of at least one of the jurors which is very good for when they deliberate!

[Chauncy]

That's funny coming from someone with almost 30 thousand posts.

Number of posts is irrelevant unless you have a time period to go along with it. Posts per day is a more accurate indicator.


How did you miss this?

[*crickets*]

Ron, make sure to invite us to the wedding! lolol

Ron, do you want to be Jodi's hottie biscotti?

[Doll-Face]

YouTube video -Jodi Arias Trial - Day 29 - Part 1, Starting at 11:25

Question: Do you recall any of the injuries on Travis? body at any point during June 4 without the aid of photographs?

Answer: No, I didn?t even realize that I?d shot him.

At some point she was asked by the jury why she didn?t call 911 when she came out of her ?fog?. Her answer was that she was ashamed. Why would she be ashamed if she doesn?t remember injuring him? She thought the gunshot went into the wall and she has no memory of butchering him so what?s all the shame for? Why did she think she was in any trouble at all?

Starting at 13:07 in the same video.

Question: Why was it okay to write about how Travis made you both sick and happy or sad and miserable or that something wasn?t right about him?

Answer: That was a very mild way of how I, I sometimes felt about that darker side of him, um, as far as sick or miserable, um, as far as just the emotional turmoil and the um, pedophilia.

That references the journal entry Nurmi brought in on redirect. I can?t find it but I believe the entry was from the summer of 2007. How can she write in her journal in 2007 that Travis made her sick regarding his ?so called pedophilia? in 2007 when she didn?t walk in on him until January 21, 2008?

I think these are two huge flaws in her testimony that I haven?t heard any of the talking heads mention.
How does this get by everyone? It absolutely destroys her pedophile story. Does anyone have a link to the journal entry? I think it was the one highlighted in orange?

These are really great points, and I'm glad you brought them up. Interestingly, I brought this same issue up to the forum on March 7, and everyone ignored me. I do admit, I couldn't remember the date in her journal she was quoting from that afternoon, but asked if anyone could tell me if it was from the 2007...and how it didn't make sense since she told us she had made that pedophilia "discovery" in January 2008. Good catch, TC. I certainly hope this discrepancy gets out there now. :)

[M Joy]

These are really great points, and I'm glad you brought them up. Interestingly, I brought this same issue up to the forum on March 7, and everyone ignored me. I do admit, I couldn't remember the date in her journal she was quoting from that afternoon, but asked if anyone could tell me if it was from the 2007...and how it didn't make sense since she told us she had made that pedophilia "discovery" in January 2008. Good catch, TC. I certainly hope this discrepancy gets out there now. :)

I wouldn't take that personally. Its super easy to miss stuff in this monstrosity of a thread. Especially on days when trial happens. Maybe someone can find the screenshots of the journal entry where jodi says all that stuff about Travis making her sick/happy/sad, etc just for verification purposes?

[TC1234]

Number of posts is irrelevant unless you have a time period to go along with it. Posts per day is a more accurate indicator.


How did you miss this?

You have posted 13.321 times a day for 6 years. When do you leave the house?

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Ron, make sure to invite us to the wedding! lolol

I'll bring the camera!!

Tootsie rolls, Poprocks and Toblerone as wedding favors?

[Doll-Face]

You have posted 13.321 times a day for 6 years. When do you leave the house?

LOL, well, I can tell you she was in the penis thread today...I had no idea that one even existed (but I'm new to MDS, and that particular thread is actually new too).

[Doll-Face]

I wouldn't take that personally. Its super easy to miss stuff in this monstrosity of a thread. Especially on days when trial happens. Maybe someone can find the screenshots of the journal entry where jodi says all that stuff about Travis making her sick/happy/sad, etc just for verification purposes?

Thank you. I try not to take things personally, but sometimes it's difficult. I actually felt better about myself before I started posting on this forum, interestingly enough (as a guest vs. a member).

[denn]

I'm praying Martinez nails Jodi on this on Wednesday. Poor Jodi. It's hard keeping track of all those lies.

Martinez started to jump her ass about those entries, her defense attny immediately jumped up. I am sure she doctored the whole damn thing. Did the detectives take all these things into evidence when she was arrested?

[denn]

I'm certain it's been noticed (and scrutinized) by the professionals, I think it may be something that could come up in rebuttal and hadn't seen anyone commenting on that area.

Remember - technology is so different now than it was five years ago!!!!!

[TC1234]

I wouldn't take that personally. Its super easy to miss stuff in this monstrosity of a thread. Especially on days when trial happens. Maybe someone can find the screenshots of the journal entry where jodi says all that stuff about Travis making her sick/happy/sad, etc just for verification purposes?

Jillie posted a link to the journal video on the previous page. It's quoted at the top of this page.

[M Joy]

Jillie posted a link to the journal video on the previous page. It's quoted at the top of this page.

Oh thank you. sorry I can't see video at work. I'll check it out later

[denn]

I'm certain it's been noticed (and scrutinized) by the professionals, I think it may be something that could come up in rebuttal and hadn't seen anyone commenting on that area.

These are really great points, and I'm glad you brought them up. Interestingly, I brought this same issue up to the forum on March 7, and everyone ignored me. I do admit, I couldn't remember the date in her journal she was quoting from that afternoon, but asked if anyone could tell me if it was from the 2007...and how it didn't make sense since she told us she had made that pedophilia "discovery" in January 2008. Good catch, TC. I certainly hope this discrepancy gets out there now. :)

Believe me, Martinez tried to make those points. I wished he would be smoother in his line of questioning and not allow her to control that line. She seems to really like to try to distract from his questions. By saying.."you mean this..you mean that.oh, I can't remember what you asked!"

[Doll-Face]

Believe me, Martinez tried to make those points. I wished he would be smoother in his line of questioning and not allow her to control that line. She seems to really like to try to distract from his questions. By saying.."you mean this..you mean that.oh, I can't remember what you asked!"

I agree with you. I'm actually surprised Martinez works alone in these high profile DP cases. He would benefit from having a paralegal at his side at the table, someone who can prepare a trial notebook and keep him on point. He supposedly has someone at his office called a paralegal, but I'm curious if that person is just a secretary if he/she is not in court with him. I prefer to be in court with my attorneys, but that's me.

[tiggrrl72077]

Thank you. I try not to take things personally, but sometimes it's difficult. I actually felt better about myself before I started posting on this forum, interestingly enough (as a guest vs. a member).

Remember it's just the internet. Take everything - facts, lies, truths, compliments, criticisms, insults, etc with a grain of salt.
This thread moves so fast at times that I'm pretty sure the majority of people skip pages if they get too far behind. I know if I miss a day I just read every 5th page or so. There is no way I'm going to sit through 25+ pages just to catch up. No one got time for that. :)

[denn]

the forensic camera guy for the LE said that since all the pics were retrieved from thumbnails that there was a lot of distortion in the blow ups for court - like all those weird shadows - since they saw the originals b4 they were blown up for court - i think martinez woulda pointed out if he was already bleeding

I agree...they would have made the determination that he was stabbed first. They are going by the ME assessment of his body. Why it is all so confusing. BUT, the defense does want him shot first, as we all know. Story is so much better for their self defense, AND less suffering.

[Chauncy]

You have posted 13.321 times a day for 6 years. When do you leave the house?

Your theory does not hold up, nor would it be applicable in a court of law.

Exhibit A: 13 posts per day does not take into account time spent online making those posts. First off, I can possibly type very fast, or be a fast browser. I can realistically make 13 posts a day in under 5 minutes. So the number is irrelevant without some other type of evidence or at least a context behind it. I can maybe post 100 one day and take a week off for example. These numbers are virtually useless without evidence or context. They are just numbers.

Exhibit B:

I blew up the photo of him looking into the camera. If you look into his left eye, right as you look at it, it appears to be Jodi squatting with the camera in her right hand. Don't you think the prosecuter could have that photo enhanced by the FBI or some lab?

The main premise of the leaving the house argument is based on obsession. In the above post by you we clearly see that you are not all there mentally. You are taking pictures and blowing them up and analyzing them as if you are a part of a legal team. One can surmise that this obsession is not an isolated incident. I will state this once again for the jury. You are literally blowing up pictures and comparing where eyes are looking and Jodi's squatting stance. Creepy and a strong indicator that you are at a disturbing obsession type of level in regards to your involvement with this case.


Final Statement:

In conclusion you have not provided any sort of evidence besides a quick draw reaction to "numbers" Without context there is a strong indication that you are either highly defensive regarding the implication that you have no life and are dangerously obsessed with this case, or you are of below average intelligence and your eyes widen at the sight of any number in the thousands and are obsessed with this case. Numbers without context are useless as i have shown and i have simply baited you into backing off your original total post count argument to focus on another irrelevant number without context.


This leads me and the jury to believe that your reaction to my original post stems of below average intelligence. You are guilty of this and are guilty of having no life and not leaving the house since this case began. It also tells me that you are a poster that cannot seriously comment about this case or give intelligent input that is to be taken seriously. You are a reactionary person with little critical thinking skills.

The defense rests.

[denn]

the forensic camera guy for the LE said that since all the pics were retrieved from thumbnails that there was a lot of distortion in the blow ups for court - like all those weird shadows - since they saw the originals b4 they were blown up for court - i think martinez woulda pointed out if he was already bleeding

Sorry if I wasn't clear...I was trying to say that all the coverup stuff people are focusing on is beside the point. The point being, if premeditation is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no Murder 1, and therefore no DP or LWOP. If premeditation is not proven she gets Murder 2 which carries a maximum sentence of 22 years. I personally want to see her get Murder 1 and I realize the trial isn't over yet. Wednesday will be a major day as far as Martinez showing what he's got. So far I have not been impressed w/him, I hope he steps up and proves his case.

Martinez HAS to prove premeditation for the death penalty. I am not so sure Murder 2 only carries 22 years. I thought that was aggravated assault. Can you clarify for me?

[denn]

the forensic camera guy for the LE said that since all the pics were retrieved from thumbnails that there was a lot of distortion in the blow ups for court - like all those weird shadows - since they saw the originals b4 they were blown up for court - i think martinez woulda pointed out if he was already bleeding

Sorry if I wasn't clear...I was trying to say that all the coverup stuff people are focusing on is beside the point. The point being, if premeditation is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no Murder 1, and therefore no DP or LWOP. If premeditation is not proven she gets Murder 2 which carries a maximum sentence of 22 years. I personally want to see her get Murder 1 and I realize the trial isn't over yet. Wednesday will be a major day as far as Martinez showing what he's got. So far I have not been impressed w/him, I hope he steps up and proves his case.

Shower corner enlargement of the shaving pic:

[url]http://s1287.beta.photobucket.com/user/geevees/media/shavingcornerclose_zpsa35ceb83.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0 #/user/geevees/media/shavingcornerclose_zpsa35ceb83.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0 &_suid=13630273465780366246606319663

The only photo I saw of him shaving was a long time ago. He used it for his FB or some other profile. What is this one about??

[denn]

Your theory does not hold up, nor would it be applicable in a court of law.

Exhibit A: 13 posts per day does not take into account time spent online making those posts. First off, I can possibly type very fast, or be a fast browser. I can realistically make 13 posts a day in under 5 minutes. So the number is irrelevant without some other type of evidence or at least a context behind it. I can maybe post 100 one day and take a week off for example. These numbers are virtually useless without evidence or context. They are just numbers.

Exhibit B:


The main premise of the leaving the house argument is based on obsession. In the above post by you we clearly see that you are not all there mentally. You are taking pictures and blowing them up and analyzing them as if you are a part of a legal team. One can surmise that this obsession is not an isolated incident. I will state this once again for the jury. You are literally blowing up pictures and comparing where eyes are looking and Jodi's squatting stance. Creepy and a strong indicator that you are at a disturbing obsession type of level in regards to your involvement with this case.


Final Statement:

In conclusion you have not provided any sort of evidence besides a quick draw reaction to "numbers" Without context there is a strong indication that you are either highly defensive regarding the implication that you have no life and are dangerously obsessed with this case, or you are of below average intelligence and your eyes widen at the sight of any number in the thousands and are obsessed with this case. Numbers without context are useless as i have shown and i have simply baited you into backing off your original total post count argument to focus on another irrelevant number without context.


This leads me and the jury to believe that your reaction to my original post stems of below average intelligence. You are guilty of this and are guilty of having no life and not leaving the house since this case began. It also tells me that you are a poster that cannot seriously comment about this case or give intelligent input that is to be taken seriously. You are a reactionary person with little critical thinking skills.

The defense rests.

Well, NASA may be able to blow up that photo of his retina..