Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death (Part II)

[AgathaAppleswine]

Hey, speaking of weird pieces of evidence....

So Jodi says that the trip to Mesa was unexpected, right? Did she say that Travis guilted her while she was traveling in CA?

I'm wondering, because she said she had those CDs of trips or phone sex or whatever that were all scratched, right?

So that means she had them with her when she started her road trip (assuming that they exist).

Did she just carry them around "Just in case"? Because if she wasn't planning to visit Travis, that is just super weird to me that she'd have them on her for whatever reason.

Also, have those CDs ever been found to anyone's knowledge? Were they at Travis's? Were they at Jodi's? Or have they magically disappeared along with the Spidies and granny panties?

[Freethinker]

Jodi's stalking behavior has been a major issue throughout the trial See witnesses questioned by Martinez. It is one of the many pieces of evidence of her highly unstable behavior which made her the prime suspect in Travis's murder even when she continually lied about it.

She's not being tried for stalking, she's being tried for murder.

[Freethinker]

Freethinker, (I'm prolly gonna get sent to time out for this one but fuck it)..It's not the stalking issue that VP is hung up on..it's the fact that TA continued to have dirty nasty SEX with Hodi. Yucky poo nasty!!!!

But the trial isn't about sex either.

[poppym]

is that you toni ingram?

i wonder if some where she has hidden, or maybe burned them in the desert, she has real journals, w/ her real thoughts?

Possibly!?!? Or, with Matt McCartney? Someone who would 'never' betray her?!?!

[PopRocks]

@AgathaAppleswine if i could i would rep you for your post you made asfew messages up

VioletPlanet is making her comments from a woman's point of view and what happened in her situation probably wouldnt have applied to travis

the police really dont take these cases seriously when it comes to males UNTIL some sort of harm or criminal activity is done to them

i really believe travis kept seeing her to stop her from causing more deconstruction to his life, and it seems sex was her way of showing him how "sorry" she was

[wasthinking]

Jury selection began December 10th. So it's been almost 4 months for her to be involved in this trial.

But now she needs to back off. She was dismissed for a reason. I don't want her causing a mistrial

Oh that little detail, LOL thanks M Joy

I have a theory about Alyce approaching Samantha.
She did that as a planned plot to play make sure she had an opening early on for her ' are you mad at me' and had PLANTED laughers. Notice on the video her laughers, espeically the one that made sure to be real loud (brunette on the far left seat) and the blonde in yellow next to her, are the same two women that wait for Alyce to finish hugging Nurmi, wrap they arms around Alyce to walk out that day all three hooked together. She approached poor Samantha to deliberately fire up Juan. Im not one for injecting into this trial, but I hope this shit is brought to the Judge's attention and those two plants have a baliff standing right by them, waiting to kick them out. And the judge needs to be told / shown the disruptive plants were arm and arm with Alyce.

[Peace Corpse]

Harlette:

Ingram case doesn't apply. Totally different case, different circumstances. Stalking has been proven in the Arias case. Just listen to Juan.

[coconut]

that might explain why the judge (allegedly) invited #5 back.. the Judge felt somewhat responsible for something that happened during her questioning... It still doesn't make sense though.

Judges don't invite people back to trials. Freakazoids invite themselves to freakshows.

What's up, Katie?

[AlisonL]

Please PM me for these types of posts. They are off-topic. NQ posted Forum Rules today. See post # 3765

What happened to freedom of speech? Let me understand this, it's okay for you to post whatever, whenever, wherever, but you are quick to point out when someone isn't the following the rules as you see them. Whatever. I typically just ignore the stupid shit as it's always worked for me in the past. I'll continue on, but thanks for the lesson!!! LOL

[Peace Corpse]

But the trial isn't about sex either.

The picture evidence found in the camera proves otherwise. He was naked, physically vulnerable to her in the shower. Wet, slippery. She planned it that way. Easier to kill.

[Freethinker]

@AgathaAppleswine if i could i would rep you for your post you made asfew messages up

VioletPlanet is making her comments from a woman's point of view and what happened in her situation probably wouldnt have applied to travis

the police really dont take these cases seriously when it comes to males UNTIL some sort of harm or criminal activity is done to them

i really believe travis kept seeing her to stop her from causing more deconstruction to his life, and it seems sex was her way of showing him how "sorry" she was

The good post is #3802. We also don't know when or if Travis would take further action. She likely held the sex as a weapon, and Travis's fellow Mormons didn't know he was that sexually active, and didn't want that exposed. That might be what those nasty remarks he sent her were about, and we all know how ALV twisted that around. Wouldn't you say some of her IM's are missing? Something triggered them.

[Peace Corpse]

She's not being tried for stalking, she's being tried for murder.

Stalking shows the unstable mindset of the perpetrator being tried for murder. Are you saying you would like the jury to discount the EVIDENCE brought forth by the prosecution of Jodi's obsessive, insane stalking behavior in their deliberations? Would that be fair to Travis?...or any murder case that involves stalking?

[queenaevadamthng]

No Freethinker it doesn't have anything to do with sex. Please forgive me for being facetious. I'll say it again, it doesn't matter who did what, when, and how before June 4th, this young man was killed in a vicious attack. When JA slit his throat no matter the order of when it was done, it took forethought and malice. Slitting someone's throat is not a defensive type of wound, you have to go up behind someone and grab them in some way either by the hair, shoulders, or some way to steady them from behind. It's not a wound that is done by blindly flailing away. Especially the neck wound in this case. I could probably teeter on the self defense scenario that the DT is throwing out there for us if it weren't for that neck wound.

[Peace Corpse]

Travis did not really have the option of just "moving" to get away from Jodi, he was buying his home, he could not just change homes the way you can rent a different apartment. Also, she knew what ward he attended for church, she knew his friends and on and on, she had followed him on dates before so it would not be much of a stretch to believe that she would find a way to track him down. This is on top of breaking into his emails and bank accounts so she would have found him no matter where he had gone. I am really tired of the whole blame the victim crap, I don't care if he fucked her in all three holes every damn day of the week, she was allowing him to do so and letting him believe she was not only a willing but eager partner. What does any of what he "should have done" or should have seen" have to do with the fact that she butchered him??

And he allowed her as well. It takes 2 to participate in a a secretive, unstable, relationship. It has everything to do with the fact she butchered him. Had he taken better care of himself , there is a chance he could still be alive today. A Chance is better than NO Chance.

[Freethinker]

The picture evidence found in the camera proves otherwise. He was naked, physically vulnerable to her in the shower. Wet, slippery. She planned it that way. Easier to kill.

Well, you finally got the word KILL in your answers. We know there were pics both in and out of the shower. The killing is what the trial is about, will it be murder 1 with DP, murder1 with no parole, or 2 and she walks in a few years. The plans she made to get to his house undetected is a major part of what's happening, that's major damage presented.
The naked pictures prove nothing except he had no clothes on. Thank God for the photo of him being dragged, and those photos had times on them.

[dizzyp]

I could probably teeter on the self defense scenario that the DT is throwing out there for us if it weren't for that neck wound.

here is what the AZ Self-defense statutes say:

http://www.azleg.gov/arizonareviseds...s.asp?title=13
13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
_____________________________________________
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

Begs the question, who's sending these notes to Nurmi? Must be another juror -- one very sympathetic to the defense.

I mean "for $300 bucks an hour, you think they could get us chairs worth sitting in" hardly seems like misconduct?

Who said the judge asked #5 back? What did I miss? Really? I have never heard of that happening with a juror before. Forgive me if I am understanding wrong and feel free to correct.

If they were "out to lunch" when she made that remark, is it possible that someone from Team!Jodi overheard her? I would not put it past them to stalk the jurors, or to be conveniently near them during lunch time to listen in.

well, #5 said on the AZ TV interview that she was “I was encouraged to come,” and "received three calls from the court the day before."
more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/m...nclick_check=1

Judges don't invite people back to trials. Freakazoids invite themselves to freakshows.

What's up, Katie?

Do you guys remember the day that everyone thought Stabby was talking to JW when the jury was leaving (I think it was for lunch) and some people said they thought she was talking about having made eye contact with Juror 2 or saying she had Juror 2? This was the same day/time that court room observers said as as the jury was leaving they could hear a loud female juror's laughter. I believe this is the incident that Nurmi is referring to.

No Judge calls and asks a dismissed Juror to come back and attend the remainder of a trial. It's possible she was asked to return by the clerk of the court for some reason maybe it was Donovan posing as the court, jmo.

is that you toni ingram?

i wonder if some where she has hidden, or maybe burned them in the desert, she has real journals, w/ her real thoughts?

Bwahaha I don't think she gets irony.

Friends of TA's also said Stabby had stolen journals belong to TA, maybe she has them stashed somewhere all together.

[QUOTE=AgathaAppleswine;3379090]

Did she just carry them around "Just in case"? Because if she wasn't planning to visit Travis, that is just super weird to me that she'd have them on her for whatever reason.

Also, have those CDs ever been found to anyone's knowledge? Were they at Travis's? Were they at Jodi's? Or have they magically disappeared along with the Spidies and granny panties?

Excellent question.

[dizzyp]

con't

13-415. Justification; domestic violence

If there have been past acts of domestic violence as defined in section 13-3601, subsection A against the defendant by the victim, the state of mind of a reasonable person under sections 13-404, 13-405 and 13-406 shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person who has been a victim of those past acts of domestic violence.

13-601:

1. The relationship between the victim and the defendant is one of marriage or former marriage or of persons residing or having resided in the same household.

2. The victim and the defendant have a child in common.

3. The victim or the defendant is pregnant by the other party.

4. The victim is related to the defendant or the defendant's spouse by blood or court order as a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister or by marriage as a parent-in-law, grandparent-in-law, stepparent, step-grandparent, stepchild, step-grandchild, brother-in-law or sister-in-law.

5. The victim is a child who resides or has resided in the same household as the defendant and is related by blood to a former spouse of the defendant or to a person who resides or who has resided in the same household as the defendant.

6. The relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship. The following factors may be considered in determining whether the relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship:

(a) The type of relationship.

(b) The length of the relationship.

(c) The frequency of the interaction between the victim and the defendant.

(d) If the relationship has terminated, the length of time since the termination.

http://www.azleg.gov/arizonareviseds...s.asp?title=13

[BreachofTrust]

This too:
Cross exam of defense expert witness, in response to a last-minute 'dirty trick' by defense.
Oh and ladies, THIS is what a Hot prosecutor looks like...

The big difference in this court room setting to me is that the judge is keeping a tight rein on the court room. The Arias trial judge seems to dole out her "sustains" and "overruled" rulings arbitrarily and almost as an afterthought.

One thing I noticed about Alyce is that she seemed to want control of the questioning. Like Jodi, she seemed to want to be deliberately difficult in answering the simplest questions, i.e., questions regarding her education.

I believe she was deliberately obtuse from the onset, which leads me to believe she had prior knowledge of Mr. Martinez's questioning style beforehand.

[dizzyp]

(d) If the relationship has terminated, the length of time since the termination.

...or if the defendant drove 1000 miles to murder the victim... just sayin'

[Peace Corpse]

Do you read ANYTHING that anyone writes, or do you just block out the parts that don't suit your own theories? He TOLD people about her. He was clearly looking for reassurance or reactions from people on how to deal with her. One of his friends that was interviewed clearly said, "I didn't think Jodi was a threat, so I didn't encourage him to seek help". Do you get this? Do you understand that Travis was looking to others for answers? Or is that just not goddamned good enough for you?

Many of Travis's close friends who also knew Jodi.... told him to get away from her in more ways than one. I know you follow the trial. This has been proven


The author says that he could have been Travis. He acknowledges that he was LUCKY. He acknowledges that the cops could do nothing for him. He acknowledges that a restraining order was useless. THE ONLY WAY HE GOT AWAY WAS TO PACK UP AND LEAVE.

But he isn't Travis is he? He's alive. Yes, he took action against his stalker didn't he? He stopped engaging. What stopped his stalker was calling the stalker's relative and saying to her, that he was putting a restraining order against her. The victim clearly says that he has not heard from this woman in years. See how his taking action, worked? Let's hope it continues.

Travis may have been getting to that point. What we know is that he told others about her behavior. What we know is that he tried to cut her out of his life. I suspect that he pressured Mimi to go on the trip to Cancun with him simply so that he could keep Jodi away from him.

He did not try to cut her out of his life. He chose to have a secretive sexual relationship with her right up to the day of his death.



You have implied over and over that Travis didn't do the right things, and that you did, so therefore you're still alive. I call bullshit. I've seen stalkers in action, and I know what does and does not happen is basically based on how big a fucking nutjob your stalker is.

Have you ever been stalked? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, I did do the right thing....I disengaged as did the author of the article. Who is still alive and who isn't?



I wouldn't consider Travis and Jodi 'dating' by any stretch of the imagination. Why do you insist that they were dating? Because they had phone sex? The evidence that Jodi provided could easily be twisted. To say that you know shit about Jodi and Travis's relationship based on the evidence JODI presented doesn't say much. She's a liar and a manipulator, and I think you've been had. You are saying you know "shit about Jodi and Travis.." etc. Why can't I ? My evidence is NOT based on Jodi's testimony. It is based on Travis's own words and his close friends. Some of who were witnesses for the prosecution. Don't they? Note the words sociopath and manipulative. If the abuser knows the vulnerabilities of their victim, it wouldn't be that hard to compel or convince that victim to do what they want. And we don't know all that transpired on June 4th. Remember, this was only ten days (or so, I keep forgetting the exact date) from when he went on his tirade. Travis seems like a pretty easy-going guy. After he blew up, maybe, like many victims, he felt badly about going off on her like that. Maybe he'd blown off his steam, and was going to make up with Jodi.


Yes we do know, the sexual and shower pictures ( evidence) found in the camera prove it. They were having a secretive relationship. Look at the timeline of their relationship? Why would he make up with his known stalker?



It really isn't fair of you to speak as if you know 100% what Travis did that day. You DON'T know. You just don't. Can you say for 100% certain that you know exactly how things went down on June 4th? Do you know the specifics of how Jodi gained entry to his house? Do you know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Travis was not manipulated or threatened by her before he was killed?

Of course he was manipulated. How do you think she got him into that shower after he consented to sex with her? He chose to let her into his home. You can't complain to your friends you have a stalker and then invite that stalker into your home and consent to have sex with them? For every action there is a reaction.

I think the answer to that is NO. You don't. You can't know, and you are making most of your assumptions about the sexual and romantic relationship between Jodi and Travis based solely on Jodi's words and evidence. That really isn't much to go on now, is it?

You are right. I don't know 100 percent. Never said I did. I only know what the proven evidence of the case from all parties tells me and I must adhere to that.

[Peace Corpse]

Well, you finally got the word KILL in your answers. We know there were pics both in and out of the shower. The killing is what the trial is about, will it be murder 1 with DP, murder1 with no parole, or 2 and she walks in a few years. The plans she made to get to his house undetected is a major part of what's happening, that's major damage presented.
The naked pictures prove nothing except he had no clothes on. Thank God for the photo of him being dragged, and those photos had times on them.

Good point. One must take Jodi's word for the actual action of sexual intercourse even though they were both naked and taking pornographic pictures of each other. The camera evidence proves this. Are there any more pictures from this day not released to the public? No one knows for sure. Was there a sex video on that day? They liked taping each other too. Did they really truly have sexual intercourse THAT day? Well...according to Jodi they did. According to the pictures from that day, if they didn't I'd be truly amazed. Especially knowing Travis loved to have sex with her and visa-versa The point is .... he let her into his home. He chose to get naked with her. Her goal was to get his clothes off and get him into that shower......and that is exactly what she did and he allowed it....knowing full well that this woman was bad, bad news.

[Wishmich]

From Justdatruth's blog:

The one trait that now stands out, is how manipulative she was. Her manipulation was so far out there, to this day I can't believe I fell for it. That's the problem with psychopaths, they are masters at manipulation in a way you never experience with normal people. But then again, they are so damn charming, you find yourself forgiving them for their manipulation because they are so irresistible

.

This guy got away because he wasn't up against JA. Others get away because they weren't up against JA. We don't know what she said or did to manipulate him, so judging a victim for his lack of action is nonsense.





On another note, does anybody have a link to where I can read their emails and IM's? I apologize if it's been posted and I missed it.

[ShellJett]

Initially I thought I understood why Stabby concocted her story about shooting before stabbing. I thought she did so to avoid the murder being "cruel and heinous" by inferring the shot made it unlikely that he felt the pain of stabbing. Yet she testified that he threatened to kill her after she shot him ("fucking kill you bitch"). She claims to have stabbed him after he is shot due to his threat to kill her. I just don't understand the rationale. She claims TA threatened to kill herafter he was shot, but according to her, TA was on floor. She could have escaped then. I am solely trying to figure out the motive for her saying she shot 1st. Could be as simple as she didn't want to have to explain the stabbing/slit throat (foggy). Does anybody have a theory as to why she is so strongly sticking to this story that leaves room for jury to discount self-defense? If he is on floor shot in the head when he threatened her, at that point she loses the self-defense argument. I am not giving any credence to her story, I am curious about the legal issues that motivated her version of events. It may be that she is just a moron.

[Peace Corpse]

From Justdatruth's blog: .

This guy got away because he wasn't up against JA. Others get away because they weren't up against JA. We don't know what she said or did to manipulate him, so judging a victim for his lack of action is nonsense..

Let me ask you a question? Do you really think JA is the first of her kind and even so does it matter? What matters are the facts of the case. No victim judging here. Nothing I have written says that I blame Travis for his own murder. What I blame Travis for...is not taking care of himself properly. You and everyone on this thread can argue with me... but what you cannot deny is that Travis knew he was being stalked, knew this woman was not the one for him, knew she was sneaking into his home, breaking into his personal accounts, slashing his other girlfriends tires, etc, etc. This has been proven....in court. Where do you think I am getting this info from? I am only trying to dissect the known facts of the case. Jodi is highly intelligent, yes. Travis was highly intelligent, yes.

No, "this guy" ( author of the article) got away because he tried....and he tried really hard. Who didn't try really hard?

Who didn't? Does this make him responsible for his own murder, no. Did his actions, (knowing full-well, based on the evidence of all parties in addition) make it easier for Jodi to murder him? Yes.

Now, there is an alternative to this scenario....one that could explain Travis's inaction.

And that scenario is.....sexual addiction.