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

[gigiann]

@BLue!! Perfect! The pic came out great. LOL. I love it! Thanks again. You rock!

[lisam2013]

...

[CreepyGus]

There are different kinds of evidence that any jury can use. Direct evidence is not required for everything.

Circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict Jodi of premeditated murder. However here we have more than that...we have a combination of both direct and circumstantial. Just because there is not a picture of Jodi holding her grandfather's gun doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And if the circumstantial evidence points to her holding her grandfather's gun, that combined with other evidence can be enough.

[gypsy1197]

According to this article it says "A jury need not choose unanimously between the two. If some jurors opt for one charge and the rest opt for the other, it is considered a unanimous verdict for first-degree murder and it therefore makes Arias eligible for the death penalty."


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...fense-new.html

That's a relief. I knew some places didn't require unanimous verdict. I guess majority rules???

[AnnieBelle]

That's just a summary of your feelings, intuition, and the same recycled evidence that she wanted to fly under the radar in Arizona.

Nobody on this forum, not even The Great Juan Martinez, can put THE gun or THE knife in her hands before she gets to Travis's house. Juan has presented no conclusive evidence that the knife & gun were in her hands before she says they were. I think that's a problem for proving first degree murder.

They don't HAVE to. These are not my feelings or intuitions....this is my opinion based on the evidence I have heard and read. This is the same as what I would be bringing in, were I a member of that jury. No one can actually place the weapons in her hands, literally, before the murder. You are right. However, that is not needed to prove murder one. There is no doubt that she killed him. There is no doubt that it was a vicious and rage-filled attack. Combine that with the elaborate attempts to cover her tracks BEFORE "visiting" Travis, the tone of the last text message that was exchanged, the theft of the gun (in what was a piss poor attempt to stage a "break-in", etc. Not looking good for Jodi. The photos also show that Travis was not in any process of "threatening" Jodi's life prior to her killing him. The guy is sitting, passively in his shower, why the butcher gets prepared to carve him. THAT is premeditation. Where you ever got the notion that they have to put the weapon in her hands is beyond me. Countless murderers have been put behind bars and the murder weapon is never found. Heck, sometimes they don't even have a body!

[Placroix]

When is this trial going to end?! It started before my spring semester, which is nearly over now. I feel so badly for everyone who has to out their lives on hold for months on end because of Jodi. Not to mention the families involved, who have been at this for years now.

Make it stop!!!

Could be worse.....

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, Los Angeles County (1987 to 1990). It was also the most expensive trial in US history for the prosecution - $15 million. No one was found guilty, but the lives of the defendants were irreparably damaged, and many children were emotionally harmed.

[AnnieBelle]

That's a relief. I knew some places didn't require unanimous verdict. I guess majority rules???

The jury will have to be unanimous in it's verdict.

[ShellJett]

There are different kinds of evidence that any jury can use. Direct evidence is not required for everything.

Circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict Jodi of premeditated murder. However here we have more than that...we have a combination of both direct and circumstantial. Just because there is not a picture of Jodi holding her grandfather's gun doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And if the circumstantial evidence points to her holding her grandfather's gun, that combined with other evidence can be enough.

I have seen quite a few convictions with ONLY circumstantial evidence. The big difference from those to this trial is that the circus came to town via JA.

[AnnieBelle]

I have seen quite a few convictions with ONLY circumstantial evidence. The big difference from those to this trial is that the circus came to town via JA.

Scott Peterson sits on death row, convicted with far less evidence....most of it, circumstantial.

[lisam2013]

...

[Brillig]

Link her directly to the theft of the gun. Ballistics evidence, the stolen DVD player remote, I don't care how.

Give me a witness who said Jodi asked for help in how to load and fire a gun the week before she killed him. A reciept for 25 auto ammo. A firing range reciept. How about an internet search on weapons, anatomy, murder, or forensics?

Link her directly to getting a knife in advance of the trip. Give me a Wal-mart or Amazon reciept for a tactical/hunting knife in the weeks before the crime. A friend who saw her playing with a knife, or saw a knife in her car.

The word knife or gun in any text message, email, internet search, journal, conversation with a friend.

Gas cans? I don't care... they might mean crime but they don't mean murder. A gas can is not a murder weapon Mr. The Prosecutor! Hair dye is not a murder weapon. Murderers rent cars, and so do travelers! Covering your tracks is shady, but it doesn't mean you planned murder. You might just be a crazy Borderline Personality Disorder witch who does wacky shit that nobody can figure out.

The prosecution doesn't have any of this evidence (not that we have seen yet). They have gas cans and hair dye.

They have a lot more than gas cans and hair dye, you just refuse to acknowledge it. (But I still love you.)

That's just a summary of your feelings, intuition, and the same recycled evidence that she wanted to fly under the radar in Arizona.

Nobody on this forum, not even The Great Juan Martinez, can put THE gun or THE knife in her hands before she gets to Travis's house. Juan has presented no conclusive evidence that the knife & gun were in her hands before she says they were. I think that's a problem for proving first degree murder.

You seem to be confused about the standard required for a conviction. You seem to imagine the standard is beyond any possible doubt. That is not the standard. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the prosecution only has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not have to prove it beyond any possible doubt. There is a big difference.

There are a couple posts where this was illustrated on the first Jodi thread. I am going to repost them here, because people seemed to think they illustrated the concepts well. (Even well enough for other sites to steal them to use as examples...lol).

Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is essentially observed circumstances from which a valid conclusion can be drawn based on those observed circumstances. For example, one winter evening, just before you go to bed at night, you look out the window and see that the streets are clean.

You wake up in the morning, look out the window and see that the ground is covered with a light dusting of snow. From the observed 'circumstance' you can speculate/consider the following.

a) Someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow

b) If you believe in snow fairies, it could have been that they passed by and covered the ground in snow.

c) It snowed during the night.

d) If you had never seen snow before, you can't figure out what happened during the night to cover the ground with all that white stuff.

Of course, the correct answer is (c). The snow on the ground is evidence, (proof) that it snowed during the night and that conclusion, based on your observations, is just as valid as it would be if you sat up during the night looking out the window and watched the snow fall.

The same applies to the "meteor" example the Dr. used. You didn't see the meteor collide with the ground but the evidence, (the crater it created) left behind is valid circumstantial evidence, (proof) that a meteor landed at that spot at some time before you observed the crater.

That's kind of awkwardly written. Hope it makes the point.

Great explanation of circumstantial evidence.

So for those who think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "beyond any possible doubt", that is like saying (in this example):

"I can't say for sure that it snowed during the night, I did not see it, so maybe answer (a) actually happened (someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow)"

Could someone get a truck and fill it with snow? Yes, that is not impossible

Could someone drive the truck to your street and sprinkle that snow around evenly? Yes, that is not impossible

However, absent some strong, logical evidence to support the "truck with snow" theory, most intelligent people would come to the conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt that there is snow on the ground because it snowed during the night. Is this conclusion beyond ANY doubt? No, it is not, because the truck with snow scenario is not absolutely impossible. But the conclusion can be reached beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard required to reach a guilty verdict.



(So in the Arias case, the fact that Jodi made up a story that is not impossible does not mean the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that this murder was premeditated.)

[M Joy]

The closer we get to the end of this trial, the more nervous I'm starting to get about the verdict. Its so frustrating seeing all the evidence (both what the jury has seen and not seen) knowing that the jury could come up with crime of passion if JM doesn't prove premeditation beyond resonable doubt.

[Freaktab]

New to this site and forum, but have been educating myself on the many pages of previous posts. There has been incredible discourse here, and it is refreshing to read the knowledgable opinions of so many people.
Therefore, I am curious about what others think about the punishment Jodi should receive. She absolutely deserves the death penalty for the crime, but life in prison with no parole might make her suffer more and cost the state of Arizona less money.
I think any discussion on the penalty has to consider that this is a death penalty case and giving her any less would be seen as a loss for Arizona.

[lisam2013]

...

[wasthinking]

Wow, I reading through some more of the old court minutes. JA thinks death by lethal injection will result in cruel and unusual punishment.

"Defendant?s Motion to Strike State?s Death Notice Since Death by Lethal Injection will Result in Cruel and Unusual Punishment filed on November 9, 2009"


http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...9/m3971765.pdf

hi lisa, that is a very standard motion made in DP cases and appeals

[lisam2013]

...

[Ian 1]

Who is Lenore Walker? What is next for the prosecution in rebuttal?

Lenore Walker is the grande dame of domestic violence experts. She defined the six characteristics of the 'battered woman' that Wilmott was dumb enough to suggest were outdated. Walker has since been on HLN saying that those six characteristics still apply and she sticks by them.

If Martinez gets her on the stand, it will shove a great big finger up Wilmott's (you know where) where her b.s. comes from.

[*crickets*]

According to this article it says "A jury need not choose unanimously between the two. If some jurors opt for one charge and the rest opt for the other, it is considered a unanimous verdict for first-degree murder and it therefore makes Arias eligible for the death penalty."


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...fense-new.html

You're right, I hadn't realized that. However, I don't see how the option of felony murder makes it any easier to convict her of murder 1.

The article states that burglary is entering a person's home with the intention to commit a felony. That intended felony would be to murder Travis I assume...so a juror who didn't believe premeditation was proven might believe there was proof that she entered TA's home with the intent to murder him? How could her intent on entering his home be proven if premeditation wasn't?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

[Freethinker]

Lenore Walker is the grande dame of domestic violence experts. She defined the six characteristics of the 'battered woman' that Wilmott was dumb enough to suggest were outdated. Walker has since been on HLN saying that those six characteristics still apply and she sticks by them.

If Martinez gets her on the stand, it will shove a great big finger up Wilmott's (you know where) where her b.s. comes from.

Willmott went beyond suggesting, (in my estimation), she told Janeen it was so. Then had the nerve to ask "didn't you know that?"

[Ian 1]

You're right, I hadn't realized that. However, I don't see how the option of felony murder makes it any easier to convict her of murder 1.

The article states that burglary is entering a person's home with the intention to commit a felony. That intended felony would be to murder Travis I assume...so a juror who didn't believe premeditation was proven might believe there was proof that she entered TA's home with the intent to murder him? How could her intent on entering his home be proven if premeditation wasn't?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

I think you've got to link that to immediately after the first stab wound. "Enter" can also mean "being inside." That first stab wound indicated she was 'intent' on committing the felony of murder. It gets very nuanced and I'm just rolling it around in my head over and over. Try it and trust to the Prosecutor or the Judge to define it at the right time--and also hope that the Jurors get it.

I think it will help us understand if we don't think about when she first got there. Narrow the time frame down to the moments surrounding the attack and the murder.

Anybody else have a better way of putting it? Please!

[Brillig]

You're right, I hadn't realized that. However, I don't see how the option of felony murder makes it any easier to convict her of murder 1.

The article states that burglary is entering a person's home with the intention to commit a felony. That intended felony would be to murder Travis I assume...so a juror who didn't believe premeditation was proven might believe there was proof that she entered TA's home with the intent to murder him? How could her intent on entering his home be proven if premeditation wasn't?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

The author of the article got the details wrong. The actual wording of the statute says the person is committing burglary if they enter or remain unlawfully in a residence with the intent to commit any theft or any felony. (This is second degree burglary)

If the person also possesses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in the course of committing any felony, then it becomes first degree burglary.

So, Jodi remained unlawfully after she first shot or stabbed Travis (because permission was revoked at that instant), and since she kept stabbing, she had the intention to commit a felony. So she has at least committed second degree burglary. And since Jodi obviously "possessed" both a gun and a knife during the attack, which happened after permission was revoked, she has committed first degree burglary.

[Brillig]

Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 13 Criminal Code - Section 13-1508 Burglary in the first degree; classification
http://law.onecle.com/arizona/crimin...e/13-1508.html

Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 13 Criminal Code - Section 13-1507 Burglary in the second degree; classification
http://law.onecle.com/arizona/crimin...e/13-1507.html

[coconut]

Lenore Walker is the grande dame of domestic violence experts. She defined the six characteristics of the 'battered woman' that Wilmott was dumb enough to suggest were outdated. Walker has since been on HLN saying that those six characteristics still apply and she sticks by them.

Did somebody say Lenore? http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthrea...=1#post3395946

[poppym]

I think you've got to link that to immediately after the first stab wound. "Enter" can also mean "being inside." That first stab wound indicated she was 'intent' on committing the felony of murder. It gets very nuanced and I'm just rolling it around in my head over and over. Try it and trust to the Prosecutor or the Judge to define it at the right time--and also hope that the Jurors get it.

I think it will help us understand if we don't think about when she first got there. Narrow the time frame down to the moments surrounding the attack and the murder.

Anybody else have a better way of putting it? Please!

Juan explains the reason's for the State's charge of felony murder on day 9 of the trial. There are three reason's listed, and the State feels that the assault is the one that is most suited.

Starts at 46:08

[Brillig]

Did somebody say Lenore? http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthrea...=1#post3395946

I think the raven did...