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

[denn]

More Travis Alexander pics on the autopsy table. They are new to me, and umm..pretty nasty.
http://forum.goregrish.com/threads/t...s.25016/page-5

Yes, I mentioned these earlier and was told the older members had seen them. I understood them to be new photos. I am sure JM withheld them until rebuttal. That would make sense to show how bad it was after he was cleaned up. Very sad.

[M Joy]

More Travis Alexander pics on the autopsy table. They are new to me, and umm..pretty nasty.
http://forum.goregrish.com/threads/t...s.25016/page-5

Yes. These photos have been available tho somewhat limited for awhile. I had someone's photobucket bookmarked that a member here shared with me but it has since been made private.
As Harlette said Mike (MDS) has had them since 2009 I believe.

[Sneakers the Wonder Dog]

actually once jodi asserted her not guilty because of "self defense" then the burden does fall to the defense to prove it was self defense in arizona - the state had to prove she did it and to show premeditation, but now that its self defense all the burden does fall on the defense to prove that - if she had said it was a crime of passion, or even stuck to the ninja story, then all the burden would have been on martinez and might have ended up w/ murder 2 or manslaughter - but because she decided to to go w/ the whole battered woman story and needed to defend her life, then that's why the defense has to prove it now, actually made it easier for martinez

Exactly.

[Jillee]

Originally Posted by Raina
On the protection ritual issue: "Thomas doesn't mention the word "ritual" at all. He said Travis "stayed up for some sort of protection."

I believe the words were "Protection rite"
From WS; "Thomas was Travis' old roommate. He allegedly was talking to someone on FB and posted that he called Travis to tell him that Jodi was outside his house at 4am.. He also said someone was performing a protection rite at that time, but it is unclear if that was Travis or the old roommate." --- So who knows. Not sure what's true or not, but we can all agree that id it happened; it definitely didn't work!

ETA- Thank WT and NCBlonde. "That is not what Thomas said, they got it wrong. NCBonde posted the actual FB snapshots earlier. Try here"
http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthrea...=1#post3401476

[olgasbunghole]

I want to clarify that I do not know the exact year he dated and wanted to marry, Linda. I don't want anyone ticked off at me.

don't worry about anyone getting ticked off at you.................. if they do then they aren't worth their salt (I've always wanted to use that salt reference......hee hee)
I like to watch the trial on www.wildabouttrial.com because the wild guy is in the courtroom and posts silly little things on the right side of the window as the trial is going on.

[ShellJett]

Can't imagine that one really being that captivating. Maybe it's just me, there have been over 600 pieces of individual evidence in this case, how many can they possibly have in that case? 50 or so? Plus, the sex and just graphic nature of this crime is what made it great to investigate together. I learned so much from everyone on this thread. The anal...that was for you coconut! This has truly been an experience and I thank all of you. I'm going to hang on till Monday then hope that all of you are still here when I get back on Saturday night whether the verdict has been read or not.

faq - You can't get rid of us so easily. I think we will all still be around, at least I will. It's going to the Jury next Friday, then there's "Verdict Watch" and hopefully a sentencing hearing for DP. Have a great trip!

[*crickets*]

actually once jodi asserted her not guilty because of "self defense" then the burden does fall to the defense to prove it was self defense in arizona - the state had to prove she did it and to show premeditation, but now that its self defense all the burden does fall on the defense to prove that - if she had said it was a crime of passion, or even stuck to the ninja story, then all the burden would have been on martinez and might have ended up w/ murder 2 or manslaughter - but because she decided to to go w/ the whole battered woman story and needed to defend her life, then thats why the defense has to prove it now, actually made it easier for martinz

Could you direct me to your source for this info? I haven't heard anything about it until today...

[ShellJett]

actually once jodi asserted her not guilty because of "self defense" then the burden does fall to the defense to prove it was self defense in arizona - the state had to prove she did it and to show premeditation, but now that its self defense all the burden does fall on the defense to prove that - if she had said it was a crime of passion, or even stuck to the ninja story, then all the burden would have been on martinez and might have ended up w/ murder 2 or manslaughter - but because she decided to to go w/ the whole battered woman story and needed to defend her life, then thats why the defense has to prove it now, actually made it easier for martinz

I respectfully disagree. In AZ once self defense is used as an affirmative defense, the burden falls on the Prosecution to disprove it. I just re-read a bunch of legal articles/case law to make sure I understood it correctly. Different in other states. I tried (very inartfully) to explain this earlier. JM has to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

[AnnieBelle]

Yes. These photos have been available tho somewhat limited for awhile. I had someone's photobucket bookmarked that a member here shared with me but it has since been made private.
As Harlette said Mike (MDS) has had them since 2009 I believe.

Okay....in the 6th photo from the top, can anyone tell me what that is a photo of, exactly? Try as I might, I can't figure out the perspective. And what are the marks below the large mass of blood? When I first saw this, it looked like bite marks.

[ShellJett]

Okay....in the 6th photo from the top, can anyone tell me what that is a photo of, exactly? Try as I might, I can't figure out the perspective. And what are the marks below the large mass of blood? When I first saw this, it looked like bite marks.

It looks like the same injury as pic 5 from a different angle. Can't tell what the marks are, could just be blood/angle.

[AnnieBelle]

It looks like the same injury as pic 5 from a different angle. Can't tell what the marks are, could just be blood/angle.

I thought so, and compared the two, many times. It still doesn't look the same, to me. Hmmmm.

[Raina]

@dizzyp - Hypervigilance, yes, that's exactly how I interpreted what Thomas said. Though apparently Thomas made it all up, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Sounds like a pretty good self-preservation instinct, though. I feel chilled wondering what Travis went through the night JA arrived - did he have any idea or premonition of what awaited him??

@Jillee - Yes, sadly, if it did happen, it didn't work. Sigh.

What is WS? I've seen that mentioned a few times on this thread and I can't seem to figure it out. TIA. (I did figure that one out, lol!)

[wasthinking]

I respectfully disagree. In AZ once self defense is used as an affirmative defense, the burden falls on the Prosecution to disprove it. I just re-read a bunch of legal articles/case law to make sure I understood it correctly. Different in other states. I tried (very inartfully) to explain this earlier. JM has to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right!

4.04 − Justification for Self-Defense
A defendant is justified in using or threatening physical force in self-defense if the following two conditions existed:
1. A reasonable person in the situation would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another?s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of unlawful physical force; and 2. The defendant used or threatened no more physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the situation.
A defendant may use deadly physical force in self-defense only to protect against another?s use or apparent attempted or threatened use of deadly physical force.
Self-defense justifies the use or threat of physical force or deadly physical force only while the apparent danger continues, and it ends when the apparent danger ends. The force used may not be greater than reasonably necessary to defend against the apparent danger.
The use of physical force is justified if a reasonable person in the situation would have reasonably believed that immediate physical danger appeared to be present. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of physical force in self-defense.
You must decide whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe that: physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another?s [use] [attempted use] [threatened use] [apparent attempted use] [apparent threatened use] of unlawful physical force; or
You must measure the defendant?s belief against what a reasonable person in the situation would have believed.
[The threat or use of physical force is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone;
2. To resist an arrest that the defendant knew or should have known was being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer?s presence and at the peace officer?s direction, whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeded that allowed by law; or
3. If the defendant provoked the other?s use of unlawful physical force, unless:
a. The defendant withdrew from the encounter or clearly communicated to the other person the defendant?s intent to withdraw, reasonably believing that the defendant could not withdraw from the encounter; and
b. The other person nevertheless continued or attempted to use unlawful physical force against the defendant.]
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with such justification. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge. [The user is directed to the Prefatory Use Note regarding the applicability of this paragraph.]
SOURCE: A.R.S. ? 13-404 (statutory language as of October 1, 1978) and ? 13-405 (statutory language as of July 29, 2010) and ? 13-205 (statutory language as of April 24, 2006); State v. Grannis, 183 Ariz. 52, 60-61, 900 P.2d 1, 9-10 (1995); State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404, 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989); State v. Noriega, 142 Ariz. 474, 482, 690 P.2d 775, 783 (1984), overruled on other grounds, State v. Burge, 167 Ariz. 25, 28 n.7, 804 P.2d 754, 757 n.7 (1990) (overruling only on Noriega?s holding that a grand jury?s allegation of dangerousness in an indictment is insufficient to invoke 13-604?s sentence enhancement allegations); State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, 235 P.3d 240, ? 12 (2010) (overruling Grannis, Dumaine, and Noriega to the extent they required that a defendant act in self defense based solely on a fear of imminent harm).

[Jillee]

Ok, I had a good cry and I'm thinking more clearly now.

First, I'd like to dispel the whole "Jodi is a genius' hogwash. Jodi's IQ score was 119. 80% of the population have a normal IQ range between 80 and 120. Most of the people on this forum would score as high or higher than Jodi's 119. Einstein's score was 160.
She's in the normal range.

As for the evidence against her, it's overwhelming. It doesn't get any better than this; unless someone had video of the whole damn thing from beginning to end. People are convicted on MUCH MUCH less evidence.
If the jury doesn't convict her on the evidence alone, I'm not sure what went wrong. It's unfathomable to me that they wouldn't see what's right in front of them. Common sense. That's ALL that's needed. On top of all of it, she's a known liar. She's lied to the jury. They know this. Her testimony/story of what happened is out the window. It's worthless. They just need to look at the evidence now. It's all in the evidence, not in her "story". Remove the lies and she gets convicted on the evidence alone.
Because that's what we're really worried about, right? We're worried that the jury is going to believe her lies, part of her lies, one of her lies... But Juan will bring this home in closing. "She sat on that stand and LIED to you. Over and over again. What part of her story are you going to believe? She hasn't told the truth from the beginning, and she's not going to start now; because if she did, she'd be telling you that she's guilty of premeditated murder."

It really shouldn't be so hard. If it's been proven that she lied to the jury, her whole story is tossed. Without her story, there is no other conclusion.

[M Joy]

I thought so, and compared the two, many times. It still doesn't look the same, to me. Hmmmm.

I've looked at those quite a bit but really can't tell what that pic is showing. There appears to be stubble below that wound but it doesn't look like face or even near genitalia area

[wasthinking]

Originally Posted by Raina
On the protection ritual issue: "Thomas doesn't mention the word "ritual" at all. He said Travis "stayed up for some sort of protection."

I believe the words were "Protection rite"
From WS; "Thomas was Travis' old roommate. He allegedly was talking to someone on FB and posted that he called Travis to tell him that Jodi was outside his house at 4am.. He also said someone was performing a protection rite at that time, but it is unclear if that was Travis or the old roommate." --- So who knows. Not sure what's true or not, but we can all agree that id it happened; it definitely didn't work!

That is not what Thomas said, they got it wrong. NCBonde posted the actual FB snapshots earlier. Try here
http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthrea...=1#post3401476

[wasthinking]

Dr. Geffner founded something called the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute, which joined the San Diego campus of Alliant International University and became known as the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma. Here are a couple of websites that came with reviews. JM is going to have a field day with this quack.

http://www.collegetimes.tv/alliant-i...ity-san-diego/
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=420206

wow

Correct! And isn't Thomas Brown the guy JA tried to steer Det Flores towards when he asked if TA had any enemies? She said he asked him to leave a long time before.

Seems comical (tragically), that while everybody the police spoke to, bar none, was saying, check out Jodi Arias, she's on the phone with Flores saying check out Thomas Brown.

Hey poppym! Yes Thomas was the name she threw at Flores. Looks like TA didn't like him for a reason, he makes shit up.

Originally Posted by Raina
On the protection ritual issue: "Thomas doesn't mention the word "ritual" at all. He said Travis "stayed up for some sort of protection."
__________

Isn't that a form of Hypervigilance?

"Hypervigilance is an enhanced state of sensory sensitivity accompanied by an exaggerated intensity of behaviors whose purpose is to detect threats"

don't close your eyes or you might not wake up....

[ShellJett]

That is not what Thomas said, they got it wrong. NCBonde posted the actual FB snapshots earlier. Try here
http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthrea...=1#post3401476

WT - You ought to make us work a little harder. I am very ashamed of myself right now. You rock!

[wasthinking]

Originally Posted by Raina
On the protection ritual issue: "Thomas doesn't mention the word "ritual" at all. He said Travis "stayed up for some sort of protection."
__________

Isn't that a form of Hypervigilance?

"Hypervigilance is an enhanced state of sensory sensitivity accompanied by an exaggerated intensity of behaviors whose purpose is to detect threats"

don't close your eyes or you might not wake up....

About as hyper as the ninja story JA made up. : ) Thomas might think he is an Einstein too and police don't check phone records. lol

[blighted star]

Anything is possible, but it's not very likely. I think her defense team, in all honesty, doesn't have much to work with. Jodi is Jodi. And she is largely the reason why it's splashed all over the media: she loves the limelight, and has done everything she could to capture it. On appeal, she would have to prove that she was not afforded a fair trial, either because the jury was tainted or because her lawyers did not provide adequate counsel to her. There is a definite risk, because there is little doubt this jury should have been sequestered (and they were not) but will that be enough to overturn? As far as her defense team goes, they are buffoons, but that isn't against the law. Jodi is very much a working part of her defense team. The judge has gone to extreme measures to make sure that every right afforded to her has been extended. There will be appeals, for sure. But I doubt they will be granted.

Thanx to all who replied!! Now I've got a few more questions.. if they've taken a particular position/line of questioning, only because the client has INSISTED, am I right to assume she has no grounds for appeal if her attorney's have documented advising her that it would be incredibly detrimental to her case? Do attorneys who have been ordered to take a case have the ability to refuse to follow a clients instructions on morality/stupidity grounds? Or would that refusal itself be potential grounds for appeal?



I haven't checked what's happening at the thread's busy end & I'm hopeless at remembering what the time difference is. If you guys are in the middle of a discussion on unfolding testimony, or anything else that's sparked an ongoing conversation, just ignore my questions for slow thread times. I neither expect nor want you to have to stop a current discussion to answer questions I'm asking from 10 + pgs back. Thanx again alll!!

[Raina]

Jillee, ((((((((hugs))))))) for your tears. I think that Travis and his family are somehow, some way affected by all the compassion that is felt for them.

[wasthinking]

WT - You ought to make us work a little harder. I am very ashamed of myself right now. You rock!

lol, Well, I didn't collect all the live feed links requested ... yet. I got lost in reading Sneakers links.

[Bellaboo]

@dizzyp - Hypervigilance, yes, that's exactly how I interpreted what Thomas said. Though apparently Thomas made it all up, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Sounds like a pretty good self-preservation instinct, though. I feel chilled wondering what Travis went through the night JA arrived - did he have any idea or premonition of what awaited him??

@Jillee - Yes, sadly, if it did happen, it didn't work. Sigh.

What is WS? I've seen that mentioned a few times on this thread and I can't seem to figure it out. TIA. (I did figure that one out, lol!)

Rains ...ws is websleuths another site regarding trials etc

[Rockabillychick]

Ok, I had a good cry and I'm thinking more clearly now.

First, I'd like to dispel the whole "Jodi is a genius' hogwash. Jodi's IQ score was 119. 80% of the population have a normal IQ range between 80 and 120. Most of the people on this forum would score as high or higher than Jodi's 119. Einstein's score was 160.
She's in the normal range.

As for the evidence against her, it's overwhelming. It doesn't get any better than this; unless someone had video of the whole damn thing from beginning to end. People are convicted on MUCH MUCH less evidence.
If the jury doesn't convict her on the evidence alone, I'm not sure what went wrong. It's unfathomable to me that they wouldn't see what's right in front of them. Common sense. That's ALL that's needed. On top of all of it, she's a known liar. She's lied to the jury. They know this. Her testimony/story of what happened is out the window. It's worthless. They just need to look at the evidence now. It's all in the evidence, not in her "story". Remove the lies and she gets convicted on the evidence alone.
Because that's what we're really worried about, right? We're worried that the jury is going to believe her lies, part of her lies, one of her lies... But Juan will bring this home in closing. "She sat on that stand and LIED to you. Over and over again. What part of her story are you going to believe? She hasn't told the truth from the beginning, and she's not going to start now; because if she did, she'd be telling you that she's guilty of premeditated murder."

It really shouldn't be so hard. If it's been proven that she lied to the jury, her whole story is tossed. Without her story, there is no other conclusion.

^ All of this plus I don't see how anyone can look at those autopsy photo's and think that this was self defense.

[Raina]

@Belloboo - websleuths, thanks!!