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

[ShellJett]

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

I'm saving those two gems for morning coffee reading.

[AnnieBelle]

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

That is exactly what is throwing me off, too. The stubble. It is possible that he waxed or shaved his chest, but I have compared the wound to the one in the other photo and they don't seem to be the same. Glad I am not the only one who finds that one confusing!

[ShellJett]

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

Sneakers already sent me link to live feeds. I wanted to give them to denn, but I can't PM him. It's full.

[ShellJett]

That is exactly what is throwing me off, too. The stubble. It is possible that he waxed or shaved his chest, but I have compared the wound to the one in the other photo and they don't seem to be the same. Glad I am not the only one who finds that one confusing!

I think it is his chest or abdomen. I remember reading that he shaved/removed his body hair, hence the stubble.

[BLue]

Well Im prepared to hear 2nd degree, I dont know a lot about your justice system and how to prove 1st degree. Even if I would like her to get the DP I just dont want to be dissapointed in case the Jury comes out with the 2nd.

Im ok with her spending the rest of her miserable life behind bars.

[AnnieBelle]

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!!

I don't think she would have grounds for appeal if she chose to go against the lawyers advice and her defense angle did not pan out. She would have to prove that their negligence somehow violated her rights. Stupidity on the part of the defendant won't work for her, in this case!

[AnnieBelle]

Well Im prepared to hear 2nd degree, I dont know a lot about your justice system and how to prove 1st degree. Even if I would like her to get the DP I just dont want to be dissapointed in case the Jury comes out with the 2nd.

Im ok with her spending the rest of her miserable life behind bars.

I agree. If that is what the jury decides, I will accept it. I am happy to believe that life, as she once knew it, is over. One way or the other.

[wasthinking]

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.

Just the other day I was thinking ... throw out any word out of Killer's mouth and what does that leave. A damning conviction. Self defense is not killing someone 3X over or stabbing them in the back. The only thing that could prevent a guilty imo would be if you get a deliberate refusal like the 12 asses in the Anthony case. But that is one in a million. It's very rare to get 12 corrupt people in one spot to walk out without doing their duty.

[Freaktab]

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!!

Unfortunately, there are always grounds for an appeal. Are they reasonable and valid? Well, that is up to the judges.

AnnieBell brought up an excellent point about the jury.... This trial is worldwide news and the jury really should have been sequestered. The appeal will argue that she didn't get a fair trial because of all the publicity. However, a lot of the pre-trial publicity was generated by Stabby herself (interviews, television coverage, etc). They could also argue that she was not able to get a fair trial in Arizona because of publicity.

IMHO, I think the biggest grounds for appeal will be ineffective council. The defense has offered up no other professionals (other than Dr. Fog and ALV) for evidence of Stabby's story. Defense did not get another medical examiner to look at the scene, nor did they employ any other experts to lend an ounce of credibility to the story. I was surprised the defense didn't offer up a computer simulation of Jodi's scenario just to lend some credence. Visuals are very effective in a murder trial and the defense did nothing.

It could very well be that they simply couldn't get anyone to buy into her outrageous story, but there is always someone out there willing to take money.

This is a terrible and brutal crime and the state has done a good job, but they have to get M1 to claim a true win and JM knows it. I think a lot depends on the make-up of the final jury and if they like her or not. Do they feel sympathy for the poor, crying waif or do they see her as a murderous monster?

Just my opinion....

[dizzyp]

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

but was Travis up @ 4:30 am? Jun 4 per his computer history? I thought there was verifiable evidence that he had been up all night or, if not, got up very early...

[Sweet Pea]

Fuckery is all the defense has.


@stark3923 46m

Juror #8 i am told was excused for work reasons/conflict dates - he was told case would end April 11 not May 15

My company will only pay for four months of jury duty. You can stay longer but it is on your own dime.

[wasthinking]

Unfortunately, there are always grounds for an appeal. Are they reasonable and valid? Well, that is up to the judges.

AnnieBell brought up an excellent point about the jury.... This trial is worldwide news and the jury really should have been sequestered. The appeal will argue that she didn't get a fair trial because of all the publicity. However, a lot of the pre-trial publicity was generated by Stabby herself (interviews, television coverage, etc). They could also argue that she was not able to get a fair trial in Arizona because of publicity.

IMHO, I think the biggest grounds for appeal will be ineffective council. The defense has offered up no other professionals (other than Dr. Fog and ALV) for evidence of Stabby's story. Defense did not get another medical examiner to look at the scene, nor did they employ any other experts to lend an ounce of credibility to the story. I was surprised the defense didn't offer up a computer simulation of Jodi's scenario just to lend some credence. Visuals are very effective in a murder trial and the defense did nothing.

It could very well be that they simply couldn't get anyone to buy into her outrageous story, but there is always someone out there willing to take money.

This is a terrible and brutal crime and the state has done a good job, but they have to get M1 to claim a true win and JM knows it. I think a lot depends on the make-up of the final jury and if they like her or not. Do they feel sympathy for the poor, crying waif or do they see her as a murderous monster?

Just my opinion....

lol, they can argue the verdict came in on a full moon, that doesn't mean it will get an appeal won.

Read a few appeals, publicity isn't cause for a new trial.
Ineffective counsel is always a standard claim on appeals, rarely works and won't work in this case. The record proves they zealousy def her.
Effective counsel does not mean they have to get an expert for every point. The record shows, they had experts, it will also show the jury didn't find them believable and that is what appeals courts look at also.
Most appeals that claim and Justices find judicial errors, error in discretion of the judge are what find any way back to a new trial.

Wendi claimed all kinds of nonsense, she still on death row.

[*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

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).

This very long document is the 2011 AZ State Bar Association criminal jury instruction, Ch. 4.04. As the bolded part says, if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification, the jury must find the defendant not guilty of the charge. In other words, the burden of proof is on Martinez.

[Bellaboo]

I agree. If that is what the jury decides, I will accept it. I am happy to believe that life, as she once knew it, is over. One way or the other.

Are you saying you would want second degree?? She would out in 15 years!! It has
to be murder one for her to get life w/o parole or DP

[olgasbunghole]

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.

If we take your thoughts(sometimes we get the best ones after a good cry) and apply them to the AZ laws that "wasthinking" posted about 1 page ago then it really is a no brainer that stabby get's Murder 1, it even allows for a few of the jurors to have a little bit lower than normal IQ............ and still see M1 very clearly! I'm gonna have to throw caution to the wind and go with my "feel pretty confident about M1" belief and also add in that the jury will reach their verdict in 8 hours or less!

[BLue]

Question: when the jury starts the deliberations, can they do some research or the only thing they can check is the evidence they showed in trial?

We dont have trials, thats why I dont know how does that work lol

[Sweet Pea]

As if we needed anymore evidence of the Creature's creepiness check her out starting at about 26:30.

In our part of the country we call this look the dunlaps. My husband can tell his friends he still wears the same waist size he had in college.

[DiaDeLosMuertos]

I don't want to wait until Wednesday.

[Bellaboo]

Question: when the jury starts the deliberations, can they do some research or the only thing they can check is the evidence they showed in trial?

We dont have trials, thats why I dont know how does that work lol

They cannot do their own independent research. Their decision is based on evidence and testimony presented during the trial. I am not an attorney .... just speaking as a juror

[olgasbunghole]

Question: when the jury starts the deliberations, can they do some research or the only thing they can check is the evidence they showed in trial?

We dont have trials, thats why I dont know how does that work lol

the jury is not allowed to do any research on their own, that's a big no no.............. only evidence presented to them in trial.

[Freaktab]

WT: I have read many appeals and I happen to agree with you. Very few appeals actually lead to another trial or anything overturned. Stabby will file them anyway because she will never come to terms with her own responsibility.

Do you think there are any grounds? Just curious as I do respect your opinion.

[AnnieBelle]

Are you saying you would want second degree?? She would out in 15 years!! It has
to be murder one for her to get life w/o parole or DP

I am not saying that, at all. What I AM saying is that it is a very real possibility that they could come back with less than 1st degree....and there won't be a danged thing we can do about it. I am a realist, who likes to be prepared for something to happen beyond the scope of what I can control. I am hoping for murder 1 and the DP, personally. But I also know that what I want doesn't change the fact that it will be up to the 12 jurors who will ultimately decide her fate.

[wasthinking]

but was Travis up @ 4:30 am? Jun 4 per his computer history? I thought there was verifiable evidence that he had been up all night or, if not, got up very early...

Yes but that only tells us 'someone' was on the computer.
No, there is no 'verifiable' evidence he was up all night that night.
Thomas' lie though said JA called from outside TA door. That never happened. Thomas wasn't even a room mate at that time and had been long gone by June 4
JA said she arrived at 3 am then changed to 4 am. We know from phone records she didn't call him from outside the door or anywhere else at 4 am.
Last call of Jodi to TA was June 3 8:34 pm lasted 49 seconds

[UncomfortablyNumb]

I'm not sure of how long. Can only speculate. But it will include JM talking about aggravating factors, heinousness, etc. I believe there will be testimony or words from Travis' family/friends and probably Jodi's family/friends, as well as something from Jodi herself (pleading for her life, basically).
I am guessing it could take a week or two if not more.

As much as I try to keep my emotions in check about this case, the family talking about how much she has ruined so many lives is going to get to me. A lot.

I had a feeling you'd have a problem with my post. I'm just coming from the point of view of who each attorney represents in this perspective. JM represents Travis Alexander, his family and the State of Arizona. Nurmi and Willmott represent a lying, manipulating, self admitted killer. Yes of course I'm biased in who I'm pulling for.
But when I think overall who has proven their case? Definitely the prosecution. There is no doubt in my mind that Jodi planned this out, got in her car, took steps to hide her tracks, drove to Travis' house, murdered him, and then proceeded to try and cover it up, lie, make up crap about the victim in order to save her own life.
All the defense has proven to me is that she is more vicious that I originally thought when this trial started.

Agreed. I have no problem admitting that I am biased and one sided regarding her. I understand that her attys are just doing their job and all that jazz, but sorry, she is guilty as fuck, and JM has done a way better job than the DT. Fuck them, and fuck her.

Telephone records prove JA did not call Travis from outside the door on June4, and Thomas wasn't living at TA's on June 4.

Thank you wt, I was wondering about that!

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

Seriously. Overkill to the extreme and anyone who looks at that and tries to say she was justified can go fuck themselves. If your life is in danger, you do enough to stop the threat and then get out of there, and it's very obvious that is NOT what she did.

I really hope that some of you stick around when this is all over. Some of you are really good posters and would be a nice addition to the whole site. I hope so hard that there is justice for Travis and his family.

[BLue]

They cannot do their own independent research. Their decision is based on evidence and testimony presented during the trial. I am not an attorney .... just speaking as a juror

the jury is not allowed to do any research on their own, that's a big no no.............. only evidence presented to them in trial.

Thank you, can I ask why is that? I mean, It doesnt leave important information out there about how bananas the defendant is???