Vlad,

I apologize for an earlier post about "pitchforks" etc claiming they were author etc. It was a stupid comment. :( I erroneously thought (before reading) that someone was claiming they were writing for the Pitchforks media brand as in the independent music rag Pitchforks.com. (I have seen writers there post about current events.) Anyway I did not believe THAT mag would have posted an article like that. It did not sound like their editors whom I read regularly nor did it sound like something they would even care to take a position on. So my apologies for that to you and the poster of that post.

Even if the question of the gun is not answered, there is an abundance of evidence to reasonably conclude that Ms Arias is actively lying to confuse the truth. If I was on the jury, the circumstantial evidence would cause me to conclude that the defendant stole the gun from her grandparents in order to kill Mr Alexander. Whether he was shot first or shot last makes little difference in terms of deciding that the defendant was not acting in self-defense. I would conclude this based upon the fact that she left the scene unscathed and that Mr Alexander suffered defensive wounds. If the victim was angry and motivated to harm her, it is unreasonable to conclude that she could have escaped without injury. Something caused Ms Arias to have the advantage and this could be explained by surprise or weaponry--but it cannot be explained by luck.

Mr. Gagic your an highly educated man. I cannot believe you do not see pre-meditation.
Travis is dead Jodi is alive that is proof enough. There is no evidence other than from Jodi that Travis attacked Jodi. 29 stabbs each by itself is premeditation. I had 1 1/2 of law school I know a little to know premeditation when I see it. As I stated previously Jodi never mentioned anything to the Police about Travis attacking her and that it was self-defense. A reasonable person would find that a subsequent 3rd scenario as described by the defendant to be flawed.

Respectfully

I Thank you

Why are you saying that Jodi Arias' guilt on premeditated murder of Travis alexander has to be proven way above a reasonable doubt.. All the evidence points to premeditation..

Both common sense and the evidence shows that Jodi shot Travis first--not midway or last. I was surprised to read just now on this forum that the prosecution changed thier story to shot last only days before the trial. They knew he was shot first but she lied about the circumstances. The medical examiner is often misquoted as saying no skull blood so shot last. In fact he said that blood in the cranium could not be determined because of decomposition but there likely was some" he also stated that the shot would not for sure be instantly dibilitating like flipping a switch. He even went as far as to say that even with the throat slash--he would not have died instantly and even could have run a few feet let alone with the shot through his face and nasal cavities resulting the sink blood. The prosecution took a dangerous chance "jodi says shot first which we know is right but that she lied about the circumstances which would be hard to prove to the jury--instead we will change to shot last so that we go against what Jodi said-even though we know she mixes half truths with lies" when they did that they opened a "can of wounds". they now have before the jury a story which makes no sense and doesent jive with the evidence or accidental photos since the camera was around her neck on the strap". she may be convicted because exact details of the every single wound that medically speaking were simultaneous is not super critical. Better would have been for the prosecution to take the high road--say what they know is right then make the evidence prove it. all of learned in first grade "oh what a tangled web we weave'. Now the prosection has the the dilemma you mentioned.

Now in the 11th hour HLN has put on Beasely a second time saying what was known to virtually everyone from the start. HLN also got caught up by taking the wrong path. They now have to backtrack from reporting things that were not said in the testimony and evidence as Beasely pointed out--they have not even read page 4 of the autopsy report.

Jeff Cuneo,

I recognize your post here from the jainnocent site where u also post same ideas and you are STILL mis-characterizing what the ME said. Repeating a lie over and over like Ms Arias does not suddenly make a lie a truth. What we know- is the shot was last. The ME never changed his story. And certainly COMMON SENSE does not tell the story you're telling. If it did, you'd have far more company on that website. The state never changed their theory. A detective, NOT a medical expert, spoke out of turn and the defense built its case against THAT sequence and so are now mad. Forensics and medical evidence do not lie Jeff. But defendants do, especially when they are pathological liars like this one.

And who the he++ is "Beasely"?

This case is troubling on many levels. When Miss Arias gave those interviews with detectives, 48 hours etc. was she under legal counsel? Did PPL or anyone advise her or tell her what to say. The problem with her case, is that this is not a first degree murder case. if she planned on killing him as the prosecutor has stated, why not shoot him in his sleep, when he is not prepared, or no physical threat to her. why would anyone hang around the house, knowing that he has roommates that can walk in anytime. The killing itself looks like a ritualistic killing certainly doesn't look like she is defending herself. The Gun shot came first and then she stabbed him. But why the overkill?? Since Jodie & Travis belonged to what many consider a CULT perhaps in some deranged way she slit his throat in order for to spill his blood and save his soul. This was a Mormon Teaching By Joseph Smith and Young,
The Mormon aspect of this cannot be left out, since she behaves as if she was under Cult Control and Travis Alexander was her Guru. Jodi Arias had no history of violence she obviously came from a troubled back round and no one is privy to what happens in Families. One has to wonder why the media blitz against her is so over the top. Everyday HLN features Mormon friends of Travis berating her trashing her and telling the most unbelievable stories, except for the guy Gus, there seems to be no one who has been given a voice in her defense, Everyone is aware that The Mormon Church is very concerned about image, I ask what are they hiding, They wield an enormous amount of power in Mesa Arizona Their Companies are Pyramid schemes and the stories about sexual deviance permeate this very disturbed Religion. Why has the defense not called certain people to testify. If one would look at Travis Alexanders My Space Page there is a strange message from a friend of his.
My Space Travis Alexander
Twas two nights before Christmas, and all through the greater Phoenix area, Travis was cruising for underage boys to make his Christmas more cozy. Have fun, just don't violate the terms of your probation!
Chad Perkins
This was posted 6 years ago.

Although J.Arias' case seems hampered by a mental health expert someone apparently found on the back of a matchbook, the prosecution would have to be a lot more focused to prove criminal intent than it has been to win their case. If Jodi is lucky it may beis not because J. Martinez seems incapable of weaving his evidence into a believable narrative that makes consistent sense. His pugnacious bullying style doesn't help either. It only makes the point, when addressing Jodi, that men like to berate and belittle this woman. I feel she is being unnecessarily browbeaten by him when on the stand and my instinctive reaction is to come to her defense in spite of myself. The lynch mob glee of the media and the prosecution, confident of her culpability, undermines what is supposed to be a sober, deliberative, and careful search for the truth. This does not mean I believe in her innocence, just that nothing so far proves her guilty of premeditation. Speculation, theories, and opinions are not evidence.

As a student of psychology ? What does that mean?
Yes, the defense has used all the trappings to ensnare. You have
fallen for it. Will any one claiming they know jodi was an "abuse victim",
answer the question about whether this was Travis defending himself for jodis slaughter and the circumstances were the same ,would u all be defending Travis too? or is it just because she's a woman ?

Cate:

''As a student of psychology ?'' ''What does that mean ?''

It means just that, Cate!

Pliviero,

I think the Defense are reluctant to put his Mormon friends on the stand again, because, without any evidence, they will support Travis and so nothing will be gained. Gus Searcy is the only one who could help her, but he's pleaded the 5th and can't be put back on the stand. In his interview he said there are people who know something but they won't get involved. I find it more than disgusting to let this nasty CULT get put first over Jodi's life.. but Jodi is probably worried about her family.

If they Were to tell the truth they would be living in fear of other Mormons. Yes I agree, they are disturbed, they're a cult and I agree with all you have said.

I just wonder and worry about how many Mormons are in the Jury..

I find Hinshelwood's comment, ''It is of no concern to me'', to be very apt for the Jodi haters, it sadly says it ALL..

Cate:

I didn't mean the people from the jodiariasisinnocent site. Like I have said, I think you should re-read some of your own posts, things like the expert witness is a ''quack'', and how you *know* that ''people make claims inconsistent with their purported level of expertise..'',, when you Don't know, do you. You like to say this because you don't happen to agree with their views, and its demeaning to people.

Its really not a nice trait, Cate.

Heather S.,

The reason I feel 100% confident calling out the folks coming from that innocence site, purporting to be something or someone Theyre not is because their very own post calls them out for not being what they say they are. An educated well read person who knows something of the subject matter and is used to reading medical research, studies on domestic violence and the victimology of abuse need only read these posters posts to KNOW their OPINIONS are NOT based on research but on feelings. Either projections of their own experience or hate. Medical research and DV papers don't couch the information with feelings. So, its not that I think I am smarter than anyone, I just know BS when I see it. Sorry this pissed you off. Read the recently posted piece in a psychological forum titled " Just How Expert IS Expert Witness Richard Samuels". In it the author articulates from a professional perspective exactly what I know from a layman's perspective.
If u can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen Heather.

Oh, btw, recently listened to the audio tapes of Casey Anthony's bankruptcy hearing. I know same dude running the Arias innocence site ran the Casey innocent site too. He perpetuates a lot of bad misinformation over there. Remember how he told you all Casey was receiving lots of money and gifts from supporters? Come to find out she has received a total value of $1000. From supporters, from the (per SJ) "thousands of supporters" she has in an over 2 year period. Really, THAT reflects a LOT of support..? seems to me y'all need to wake up and realize when you're being taken for a ride.

carol.

ALL cases have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is Not on.

verena, Martinez' violations:

*** Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);

*** Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;

*** Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant

*** Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses.

The only one he hasn't violated so far is making improper closing arguments.. but we haven't got there yet..

Jeff Cuneo.

Oh, you mean kill her as an example (not because we're sure she did it intentionally) How nice. How's about you thinking of yourself in the terrible situation of having to kill someone where its either your life or theirs?

I suppose you'd be gallant about it and just lay down your life because, well, the court would only give you the DP anyway, so you might as well die now and be done with it--let your attacker get the DP instead; you know that life is cheap in Arizona, so what the heck, give them the revenge they want, its only your life, and after all, the system isn't perfect, so you die, so what?.

And well, if the truth did come out later and it was eventually proven that your attacker just attacked you and you were placed in the position of having to defend yourself, so what, that's life, the system isn't perfect.

Anyway, since all the prisoners that have ever been convicted and on death row, are guilty, you'd be pleased to die, wouldn't you, or lose your life for 15 years till new evidence comes to light.

So, lets kill Jodi (the gun LIKELY jammed so we now have a reason), and then we'll be right, won't we, and happy that we got our revenge, I mean, she's just a woman.. we have plenty more.

After all, there'll be a countdown in 15 years.. so after that we can give her life without parole.. so much better, isn't it, I mean, so what if a person is pacing up and down in a 6x10 cell on death row, well its just so much better they lose their life slowly counting every minute as it goes by, I mean, what's 15 years of your or anyone's life, because as you say, new evidence could come out. The safety buffer is in place, after all, so encarcerating someone for 15 years, well, its not such a bad thing really, I mean, its only 15 years of their life, its hardly anything really.

We'll kill her out of revenge because we're like that in AZ.. we don't need to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that she did it, no, we'll just say its premeditated and then all will be fine, I mean, it won't deter others, but it'll make the family of the 'victim happy, so that's okay.

Jeff. I suppose if you knew your mother, sister or wife were innocent of premeditated murder, you'd go along with all of the above and just let the State kill a member of your family, say, you mother. You'd think Justice had been served, wouldn't you? Of course you would, that goes without saying, doesn't it. After all, they'd die so that others wouldn't murder anyone else, so that would be fine. The important thing is that YOU would know they were guilty even though you knew they were innocent deep down, but what the heck, loved ones come cheap, you can always find a replacement--plenty of people out there.

To whomever it is that thinks, well, give her life without parole and if after years of being in jail, new evidence comes to light, well that's fine.

No, it ISN'T fine. Its thinking of Jodi as a commodity, not a human being, a person. Such people who think its fine to do this are not putting themselves in her shoes.

Can you imagine getting a jail sentence of say, 15 years, or on death row? Can you imagine what that would be like to have to endure--knowing that you killed in Self Defense?

Are you one of these people who think there is never any underhandedness in courts, that the State is always right, that there can never be any prosecutorial violation?

If you're one of these people who think that the US never gives people the death sentence unless they're guilty, see your shrink.

I wanted to clarify my post from last night in relation to our systems such as police and military and the concept of war as it relates to the fact that we all live with the risk of death every day by collateral damage. And that risk is FAR higher then a possible conviction up to and including the death penalty. We drive cars with 50,000 per year dying on the highways. Yet cars are not outlawed--we merely do the best we can to make driving safer. In police operations MANY die each year--some innocents even being caught in the crossfire. The number of people killed by terrorists lets say is 150 in the past 5 years in this country yet we go to war and as a very specific example we will drone a terrorist and in most cases innocents are also killed in collateral damage in each blast. We suba dive--mountain climb,ride motorcycles and do other high risk things that are not outlawed or there would be a huge public outcry. Wars are often fought not because of the risk that another country is going to come over here and kill us all but we fight them to protect way of life and even for economic reasons "no war for oil" is another one. If we all converted to Muslim and lay down like sheep--I doubt seriously that the muslims would then take boats over--and kill us all on sight. So our systems are not based--and never have been based on 100% perfection or"nobody must die". There is nor will there be a Utopia.

Many of the above examples show that death is not only sanctioned but gave rise to our country as it is--people were killed--some even innocent.

Now lets go back to Jodi Arias keeping in mind as stated above that thousands die each year from all kinds of cases or causes.

Here we have ONE SINGLE PERSON--who admits what she did--and premeditation is quite obvious. We have one person at most trying to avoid a long sentence possibly even the death penalty. So we have our perpetrator tied up in a bow and on trial who has done something so hienous--which she openly admits yet we have people wringing thier hands "what if were wrong? the premeditation is clear but theres always a millionth of a percentage of chance she took the gun to protect herself during the long trip--theres always a chance she filled gas cans to save money--theres always a chance she cleaned up and escaped and lied for years because she had amnesia or wanted to protect travis name. We have the one single perpetrator who did not require ferreting out like a terrorist--many hundreds possibly being killed in the process. Yet now we have a well meaning jury system that works poorly and is the laughing stock of other countries. They laughed at us during the Bill Clinton debacle as we aired our dirty laundry and impeached the president where in most countries something like that would be handled more dignified. So we ARE self flaggelating. We ARE penny wise and pound foolish--some of systems such as the justice system are constipated to the point of disbelief. We dont want to be one of countries often quoted "steal a tootsie roll--and they chop off the hand!! and sure enough they have no candy stolen in that country"

but look at what weve become--not only the PREPOSTEROUS all 12 must be unanimous but to add insult to injury "what if there is a shadow of a doubt about premeditation?" then the person must go free in a few years????? the pendulum has swung MUCH TOO FAR in the wrong direction. A rare heavy sentence or possibly even a bad verdict--thats the risk of collateral damage that we all must expect and live with in any system. So i still disagree with Mr Gagic "what if there is a chance--any possible chance--that it wasnt that premeditated--then she must go free" what appears to be a pacifist stand many would consider it the opposite--that with a weak verdict our system and country will decay even further with more Travises killed in the future especially as I said with TV Youtube--cameras in the courtrooms and interrogatins rooms we are creating a medussa head monster of many thousands possibly millions worldwide who are sitting in their living rooms and becoming experts at detective and forensic work and how to get away with murder. Jodi deserves premediated murder 1--with the death penalty--not only to punish her but also for the relatives of the victim who seek justice and closure let alone the rest of the country feeling impetent as we see our systems falling apart--no place to go--no place to change the system with even basic changes such as to the constitution take 50 or 100 years at a time and then are outdated when they come into effect let alone laws and concepts we live with now based upon thoughts that were great 300 years ago but outdated in todays world. Release those locked up for small crimes and put that time an energy into maximum sentences for the Jodi Arias types that need to made a well deserved example of.

Jeff

So, you say so what, if we kill one woman who maybe innocent--what about if she was put to death and then afterwards you find out you were wrong, you wouldn't care at all would you, I mean, millions die every day, don't they, so what's one woman's death, an innocent woman's death to you--nothing.

It is the prosecutor who has to PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that she premeditated it.. he can't and she didn't. So, sorry you won't get your wish.

You sound like a misogynist to me.

Cate

Doesn't say much, does it, that your justice system is only marginally better than Sharia Law.

My Dearest Heather. We are in different stages of our lives and I cannot make you older--it comes with time, but you made an effort at some good posts so I will address some of them more on the personal level such as your writing style clearly colored by feelings for "a lynch mob" out for revenge blood dripping from thier lips for the death of a "beautiful woman" as you put it. So i will put some personal opinions although this is not the forum for it. I begrudge you nothing and its clear to me -------though i could be wrong--that you have someone in prison. SOME people in prison plead they are innocent--in fact the MAJORITY admit what they did and do not do long term time in the cells you mention..

I will insert this paragraph now to address your comments "what if it was me?? what if it was my grandmaw on death row??" If it was me or my grandmaw on death row we likely deserved to be there but ill take it to another level. The cops come and take me down and accuse me of a murder in which i know im innocent--i then enter our justice system and try to prove my innocence. I am found guilty and lets lets say im sentenced to death. We all have to die sometime and im six year beyond my life expectancy anyway for medical reasons. I would do some time and establish a good relationship with people as i try to prove my case and go through the appeals. At no time would i be running around like a maniac that get me out of here! Im innocent but i want you to release me in spite of the trial. Same with granny--same with my sister, mother who are all dead anyway. They are not gerbils--they know they are part of a system that convicted them. Life is short and we all have to die anyway. Yet your stance is that many others will die because you see Jodi singing holy night and is pretty.--THATS WHY YOUR NOT IN CONTROL OF THE SYSTEM..

I also disagree with many of Martys antics--but sometimes you need seal team 6 in a world where tough decisions must be made and nothing is perfect and neither is Marty. Look at that medical examiner making so many statements its an embarrassment to all. Hes also young and will learn not to make his same mistakes again in his testimony.

This case as our systems---------- is business--pure and simple. Martys not perfect but i have made SEVERAL posts about his antics which i considered shocking but not for the reason you think.You write from the standpoint of his antics should mean she should walk free--I write from the perspective that his antics are risking she wont go to THE CHAIR

I was shocked that he is walking right into a mistrial which by the way was motioned for WEEKS ago. Ive been on three juries and I was stunned to see him walk over to the defence podium and carry on like he did leaving him wide open for misconduct and mistrial. Now i will mix in personal opinions that mean NOTHING in a worldwide trial. HES GOT BALLS--give me that any day.. Business is another thing and cannot be mixed with personal feelings.

Had this case not become so public proper procedure is that in a crime of passion they do some time and are quietly released if they keep their mouth shut. The cases are too many to list. The subway gunman--the ministers wife case and another you likely have not heard of. A karate instructor abused the guys son and arrived by plane walking into the terminal to also have his trial--with likely aquittal. He walked handcuffed--grinning and cocky............. I have a surprise for you--the father stood at a phone booth--turned around and blasted him and i wish i could make a donation to him. Thats called vigilante justice and you know why it happened?--BECAUSE of our botched system.

He was quietly released after a few months as was the ministers wife. Our system is not 100% flawed--we have our ways of dealing with the bad guys and being lenient with the "not so bad guys". BUT YOU HAVE TO PLAY BALL.... The subway gunman ended up back in jail for a while because he started giving interviews on the news about who he preffered for the New York election.He blabbered while mowing his lawn--and was arrested the next day.

Its a tough world out there Heather--life is short--continue studying and taking in information and youll do fine. your writings are good and advanced for your age which i put at possibly 19..

For Ms. Ellington assuming no relation to the duke--Your comments i give much more consideration that others thats why i havent responded yet.

THE TRUTH

When you watch the media coverage of Jodi Arias, you hear a lot of focus on her lies/stories, but not a lot of focus on the evidence. There are some very important considerations getting lost in the noise on TV.

The most important being that everyone lies. A lot of people lie to the police and their motivation isn’t just guilt. People lie to police over the stupidest things, including traffic violations. Their motivations can be anything from minimizing their involvement to hiding a completely unrelated embarrassment. People cover up for someone they love, people are afraid of the police or authority, and scared of being wrongfully convicted. Even mental illness can affect truthfulness. The list goes on and on. It is an indisputable fact that 99% of all people lie about one thing or another in their lifetime. Politicians lie, prosecutors lie, business people lie, companies lie, salesman lie, forensic experts lie, husbands and wives lie, boyfriends and girlfriends lie, children lie, teens lie, the media lies, etc. etc.

Even the police lie! As a matter of fact, police are legally allowed to lie during interrogations. However, some police also lie illegally under oath.

Because lying is so common, it should not be used as the sole piece of evidence to put someone in prison (unless of course they are charged with lying).

Shockingly enough if you watched the HLN: After Dark episode (Bold Accusation: Travis Attacked Jodi) with Jose Baez, Vinnie Politan, Charles Mittelstadt, Mike Brooks, Ryan Smith, and Holly Hughes, you may have actually learned something! (Yes, I ashamedly watched this episode, but only to see how Jose Baez would have argued the case.)

Regardless of what you think of any of the featured people or the channel, this program made valid points.

ANALYZING THE EVIDENCE WITH THE DEFENSE THEORY

According to Jodi Arias’ testimony, after she dropped Travis Alexander’s new camera worth thousands of dollars, he attacked her body slamming her onto the tile floor near the tub area adjacent to the shower (marked with a rectangle in the above diagram). She was able to roll away and run down the hallway (black arrows).

She veered right into the closet (follow the black arrows in the above diagram). The green arrows represent how she would have ran if she ran out of the bedroom and down the stairs, which is around a corner and through double doors that open inward (towards you).

Jodi ran through the closet and grabbed the gun (marked by a square in the above diagram) before exiting the closet.

Jodi stated that she did not run in the direction of the stairs (green arrows) because she had previously ran in that direction and he caught her.

As you can see in the above picture, Charles Mittelstadt demonstrated that he had no problem jumping up on the shelves without disturbing anything or knocking down the shelves. He weighs more than Jodi and is taller. It only makes sense that she would use the shelf because she couldn’t see the gun unless she did. Feeling around would take extra time she wouldn’t have if Alexander were pursuing her.

As Holly Hughes demonstrated Jodi was shorter than Alexander was and he was crouched at a distance, the evidence lines up completely with this, including the fact that there was no stippling.

She turned as she ran out of the closet (black arrow in the above, left, diagram) and somewhere in the general vicinity of the black line (above left diagram) Jodi turned and shot Travis Alexander as he crouched and lunged at her. The gun was a small caliber, so he could have continued to move about after being shot.

The red circle (in the above left diagram) marks blood spatter in the bathroom (close up in the picture on the right). If the orange arrow (in the above left diagram) is about where Jodi was standing and the black line (in the above left diagram) is about where Alexander was lunging, this positioning would cause the spatter in the red circle area (above left diagram) and would have caused the injuries that he sustained.

What about the shell casing? Well, with items such as a shell casing many things can occur. We know that the shell casing had no blood on it itself, so that means it had to land on dried blood or on no blood. This could mean all sorts of possibilities:
•The people who found him, his friends and roommates, could have kicked it.
•Police on the scene could have accidentally bumped it.
•Jodi might have attempted to clean up, so she could have displaced the casing from its original position by the tub to the other side of the room merely by kicking it.

As evidenced by the above diagram, the end of the hallway had to be where the stabbing occurred.

The hand print/palm print (above right) that was a mixture of Arias’ DNA and Alexander’s, is quite low to the ground. Why would she be so low to the ground? If she was in a struggle for her life with Alexander, at some point, the two of them were probably on the floor at the end of the hallway. She could have been bracing herself against the wall during the fight. Alexander’s wounds on his hands and feet could easily have happened during a fight in the cramped space.

In the left picture, we can see how small the hallway really is, an odd place to premeditate the murder of a person using a knife, especially on someone who is bigger and stronger than you.

I often wondered why Martinez droned on and on about Jodi’s sex life and not about the forensics. Then Jose Baez painted out that the forensics actually support Jodi’s account. The spatter and small amount of blood in the bathroom. Then down the hallway, the majority of the blood.

Also, the lack of drag marks anywhere puzzle me. If he was stabbed first then drug back into the bathroom and then shot, there should be evidence. Even if Jodi used items, such as the towels found in the washer to clean up, there should be some evidence left behind.

Why would the lead detective (Flores) testify at the death penalty hearing that the Medical Examiner told him the shot happened last (lining up with the defense’s theory and the blood spatter) if he didn’t in fact tell him that? The M.E. testified differently at trial and completely denies ever saying that.

I found one particular piece of testimony that Jodi said during direct extremely interesting. Defense Attorney Kirk Nurmi asked Jodi why she would say that two people killed Alexander. Jodi answered that she thought that would match the evidence. He seemed a bit shocked and asked her if she had said she thought that would match the evidence? She answered yes. I haven’t heard anyone else mention or discuss this point, but I find it curious.

Holly Hughes pointed out an extremely important question. Why, if Jodi premeditated this, would she stab him when she had a gun? Why attack a man with a knife, when you have access to a gun, when you know this man is bigger and stronger than you?

Also if premeditated, why would Jodi wait so long, about 8 hours, before attacking him, knowing he has roommates and other people that come over to his house all the time?

WATCH THE ENTIRE EPISODE HERE —> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shmCLChbSVU

Share this:

Twitter1
Facebook
Print
Email
Pinterest
Tumblr
Google +1

Like this:

★

Join the Discussion

Enter your comment here...

.

How Much Is Jodi Arias Worth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Greyzed by The Forge Web Creations.

Heather. I will be home the rest of the night and your last post was so amusing i will look at my reply forthcoming as entertainment. YOU brought up details of the actual slaughter. so YOU are going to get some back.

Not my truth, Cate, THE TRUTH..

Sorry, can't Make it fit your version, no matter how unhappy you are about it.

Ok heather--i read through your comments again about the crime scene and Im still deciding how to word things so that I dont crucify you. As always i will not get into a personal argument with a single person over in Britain. The best thing i can tell you at this time is that myself when younger "i didnt know------ what i didnt know" you are in the same situation and im willing to work with you

you then backtrack 40 years later.

you also had me click on the youtube link--still further time of my life that is now wasted--and it wasnt 5 minutes--it was almost an hour

How to spot a ''hater''

They insult you
They patronise you
They wish you dead
They threaten the Defense Attorney's with death threats (extreme)
The love to use words, such as psychopath and sociopath, it rolls off the tonge just to add stregth to their hate.
They make fun of Jodi in a disgusting way.
They make up lies about the case to suit.
They love HLN
They can't think for themselves.
They refuse to see any evidence of abuse to Jodi and even when they see it, such as tonight with Alyce LaViolette, they won't have it.
They call Jodi rude names and think its funny.
They don't need a trial--they just want her dead and blow any evidence of self defense, they don't want to hear or see any..
They don't know why they show such hatred for someone they don't know--but know they do.
They have no empathy or compassion or any soul.
They enjoy the thought of a woman sent to her death and joke about her ''getting the needle.
They think calling a person a slut, a 3 holed wonder and a skank, funny but not abusive in the slightest
They say it wasn't Travis' voice making threats on the tape (of course!)
And Nurmi is jealous because they saw him smile (because his photgraph wasn't taken!)
They pooh pooh any hard evidence that SHOWS ABUSE from Travis.
They are adamant Jodi's finger is double jointed, not broken.
They call the Domestic Violence expert a Lesbian.

And they think we can't see what they're doing!! They think its a normal way to behave!!!

.

Oh and how could I forget--they all go to Church too!

Its gone awfully quiet.. maybe you're ill with a dose of stark reality..

on the other hand, maybe not!

Dear Heather you are mistaken yet again.

from what i can tell you thought you spotted that i was -->"Do stop if you can with your condescending and patronising attitude, it only shows you up. That's just it with the haters, they Just don't realise they're doing it.'<--

heres another surprize for your young mind. you didnt secretely spot me doing anything at all

MY POST WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID---THATS WHY I WROTE IT!!. you bet it was condescending-------------- and you have it coming
. yes your being "condescended to" WHY DO YOU THINK I PUT THAT EFFORT to reply to a teenage girl--so that fifty years from now you will have an awakening. to tell you the truth i dont even check my spelling in replys to you.

you need a good spanking where its well deserved--spare the rod and spoil the child

the haters ARE YOU--you are blinded by one single person you are possibly related to or have the hots for--yet ignore the hundreds of others that will die because of another botched verdict. remember--YOU COULD EASILY BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THAT JURY...so we return again to my main point--botched and outdated and rediculous jury system. Not a debate with a young girl in britain. i suggest you study your history with Churchill and WW2--your country BARELY survived--because of concepts you will NEVER know of

Oh yeah, the TRUTH...and it comes from a "completely unbiased website" Heather?

Really. What would the name of that website be? jodiariasisinnocent.com or babelbooth or pitchforks? While i may appreciate the beauty of the prose written by the main author on that pitchforks site, and on many points actually agree with the general sentiment in them, when it comes to much of the rationale behind the argument applying to the ARIAS case, its really only presenting a "this COULD be the case -scenario -since its impossible to say with absolute certainty what happened. But is it REASONABLE to conclude that suddenly Arias is telling the truth? IT IS NOT. Common sense? Nope, its missing common sense in those postings. Ignoring probability, Occams Razor and all that in the majority of them. But I certainly don't believe the "TRUTH" was written by THAT writer. You can tell the difference in style of writing. Its bad. That writer seems to allude to the fact eil does not exist. Really? So that means that all the abusive men out there who kill their women out of jealousy and rage and plan to do it should never be convicted either. I doubt you think that. Gender biased much?

I've been busy with family which is why I haven't posted. You? Am I concerned at all about the Hughes emails? NOPE. Why? Because there is this pesky thing called CONTEXT. I am absolutely sure we will be hearing from the Hughes to explain the what and why behind their emails to Travis. Will you disappear then? Will you now say THAT cannot be trusted? Do we only believe the DEFENSE is telling the truth Heather? My gosh. No. I am Not a hater. Just one who feels that Jodi Arias is a narcissistic sociopath who is dangerous to society and in order to have a society in which we are constantly NOT in need of fearing the girl next door who may want to date our sons, justice is in order. J Arias feels that it is only her life that matters. Travis was disposable to her and she continues to prove it with her defense. Did you see Jodi's calm cool, tears in the 48 hours interview? She is a confident liar. She was as sincere as one gets. We know she was lying because she told us she was lying. As she would glance down and a tear ran down her face and she appeared to be remembering the brutal attack on her beloved Travis by the two Ninjas.

Read this by a psychotherapist: "The Diagnostic Significance of Jodi's unique ability to lie"

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/diagnosing-jodi-arias-part-two-of-three/

This idea that "everybody lies", and pointing to that as if it has any significance at all in this case is pretty desperate. Jodi Arias' lies are NOT your everyday garden variety lies. But I get it, you have very little to work with and its frustrating you beyond belief.

I believe that you must be related to Arias. Like I said before, if you are, I feel very bad for your circumstances. I cannot imagine what that must feels like. But trying to say those who believe J Arias guilty are 'haters' and awful... when you yourself have been horrible to Travis' family is rich. If you want to be taken seriously, you must be honest in your postings and stop resorting to name calling yourself. I abhor BTW, the language TA called Jodi Arias. But watching Jodi Arias one can see clearly how she could frustrate someone to know end with her manipulations. To want to ignore what Jodi did to incur Travis' wrath is what makes you TELL on yourself.

Statistics show that 1 in 19 men in the US are Sociopaths.

Cate-- I simply dont see anthing if your posts to disagree with and write about. On the shot first im sure you have seen on HLN--that they now are putting on other experts not just Beasely for thier mock juries and stuff saying she obviously shot him first. So on my few youtube things i have edited that they are doing better and are no longer the "focus of evil in the modern world." Also a couple months ago anyone that said "shot first" automatically people would see that--and assume the uploader or commenter was saying they agree with jodis story.

On HLN after hours last night they did thier thing and I did watch to see what the mock jury would vote--which i think was about 10 of 12 said stabbed first. However when they had the 2 people get up for thier "opening statement" before the vote--please take note of his one or two sentences -->--he said remember if you say shot first--YOU ARE AGREEING WITH JODI!!" naturally most of them said stabbed first. after all--HLN was not using the format of a full trial--only 2 people making a couple fast statements.

Nevertheless before thier mock jury thing they did about 20 minutes of diagrams showing the shot WAS NOT instantly disabling especially when combined with the blood evidence. Two months ago us 'she shot him first people got ZERO coverage of any type. they only did re-enactments to show that JODIS STORY--of shot first was impossible--which it was.

In fact she did shoot him first--the pistol in her left hand--him sitting--her standing which matches perfectly the trajectory and other evidence. Jodi also said "i was kneeling in the photos" the reason she said that was so that it wouldnt match the trajectory--so that then could give her story about the football attack position--her firing in self defense. So jodis lies actually partially show what happened. Jodi cannot get on the stand for our perry mason moment and scream--"well your wrong about the casing and this and that and the other thing--the truth is i had him sit and shot him in cold blood because he had it coming!!--and your all wrong about the knife--i didnt kill him in a fit of rage and jelousy at all--the gun jammed and i had to finish him off and it made me sick but i had to do it!!!" (she herself had said when interrogated she would want to make it quick for him). she knew the evidence and gave herself away yet again subconciously justifying why the horrific slaughter.

Another thing that gives weight to shot first is that the mass hysteria on the media and youtube that anyone that says shot first means they are saying the football story and fight. Thus shot first carries even more weight--because if Jodi has said shot last--99% of the public would be arguing ANYBODY KNOWS SHE SHOT HIM FIRST NOT ATTACK HIM WITH A KNIFE.

Also on HLN last night one of the theories was proposed "she brought the gun intending to do hand to hand combat with a butcher knife and did stab him first--but had the gun in case he needed to be finished off"

Note also the "finish him off coupe degrace shot". they say she was firing into a dead or lifeless body--him laying on the floor in the bathroom or wherever. shes got the gun in case she didnt win the knife fight and there he is--a large head to point at--she then lays down or positions herself in some way--then fires a shot sideways----barely going through his sinuses--totally missing his head..

she also does this final shot--after a horrific slaughter--but then decides to fire a shot which could bring people running from everywhere????

so shot first is not only more logical it matches everything else perfectly--knife first matches nothing

Jodi will have a hung jury, mistrial or reduced verdict up to an including aquittal. with this new lovable woman up there teaching us relationships 101 the jury will choose what they think she deserves then pick a verdict. marty should have taken her plea of second degree but instead chose a risky path knowing that people would testify that he practically deserved what he got. The jury WILL NOT say premediated first degree murder with death penalty although anything is possible.

The prosecution has the complex problem of saying premeditated but then having to prove its not the same as someone wants insurance money--then plans--then breaks in and kills the person on the spot. Heather is a clear example of what any one person on the jury may think--let alone that they picture it as a "lovers quarrel". Why didnt she just go there and shoot him in his sleep or shot him at the door etc as many say? She went there planning to be able to carry through with her plan if she had the nerve after the afternoon of sex if he still acted like no change in thier relationship. So it leaves a wide open area for a person like Heather that cannot comprehend that a person may be there a while--then get up the nerve beore leaving and following through. Many people will premeditate but simply not go through with it and they dont put specials or trials on tv for the many times that the person chickens out--because there is no story. Jodi was not a proffesional hitman nor was she herself totally positive she would pull through with her plan. the jury is not going to say "well she spent the night when she could have killed him on the spot--leaving dna and bloody palmprints when she could have shot him at the door--so there is a possiblity something happened" The jury does not believe her version of events--but they most certainly are not going to convict her like a Ted Bundy. the jury is going to say 'well he was sort of a playboy and he cant be brought back to life and This was jodis first premeditated murder and shes learned her lesson so well let her go"

for the death penalty or even a very strong and long sentence there is also the issue of justice done and peace and closure for the victims familys. However you dont have that in this case. Both sides have heard of all the cheating and playing around and know it was premed 1--but as the trial goes on and they hear everything it also vents them of thier first immediate feelings that she should have been hung on the spot. Travis family and the sister sitting there in the first row when shes aquitted or given a couple years--there reaction will not be the same as if a burgler broke in and killed everyone--then walks free. Both sides are tired and they have thier feeling that they got thier long trial--but they have been young themselves and Travis sort of pushed his luck. No juror believes her story--but they can be within the law by saying "well the state didnt prove every detail--so we let her go and lets everyone move on".

Pitchforks

We now have a new world of mass communication and education and information sharing is a manifest destiny. It affects everything worldwide--everything from the "arab spring' to our institutions in this country one of which is is the court and lawyer system. Lynchmob mentality and convicting people years before trial with websights knowing that the jury pool will see them is a great exaggeration of the facts--if your a lawyer then you are happy--but if your not your part of the public with some wanting to keep information from us because we are not mentally capable of separating garbage and gold.

The news-even HLN cannot and should not be stopped as if everyone watching tv--takes everything as facts as they watch Nancy Grace or whoever.

Walter Cronkite said years ago 'the war is now unwinnable". He would not have been allowed to say that 30 years before. People would only be allowed to watch newsreels of propaganda in theatres and even later with tv we had only 3 channels. He and the others were not stopped then as information cannot be stopped now--even though some is a little rediculous.

Dan Rather and others eventually came along and got burned sometimes for going too far with thier personal agendas. Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover had thier wars against tv or radio airing info that should not be exposed to the public. Mix in the McCarthy era. But we came through it all and are now far wiser and more educated than the people growing up in the happy 40-s and 50-s. it was a simpler and happier time but the information explosion isnt what ruined us.

Lets mention this lynchmob of us chimps watching tv and supposedly taking everything Nancy Grace says as gospel. Well we dont. It does however challenge those in power, lawyers being one of those groups. The worst cases of bad trials--bad verdicts--maybe even some wrong executions were FAR HIGHER back then compared to now.

In Arizona the pundits have commented back and forth about the jury being allowed to ask questions. One of the pundits was one of the "OJ dream team". He said "well i think its terrible--we have a highly complex trial with both lawyers having thier cases laid out and a juror asks a question and blows it all".

I will take my freedom of mind anyday as opposed to being like one of a flock of sheep. These "lynchmobs' sat through OJ--the Rodney King Beating--too many to list and we saw LA almost burned down and other things. ive seen no trial where the person was convicted by the lynchmob public--ive only seen everyone go free with the public upset for good reason. Trials that dont go on nationwide tv usually are not very debatable or interesting--the HUGE majority of cases are NOT covered.

Education--not legislation--you have HLN and alot of clowns on there but thats also how alot of people see them and they will get better over the years.

Consider the Jodi Arias case. We have a case where she admits what she did and at most we have debate over fine details or self defense. Few believe self defense at all but lawyers make a living about arguing either side they take--or are assigned to, and they want that jury sitting there like monkeys. If they are defense lawyers--in thier minds everyone should go free--if they are prosecutors they think everyone should be locked up. Also the information going public actually works the opposite of the concept of the pitchfork blog--you have people out there in a slam dunk case like Jodi Arias--spot something on the internet about lynchmobs hanging innocent people and they go off the deep paranoid about everyone being hanged or locked up wrongly.

Some comment about the "dumbing down of America' angry lynchmobs with devils torches running the streets--personally i think they are paranoid and want us "dumbed back down" to 40 years ago.

Pitchforks--HLN and Marty

we are watching hisory in the making of likely the most botched trial in history. Personally i root for the underdog and have always said the defense deserves the gold medals. Jodi is guilty and there was no self defense to fight for her life but Martys antics are abusive and insultive to everyone. We have a case here where i now prefer she walk free as vigilante justice.

Mrs Violet is dishing out an ass beating that im enjoying. Its easy for a prosecutor to get up with a slaughter case and plead for the electric chair as the nation roots.--the defense has to sit there with most of the world wanting to kill them and they are doing a good job.

Martys fame will be short lived let alone if he dosent have to retire after this aquittal.

HLN by the way is considered an "entertainment channel"--but they also are crying out that Marty is totally out of control and blowing it bigtime--so once again i say that the people are in control and not HLN zombies..

This entire trial never has been based that Jodi--stole a gun and decided she wanted to go out and kill some people at random. The issue is that we have laws that a woman cannot go over and slaughter someone because "they deserved it"--and if i go to trial i will come out that we was a sleazbag and a religious phony. Our laws are not set up that way--or alot of people would be murdered because "well if i go to trial i will come out with secret things that they deserved it".

From the start the issue never was she went over to kill a stranger at random--she went over and killed him because 'i have enough secrets--i can get away with it out of sympathy that the jury will say 'well he cant be brought back to life and he was pushing his luck"..

so now today we have a situation where Marty is being dished out a well deserved ass beating. the violet woman up there now is a class act and anything that marty says is only getting him in deeper. he should have handled the trial better from the beginning plus his demeaner being played at the correct times--not a man-child--totally out of control of himself.

the real heros in this case are going to turn out to be the defense--not marty--that they took a guilty woman and got an aquittal.. thier pay will skyrocket--marty will fade into oblivion unless he takes some self control courses

Mr Glagic-->your sentence copy pasted

They have not staked a claim to a single set of facts that proves beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Arias intentionally killed Mr. Alexander w/o justification. <<--that says it all. we have a case here that she killed him with justification that he had it coming. That sentence that you yourself wrote--said a mouthful...

RE: Sociopaths and how rare they are.

http://www.shrink4men.com/2012/01/04/rethinking-female-sociopathy-part-one/

Rethinking Female Sociopathy, Part One

Written by Dr Tara J. Palmatier on January 4, 2012 - 69 Comments
Categories: Abuse, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Personality Disorders

People hear the word sociopath and it conjures up images of Charles Manson, Bernie Madoff, and other serial killers, hucksters and con artists. Yes, these individuals are sociopaths, but they’re extreme and obvious ones.

Most sociopaths don’t reach the notoriety of Manson and Madoff. Even so, sociopathy is far more common than we like to think. Many people live next door to or with sociopaths, work in the adjacent cubicle or pray in the pew next to them without ever realizing it until they’re victimized or somehow exploited by these creatures.

Sociopaths who have cultivated the appearance of Susie the Soccer Mom or Larry the Little League Coach are more dangerous and do more damage because they practice and get away with their predations under the radar.

If we think of sociopathy on a continuum, there are degrees of sociopathy. There are subtle forms of sociopathy and, if you’re a woman, even socially acceptable forms of sociopathy. Many sociopaths wear masks of normalcy when in public and terrorize their nearest and dearest behind close doors; often with the assistance of Family Court and law enforcement. Instead of targeting and exploiting the general public, they target their intimate partners and family members and anyone else who gets close enough to see behind their masks.

What are the characteristics of a sociopath?
Psychologists Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare both developed sociopathy checklists. The following characteristics are culled from their work.
Sociopaths have Jekyll and Hyde personalities and can be superficially charming. Their outward appearance is often very conventional or they disguise themselves as helpless victims. Alternately, sociopaths may come across as grandiose and narcissistic. Sociopaths come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, ethnicities and walks of life.

Sociopaths seem to have contempt for their victim’s feelings and believe their victims deserve to be hurt, taken advantage of and exploited. They have no empathy or very selective empathy (e.g., your wife shows empathy toward someone who hurts or bullies you). They lie, cheat, manipulate, and/or verbally and/or physically intimidate others to get their way or to “win.” To a sociopath, the ends justify the means.

Sociopaths may refuse to recognize that others have rights and believe they’re entitled to violate the rights of others. In fact, they often try to control and humiliate their victims. They see people as objects and value others based upon their utility and ease of exploitation rather than fellow human beings. People are either targets and opportunities for exploitation. They don’t have friends, but rather victims and accomplices who later become victims.

Sociopaths often have a gross and exaggerated sense of entitlement. They seem incapable of true love relationships and often confuse love with ability to control and exploit someone. They are unable to form healthy attachments with others.

Sociopaths seem to be able to lie very easily. You can have a video or audio recording of them perpetrating a crime or some abusive act and they will still pee on your leg and tell you it’s raining. They often believe their own lies and may even be able to pass a polygraph. They seem to lack the capacity for remorse or guilt. For example, many of my clients are more likely to squeeze blood from a stone than to receive a sincere apology from their wives, girlfriends or exes.

When sociopaths seem to be expressing positive feelings it is typically because they are mimicking others to appear socially and psychologically normal. For example, a man on the Shrink4Men forum found a note his wife wrote to herself reminding herself to act nice and to pretend to be interested in her husband’s day in order to get something she wanted from him. Warm and loving behavior may be a manipulation in order to be better able to exploit their victims. For example, they pull you close to be able to get a better swing at you – emotionally or physically.

Sociopaths have a need for extreme stimulation in order to feel emotion and are prone to feeling chronically bored. Some may resort to physical violence, gambling, drugs and alcohol, and/or promiscuity; while others create unnecessary conflict and drama for stimulation.

Sociopaths blame others for their bad behaviors and do not take personal responsibility for their actions. At their core, they are filled with rage, which is often split off and projected onto their victims. Sociopaths have poor behavioral and emotional controls and can be impulsive. They often alternate rage and abuse with small expressions of love and approval to keep their victims under their control.

Sociopaths lack boundaries and do not care how their behavior affects others. They may become enraged and/or desperate when their victims try to enforce boundaries on their abusive behaviors. They have difficulty maintaining friendships, and, is it any wonder given how they treat others?
They typically end relationships and/or try destroying former friends who have seen behind their masks. Some may have long-term friendships, but they either seem to be long-distance or friendships with incredibly damaged individuals with low self-esteem who admire the sociopath, i.e., sycophants.

Some may have a history of childhood emotional and behavioral disturbances while others do not. Some sociopathic individuals come from otherwise healthy and loving families.

Sociopaths are often irresponsible and unreliable. They have a history of breaking promises yet become enraged and vengeful if they believe someone has broken a promise to them. They have unrealistic life plans and often live beyond their means. Many live what can be described as a parasitic life in that they get through life by exploiting others.

Sociopaths may have diffuse identities. Many dramatically change their appearance or outward persona in order to exploit new victims or to avoid punishment. For example, when many of my clients met their wives and girlfriends, they feigned similar interests, beliefs, etc., and pretended to be someone they weren’t in order to secure the relationship.

Sociopaths are ungrateful and contemptuous of people who try to help and understand them. Oftentimes, they do not believe anything is wrong with them, which is why therapy rarely works. If they acknowledge a problem, they usually blame others for it. Or, if they are formally diagnosed with a mental illness or other personality disorder, they may use their diagnosis to absolve them of their abusive behaviors.

Sociopaths typically do not trust others. They can be authoritarian, paranoid and secretive. They seek relationships with others who will accept, tolerate, condone or admire their bad behavior. They like nothing better than to have a willing victim.

Sociopaths often try to control every aspect of their victims’ lives. They can be pretty territorial about their victims, which their victims often confuse with love and jealousy. It’s not about love. You’re their half-dead mouse and they don’t want any other predators messing with “their property.” A good example of this is when a woman becomes unhinged when her ex begins dating or gets remarried — especially if she’s already moved onto to another victim, er, I mean, relationship.

Lastly, and I think this characteristic will resonate with many of you, sociopaths have an emotional need to justify their crimes and demand that their victims show them gratitude, love and respect. In other words: Sociopaths expect that their victims show gratitude for being victimized by them.

In a few days, I will post the second part of Rethinking Female Sociopathy, so please check back.
Shrink4Men Coaching and Consulting Services:
Dr Tara J. Palmatier provides confidential, fee-for-service, consultation/coaching services to help both men and women work through their relationship issues via telephone and/or Skype chat. Her practice combines practical advice, support, reality testing and goal-oriented outcomes. Please visit the Shrink4Men Services page for professional inquiries.

Raising Pitchforks

A disturbing symbiosis has arisen during the last decade between the tabloid and low-brow television media and the reading and viewing public, particularly social media public posters on crime-related blogs that follow high-profile trials. A genre of posters has formed into a nationwide virtual lynch mob, prosecuting and condemning defendants years before trials start, ready and chomping at the bit to converge in mass cyberspace hysteria to spit their hate, rage and venom once a defendant’s trial is covered on television. During the period preceding a trial, usually 3 or 4 years, this lynch mob is primed and fueled by newspaper and television media that pump out selectively damning and salacious tidbits, and decontextualized images and sound bites about the defendant, all designed strategically to rile up the interested masses, attract ratings and give credence to their particular brand of muck-rake reporting.

The mob attitude of members of the public who are persuaded and aroused by those elements of the media that target them can only be described as “pitchfork” mentality. The talking heads on television who propagate the kinds of attitudes and beliefs necessary to “convict” a defendant in the “court” of public opinion model this “pitchfork” mentality through a number of court-based and supposedly victim-supportive talk-shows. This is done through a dubious parade of legal, law enforcement and psychological “experts”, commandeered by a nucleus of popular anchors whose journalistic integrity falls shy of association with any true professional standard of ethics. These media mouths regurgitate their chewed over and acid-digested “bombshells” into the gaping beaks of their pap-hungry brood. They are the frontline of the pressing public mob behind them; they wield the largest pitchforks but are backed up by their rallied army wielding no less lethal pitchforks of multiple shapes and sizes.

Both media talking heads and riled up, ranting members of the public screaming for blood are “Pitchforkers” and this blog seeks to explore their methods and motivations, and the damage done to the legal process and to a society that proclaims itself to be intellectually advanced and morally superior.

Follow Pitchforks on Twitter: Pitchforks @PitchforksPosts

24 thoughts on “Raising Pitchforks”

JODI ARIAS PASSED A POLYGRAPH TEST

Martinez wouldn't have it submitted as evidence.

WHY?

Because it doesn't matter if she is innocent of the charges against her he just wants her dead.

How nice.

It's not ALL the evidence he has refused to submit.

Bet the haters would like Martinez to do this to them if they HAD to kill in self defence.

HLN? Am I surprised, Jeff? Not in the least.

There is no polite way of saying this, you talk a lot of crap. HLN re Jodi Arias are there solely for willing sheep, those who cannot think for themselves and who have the masses mentality. And if you can't see that they're doing their utmost to pervert the course of justice, I'm sorry for you.

HLN should be SUED. Those people are a thorough disgrace to humanity and society.

Imagine (if you can), being in a situation where your life is in mortal danger and your attacker is telling you he is going to kill you, you have a SPLIT SECOND to save your life, remember? There IS no action replay.

Ok, Jeff, I know exactly what you would do, you would just allow him to do it, wouldn't you, of course you would, you would willingly give up your life for your attacker, that's right, isn't it, Jeff?

No?

Would you mind others saying he got what he deserved, had you had to kill to save your life?

Its about the truth, isn't it?

HLN: A sort of, ''we the sheep'' station !!! :D

Wow...Heather, yr so charged about this trial. It's always better to take the middle path rather than asuming extreme views. Sorry, but im not seeing any objectivity in yr posts. You need to look at this trial as a whole before assessing it. You seem to believe jodi but you're completely overlooking the forensic evidence. Someone was SLAUGHTERED. He may not have been a perfect person, or even boyfriend material, but he did NOT deserve to die that way.