Why the Felony Murder Allegation against Jodi Arias is Nonsense
The government has charged Jodi Arias with two separate counts for first degree murder. The first count is premeditated intent to kill murder. I have already discussed this charge at length (see "Jodi Arias: Has the Government proven Murder One?"). Also, I have discussed Ms. Arias' self-defense claim and the prosecution burden to disprove self defense by beyond a reasonable doubt (see "Jodi Arias claims self defense, or is it Burning Bed?").
That, for the moment, leaves the felony murder charge, which is count two in the indictment. At common law, felony murder meant that someone could be charged for murder even if they never intended to kill a person, so long as the a death was the foreseeable result while the defendant was committing a dangerous felony. The classic example of a felony murder is when a kidnap victim dies from a heart attack while stuffed in the trunk of a kidnapper's car. Thus, even though the kidnapper never intended to kill his victim, he is still guilty of felony murder because the death of his victim was a foreseeable consequence of the underlying predicate felony, kidnapping.
Another example is when during a bank robbery the police shoot and kill a bank robber's accomplice. Even though the bank robbers certainly never intended the police to kill one of them, that result was foreseeable, and thus felony murder. Other common law predicate felonies included rape and burglary. Assault is not a predicate felony in Arizona for the felony murder rule.
The important point with the felony murder rule is that the predicate felony is different from intent to murder, depraved indifference murder, manslaughter, or any other homicide charge because the goal of the felony murder rule is to deter the predicate felony itself, while non-felony murder homicide and murder laws deal with homicide charges directly.
As most of you are aware, the government has charged Ms. Arias with felony murder, with the predicate felony being burglary. The important point here is that while even though common law burglary required breaking and entering with the intent to commit a theft therein, in Arizona, which follows the model penal code, defines burglary more broadly as (see "Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1506 and 13-1507):
Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein; and A person commits burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.
The prosecutor does not allege Ms. Arias entered into Travis Alexander's home with the intent to kill him or commit any felony, for that matter, at the moment of entry. How could he when all the evidence shows Mr. Alexander invited Ms. Arias into his house? The evidence is clear she spent at least 8 hours in his house, and during that time together they had sex multiple times.
Instead, the prosecutor's argument is that felony murder applies because at some point Mr. Alexander revoked permission from Ms. Arias to be in his house, and at that point, she was "remaining unlawfully in... a residential structure". This is where things get quite silly for the government's felony murder allegation: if in fact at some point Jodi Arias was still in Mr. Alexander's house without his permission (we can call that point T1), what felony was Ms. Arias' intending to commit at T1? If she was intending to kill him at T1, then that would be the exact same thing as count one, murder in the first degree intent to kill, premeditated murder.
The defense filed a motion to dismiss the felony murder charge, stating quite correctly the allegation makes no sense. In response, Judge Stephens ruled Ms. Arias' intent at T1 could have been assault, not intent to kill Mr. Alexander. I believe that ruling is in error because of something called the merger rule. To count any death that occurred during the course of an assault as felony murder would obliterate the distinction between assault and murder. And even more importantly, there would be no distinction between second degree depraved indifference murder and first degree intent to kill murder.
If I shoot my gun at a crowd without intending to kill anyone, but someone dies anyway, I am guilty of second degree depraved heart murder. If I shoot my gun at a crowd with the intent of killing someone, anyone I am guilty of first degree intent to kill, premeditated murder. That has been English common law since the time of the Magna Carta.
Under the government's felony murder allegation, both set of circumstances would result in the exact same conviction, and in the process it would overturn almost a thousand years of Anglo-American law. The facts in this case, while interesting, are not unsual. I have no doubt thousands of similar cases have occurred since the inception of the felony murder rule centuries ago. If, in fact, fact Ms. Arias' conduct fits within its application, why then has the prosecution been forced to stretch the felony murder rule to such seemingly metaphysical extremes?
The prosecution is getting very clever in this case, and that concerns me. It is not the role of prosecutors to be clever or experiment. It is the role of prosecutors to present the evidence plainly within the clear meaning of the law. If there is a problem with the felony murder rule, or any other law for that matter, which makes the law too lenient, then it is up to the legislature to rewrite the law and fix it. Our separation of powers is clear that legislatures write laws and prosecutors apply it squarely.
The most basic element of due process is we do not have ex post facto, or retroactive, laws, which are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. What the government is trying to do with its felony murder allegation against Ms. Arias is say committing second degree murder in the home of a victim is really first degree murder. That may in fact be a good law, but if so, it is up to legislature to make it explicit. It is not for prosecutors to make new law on their own when it suits them.
P.S. What I mean by merger rule is that the predicate underlying dangerous felony, the dangerous felony of felony murder, must be different from the actual murder charge itself; that is why assault is not a predicate in felony murder. If it was a predicate, then every murder would automatically be felony murder because every murder involves an assault. In other words, proving the murder would automatically prove the assault as the evidence is circular. And thus, there would be no degrees of murder charges (first degree, second degree) as there are now.
The problem in this case is that when Arizona changed the common law definition of burglary from "intent commit a theft therein" to "intent commit any felony therein" that opened up the door for the predicate felony to include any felony falling withing the scope of burglary, including assault. That means while felony murder cannot have assault as the first degree predicate, if that first degree predicate felony is burglary, then a second degree predicate felony (or predicate felony within the first predicate felony of burglary) could be assault. By all rights, however, the merger rule should exclude that absurd scenario.
You can see the Court's order on this specific point here. In the order the Court relied on:
State v. Moore, 222 Ariz. 1, 14, ¶ 61, 213 P.3d 150, 163 (2009). In that opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument that felony murder cannot be predicated on a burglary based on the defendant’s intent to murder. It did so, in part, based on State v. Miniefield, 110 Ariz. 599, 601, 522 P.2d 25, 27 (1974), in which the Court noted that the felony murder statute “does not draw a distinction between one who intends to kill another by fire and one who only intends to burn down a dwelling house and accidentally kills one of the occupants.” Id. See also State v. Kuhs, 223 Ariz. 376, 224 P.3d 192, 198, ¶ 23, n.4 (2010) (noting that it rejected the defendant’s argument in Moore that “one cannot commit felony murder when one committed burglary in order to commit murder”).
In other words, from what I understand of the Court's order, proving intent to kill with premeditation would make Ms. Arias guilty of both count 1 intent to kill and count 2 felony murder. That is all fine, and very academic. However, I did not see anything in the Court's order regarding the merger rule. That point is significant because according to the very same minute entry the government's contention is that assault was the underlying predicate felony of the burglary:
The State argues the defendant’s status as an invited guest changed when the defendant stabbed the victim, thus committing an aggravated assault. According to the State’s theory, the defendant was no longer an invited guest for purposes of all wounds inflicted after the first wound. At that point, Defendant remained unlawfully in a residential structure for purposes of committing a felony. In addition, the State argues the evidence establishes the defendant entered the victim’s home with a gun and knife for the purpose of committing the assault.
What "the defendant was no longer an invited guest for the purposes of all wounds inflicted after the first wound" actually means I have no idea, or for that matter, I doubt anyone really does. And it is a perfect example of what I mean by the government stretching legal logic to metaphysical absurdities.
An interesting point about this minute entry is that the government seems to have conceded Ms. Arias did not have premeditation, or intent to kill Mr. Alexander. Aggravated Assault, which is the government's underlying felony for the burglary predicate, is intent to injure, not kill. If the government believes, as they told the court in their motion, that they believe Ms. Arias committed a burglary by having the intent to only harm Mr. Alexander after permission to remain on the premises was revoked, that is in direct conflict with the allegation she intended to kill Mr. Alexander.
If I was the defense attorney, I would consider reading the government's motion supporting its theory of burglary by way of aggravated assault and ask the question "if they government told the court Ms. Arias' intent was to only harm Mr. Alexander, ie, aggravated assault, why on Earth have they charged her with intentionally killing Mr. Alexander? Even the government doesn't believe Ms. Arias intentionally killed Mr. Alexander."
Comments (107)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endCate Ellington - March 11, 2013 3:53 PM
Hi Vlad,
I do enjoy yr blogs and radio show. Look forward to Friday.
Your question is an interesting one. And it may be more appropriate a question for lawyers and judges to discuss, certainly the technical aspcts of the question. So and but, as a non attorney, here aee my thoughts. What the public has seen, certainly in recent high profile cases covered extensively by the media, is that defense attorneys are getting more "clever" also. Or they are resorting to things like trickery and manipulation of the media to help them win cases. We saw this certainly with jose baez, in which u saw him early on after casey had just been arrested, using the media to implore the public, that law enforcement had tunnel vision when it came to casey and he knew this because of their blatant refusal to follow up on "vetted and confirmed caylee sightings", only to hear him in opening at trial say "caylee was never missing". Or how about his seemingly helpful disposition in having his client appear to implore folks like texas equusearch to help find caylee since the nanny story ws still front n center at that point. Jose baez wasnt clever imo, only brazen and unmitigated gall.
Nurmi on the other hand I think a far more talented lawyer. He IS Clever. But the reality is he is working with horrible facts. That said, he and his client are not at all beyond the use of trickery. The whole defense being a pity play.
Further, with the employ of jury experts- defense attorneys imo, just have so many tools that they can use, including putting a defendant on the stand who lies as easily as she breathes, and the jjudge allows testimony in which there is not a shred of corroboration to be had anywhere.
While I do believe that how much money a defendant has is critical to whether they receive a fair trial, we see in these high profile cases, that cash is not the only valued tender.
I bwlieve that prosecutors, for the most part, unless they are corrupt, do not hv trickery at their dispoal like defense attorneys do. So, I dont see anything wrong w/ JMs use of the Felony Murder charge. Not in THIS case. Like I said yesterday, imo, in the name of justice, I would much rather the civics lesson be a passionate prosecutor creatively and lawfully using the tools available to him, than the civics lesson be, if you just keep lying and blame the victim using a politically sensitive defense...well, u can get away with anything, including first degree premeditated murder.
Looking forwrd to listening Friday! Cheers.
Mel - March 13, 2013 1:25 AM
Love this article! Very good points indeed, and I will be listening to you show on March 15th.
There has been quite a bit of debate about why this jury was not sequestered. I'm so surprised that in a case that has had so much media attention, and on a national level, that the judge has not done this. I know the defense asked for it, but it was denied. It appears that some of the jury maybe listening or watching some of the nightly cable news programs by the wording and subject matter of their questions. One question in particular was regarding the gun, whether she released the safety, cocked it, loaded it, etc. That was asked on HLN the previous night.
What is your opinion on this, and do you think this could be used on an appeal if the verdict is guilty. {sorry my question mark is broken}
Not T. Alexander - March 13, 2013 8:37 AM
Excellent points made in this article. Re: to the above comment, I think using the name of a deceased individual is a little obsessive. Unless of course you are Tanisha, the sister of the deceased, in which case its still a ridiculous comment.
Bob - March 13, 2013 10:40 AM
Felony burglary charge only needs Intent and that means a clear plan or idea to commit a crime.not jus burglary or assualt. So permission is not a pre-requisite and she did intend to take something from him, His life, by slitting his throat intentionally. I told you on the phone there were 14 aggravating circumstances(Actually 15), that make it capital murder, thus become DP eligible. if they occur along with a murder. [edited for content] Embrace speculation, dismiss direct evidence.
Vladimir Gagic - March 13, 2013 11:45 AM
Bob:
From what I understand of your comment, you are confusing the 14 "aggravating circumstances" for imposition of the death penalty upon conviction for first degree murder. The term "aggravating circumstances" refers specifically to sentencing and not guilt or innocence. See the United States Supreme Court decision Apprendi v. New Jersey and See ARS 13-751. Sentence of death or life imprisonment; aggravating and mitigating circumstances; definition Section F for a list of the aggravating circumstances.
ARS 13-1105(A)(2) "First degree murder; classification" for a list of predicate dangerous felonies for purposes of the felony murder rule. Burglary is one of them. Assault is not for the reasons I listed in my blog post.
If Ms. Arias is found guilty of first degree murder, either by way of the premeditation or felony murder count, the next phase of the trial would be the penalty phase in which the jury would evaluate both aggravating and mitigating circumstances under ARS 13-751 for possible imposition of the death penalty.
Vladimir Gagic - March 13, 2013 5:27 PM
Mel:
Regarding the sequestration issue, I know the defense filed a motion to sequester the jury. As far as I can tell, the prosecution objected and the judge denied the motion, but I am not sure. Also, I would be interested to know if the defense filed a motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity. If there ever was a case for change of venue, this would be it.
Cate Ellington - March 14, 2013 9:38 AM
Hi Vlad,
While I agree the jury should have been sequestered, I disagree with Mel's comment above. I have been watching this trial, every minute of it. To say that a juror had to be watching HLN in order to come up with the gun question about "cocking it, releasing safety etc", is ridiculous and reaching into the netherworld. I do NOT watch HLN, Nancy Grace (cant stand her) and all the rest of those over the top commentators on TV that take snippets of the trial and expand without CONTEXT of what happened in totality during that day's trial. They are out to create sensationalism which is why I do not watch. The gun "cocking, releasing safety" question was absolutely and most certainly a logical question given the way Jodi said testified that she grabbed the gun from closet and the way her defense avoided her detailing the "grab". I asked exact same question! All the questions in fact were wholly based on THIS TRIAL. I challenge anyone to come up with a REAL question that backs that statement up!
The ONLY people actually stating that the jury HAS to be watching HLN, are the few folks on that over the top (itself) website that declares her innocent. INNOCENT? (Yes, a few of the die-hards INSIST pretty Jodi could not have even done the slaughter because of her size. Completely dismissing the defendant and her lawyers OWN testament.) They scream about the Nancy "Disgraces" and yet repeat over and over and over the most non-sensical, NOT based on fact or evidence, theories that leads any logical person to just shake their head. It is ALL emotion based on that site. There seems to be some abuse victims on there and so they project their own situations on to Jodi ("I just FEEL Jodi is telling the truth, was abused, that Travis was a so+++++++"). I am sorry for their pain but the fact they can't recognize someone who has studied abuse victimology, traits etc and has rehearsed her victim role for the last 4 years, is just missing the boat on here. The fact they do not recognize that Jodi's use of the "abuse excuse" is dangerously BAD for abuse victims that TRULY DO need to claim self defense is mind boggling. The fact that Jodi's use of it, they don't see is now grist for future jurors to wonder...is she lying to avoid the DP or conviction? I can tell you most certainly it is VERY BAD. It is very interesting how none of them seem to realize that they are just as bad as the "Nancy Disgraces". They do the exact same thing, they just take the opposite side. But its all over the top sensationalism.
Vladimir Gagic - March 14, 2013 10:13 AM
Cate:
Thank you for your numerous comments, and I hope you will be able to call in for radio show tomorrow. My basic point, and I think a lot of the people who are not looking for Ms. Arias's blood, is simple: the media has turned hating random defendants in an escapist blood sport and is pandering to society's lowest common denominator. It reminds of the TV show Spartacus with the crowds yelling and screaming for violent deaths.
A friend of mine watches reality TV (the Bachelor) and told me the producers intentionally keep the villain, whoever that may be, on the show to boost ratings. That is all fine and good, but now criminal trials have degenerated into reality show on steroids. And in the process, we now have a public no longer made up of freedom loving jurors but cynical haters looking for blood. We have a public that fervently believes that our criminal justice system coddles criminals and all their problems are OJ Simpson's, Casey Anthony's, Jodi Arias' etc fault.
But in actual fact, we as a nation imprison far too many people. We have more of our citizens in custody than even Joseph Stalin during the height of the USSR. We don't have the best, most forgiving criminal justice system in the world. We have the worst justice system in the world, by far.
That is why I hope we can all step back from the media inspired blood thirst escapism and look at Ms. Arias' case rationally and calmly. The common law is a thousand years old and it civilized the world. In my view, Ms. Arias is not reason enough to ditch it.
I found a very interesting and informative website on the topic of media pandering to public blood lust; he uses the term "Raising Pitchforks". You can see it here http://babelbooth.com/#comment-50
I highly suggest everyone take a look.
Darlene - March 15, 2013 8:24 AM
That "expert" witness for jodi is a joke. Can't wait til prosecution gets
His turn with him. Fact. He was fined in a custody case for testifying
For the father after never even meeting with the mother. He made
A deal with the father to have dental services, etc. "what a
Guy!!!" An outdated joke of an expert. Based a lot of his conclusions
On interviewing jodi. Oh yeah, what she says is credible!!! NOT
Cate Ellington - March 15, 2013 10:24 AM
Hi Vlad,
I agree with you in re: to the media using high profile trials as grist for their programming ratings etc. I also agree with you that there is a bloodlust out for defendants like Jodi Arias, OJ, Casey Anthony etc. But I think you are looking at the trial solely through the prism of your job. Youre a defense attorney and understandably, your thinking would more often than not side with the defense side of things. Let me ask you, has there been a high profile trial in which you actually sided with the prosecution after listening to the evidence? Like I mentioned above, I don't watch those sensationalist tv shows. Not interested. I have been watching the trial to get my information. And from the evidence, I believe Jodi Arias is lying on the stand. There are most certainly bits of truth thrown into Arias' story in order to make it believable and for the simple purpose of Jodi not having to Remember all sorts of lies. Do I believe the prosecution's case is perfect? No, I don't. I believe they may even be mistaken on some issues. BUT I still believe she is guilty of premeditated murder. At this point anyway! While I thought the ME's testimony was extremely credible and compelling, in the last few days, I have come to the idea that she MAY have used the gun first after all. It jammed and after seeing that the gunshot was not going to kill him, she panicked knowing she needed to finish the job. In that scenario, to me it removes part of what I was seeing as a mixture of a crime of passion and premeditated murder. If this is what happened, then it goes to premeditation even more in my mind. (If knife came first it has been my belief that Jodi went there with the intent of killing Travis as more of a plan B- in the event he did not change his ways.)
The psychologist expert, to my mind was really a non-factor. IF he really believes her story, then in my mind it is simply because she has PTSD as a result of being a perpetrator of a heinous crime. The passing of the PTSD Diagnostic scale and the doctor saying it is not an easy test to fake is just a silly notion. You can google the type of questions asked or even simply answer the questions in such a way to make a lie believable. They are FAR from difficult and wholly TRANSPARENT in terms of how someone should answer if their goal is to back up their story. The Millon Axial test he administered, that has LIE scales built in? After reading up on the LIE scales, again, it is not brain surgery to determine how one might avoid a personality disorder dx if one were of above average intelligence. The theory is that the authors of the test believe that sociopaths are so rigid that they will ALWAYS lie to present themselves in such a way as being almost perfect. So the test has built in fake "Good" questions and built in fake "bad" questions. Jodi Arias has already shown us in previous media interviews and on the stand that she is well aware that she CANNOT present herself as this perfect person. Or as a complete and utter victim. She has either been told or has learned that any attempt to lay all the blame on Travis and not take responsibility for certain things will make her unbelievable. We have seen her demonstrate this understanding over and over and over again. So for a test to assume that if the respondent answers a fake good or bad question in such a way that it it is proof whether or not the respondent is being deceptive is really silly. And, BTW, the flat affect this doctor attributes to Ms. Arias is I am sure you also know, attributed to sociopathic personality.
Jodi does NOT in any way come across to me in her words, actions and demeanor on the stand as a true abuse victim. And, since I do not believe she has been abused (based solely on evidence, actions, demeanor etc), I believe that she is absolutely lying about the rest of it re: Travis Alexander. And what she is saying about Travis, if lying, could ONLY be done by a person who is without conscience and has no qualms about doing whatever it takes to save herself. In my opinion, a person like that is dangerous and should not be free to cause chaos and tragedy in this world. I wish you would at least once look at this situation from the side of the victim and the victim's family. I believe you believe Travis did not deserve what happened to him. That's an easy one. But I wish you would consider, does he deserve what is continuing to happen to him by and at the behest of Jodi Arias. And at what point do we hold someone like J Arias accountable. Just because we may have a horrible system of justice, if what you say is true and I certainly have no reason to think you are being untruthful, does not mean that we should allow murderers to not be held accountable just because they have come up with a politically sensitive defense and there are questions that can never be fully answered without the one person still alive being fully forthright. Something she would never do. One must believe her story. I believe the majority of the people listening to this trial and all the evidence have come to the conclusion this defense is a lie. AGAIN Vlad, NO media sensationalism has affected my opinion of the evidence whatsoever.
oh and just as an aside- I want you to know that I am OFTEN on the opposite side of the prosecution. Michael Peterson is an example. (Though in that case I will admit I saw the documentary the "Staircase"). I KNOW and believe thera are corrupt prosecutors and law enforcement out there. OF COURSE I DO. But this just doesn't happen to be the case here.
Thanks and I hope to call in today but need to check the time!
Would LOVE to hear your answers to some of my questions.
Best as always,
Cate
Vladimir Gagic - March 15, 2013 10:50 AM
Hi Cate;
Believe it or not, I do think Ms. Arias is guilty of murder two, or at least, the prosecution has proven that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. So as far as a high profile case in which I "sided" with the prosecution, this would be one with respect to that charge.
As far as objective evidence of her being abused (beyond her testimony), I've received a lot of comments from women who claim to have been "real" victims of domestic violence. Although I wonder how many of them, if the shoe was on the other foot, would have any more objective evidence of their abuse than Ms. Arias has presented in her trial.
If you get a chance, look Physical Abuse of Women: “Undermined” Issue here http://babelbooth.com/2013/02/21/physical-abuse-of-women-undermined-issue/
I hope you can call in today. The show is at 1pm Pacific/AZ time
Also Abused - March 15, 2013 11:02 AM
Cate, I've read Mr. Gagic's blogs and listened to his last broadcast. I have not heard or seen him render an opinion as to whether or not Jodi Arias is innocent or guilty at all. In fact, he seems to have reserved formulating his own "verdict" until the trial is over, and has stated in at least one blog, that it's for the jury to decide whether they believe Jodi or not. Mr. Gagic, on the other hand, has merely commented on his views about the prosecution's strategies.
For some reason, it seems that because Mr. Gagic has presented his theories about the issues with the prosecution's case, you have taken it upon yourself to believe that he must, therefore, believe that Jodi Arias is innocent. I think you should re-read his blogs as they focus solely on the law and the only opinions he presents are his educated opinions thereof.
Vladimir Gagic - March 15, 2013 11:07 AM
thank you for the comment "also abused",
i should clarify what I wrote previously. From what i have seen of the trial, and I will admit, i have missed a lot, convicting Ms. Arias of murder two is a reasonable and she was appropriately charged on that count. Charging her on murder one, for all the reasons I have previously stated, has been nothing short of ridiculousness.
Also Abused is entirely correct that I fully believe the jury will make the right decision.
Cate Ellington - March 15, 2013 12:13 PM
Vlad,
I think I may have not been as clear as I should have been. First off, my apologies if my question ws worded in such a way as to imply you have been biased in relation to whether you think jodi guilty or not. In fact I think I recall you stating in one blog yr belief that murder 2 was appropriate. I guess my questions revolve more around what I believe to be an exclusive criticism of the prosecutor without taking into consideration how the defense has been operating. Their whole strategy. Obviously, it is encumbent on the state to prove their case in what they believe to be the well being of the public good. It is my opinion they have done this appropriately and at times been forced to do what they can against a highly manipulative defendant and defense strategy. Like I said at this point in time, given everything I have heard at trial alone, I think they've proved their case. I think I wished only that you had considered the tactics and strategy of the defense too, because I respect yr opinion and find you interesting to listen to but give talked only from the perspective of criticizing the state without listing also the defense manipulations they MUST respond to.
So while I believe you there are people "blood Lusting" after arise who are not looking at the trial and only responding to media hype, there are many too, like me listening only to trial, that based on life experience, see clearly the abuse excuse is a lie. I wld disagree with yr statement that some abuse victims would be hard pressed to have objective proof beyond just defendants word. Having worked with abuse victims I have NEVER come across someone with nothing and I mean nothing like ms arias' INCREDIBLE bad luck.
As an aside, I hope Also Abused is a patron of the same innocent site I referenced earlier. If one is going to be taken seriously re their screams of sensationalism as foul, one must walk the talk. That site's editor FILLS his diatribes with sensationalist tactics. And they are often grotesquely about the victim and his grieving family.
Also Abused - March 15, 2013 12:27 PM
I am one of those "real" abuse victims. I'm also someone who went to law school, but I am not a practicing attorney. I point this out only to demonstrate that I have, at least "some" understanding of objective evidence. My ex-husband (my abuser) and I were married for 10 years. Physical abuse had been occurring for 6 of those years. I did not recognize it as physical abuse for the vast majority of those years since it mainly consisted of pushing, shoving, stomping on toes, and a variety of other incidents that he (somehow) convinced me were mostly accidental or resulted from my own "clumsiness". By the time I recognized the inherent dangers I was facing (when he pushed me to the floor and kicked me violently) during the 9th year of our marriage, I was not in a reasonable position to escape, and had already lost control of all aspects of my life. I cannot begin to explain the insidious nature of an abusive relationship properly.
One I became fully cognizant of the true nature of my marriage, the physical violence escalated and intensified rapidly. I had been in contact with the National Domestic Violence Hotline and began attempting to preserve some evidence. Since I was unable to drive, and public transportation was not available in the area, I could not seek medical attention independently. He was unwilling to transport me for medical attention and "treated" my injuries himself. My attempts to photograph injuries resulted in him destroying my camera. For approximately 8 months after I became aware of the abuse, I kept a "diary" of the abuse, although such accounts would be unlikely to be admissable also. I managed to preserve some photos of an injury to my abdominal area from a "punch" with his fist. My goal in all of these activities was that if he succeeded in taking my life -- as he threatened -- someone may find these items and suspect him of the crime. Flimsy as that was, I hoped it might trigger a deeper investigation in the event of my death. I doubted any of it would have been admissable in a court of law otherwise.
At the end of those 8 months, everything came to a "head" when he threated to kill me with a wine bottle which he held over my head, having donned a latex "surgical" glove. Holding my iPhone in one hand and a "house" phone in the other, I videotaped him. That video, along with my sworn statement, was sufficient for probable cause and he was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was not convicted however. The prosecutor did not view my (admittedly flimsy) evidence as sufficient for a jury trial. He had been attempting to poison me for quite some time, but I had no evidence of that whatsoever, and had only discovered it had occurred subsequent to his arrest when I was free to seek medical treatment.
I don't recall most of the remainder of events that evening. I have no recollection of calling the police and only vague recollection of providing them with a statement. Apparently, I received a call and made a call. I was told later by the second person I spoke to that I was hyperventilating and crying during the second call. I was apparently coherent enough to recognize that the first person who called me needed a friend to speak to, and I made the second call to ask that mutual friend to call her. I even posted on Facebook that my husband had been arrested. Yet, I have no recollection of doing so.
I relate to Jodi because there are certain ways victims of abuse describe events and how they feel. I've only ever heard and felt that way when speaking to another victim/survivor. I don't believe one can study that and emulate it. In fact, in online groups, I've encountered some "pretenders" or "fakers". They simply aren't convincing and other survivors become suspicious almost immediately.
Many "real" abuse victims have not watched Jodi's testimony or the trial in its entirely. They have seen snippets on HLN or they have been convinced by the media that Jodi is a sociopath and that she is hurting the cause of true abuse victims.
I can't help but wonder, what if, instead of videotaping and calling the police that fateful night, I had instead, grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him to death? I must be honest. In my state of extreme panic, the thought crossed my mind briefly. I didn't think I would be able to reach a knife (as I had chosen to move to a position away from the knife drawer -- as instructed by the hotline once I realized I was in danger). Also, I wasn't sure I was physically capable of killing him. But what if instead of Jodi Arias, we were all currently watching my trial for murder? Would I be villified for killing the wonderful man everyone loved? Would anyone believe me? Would other "real" abuse victims find my story credible?
Also Abused - March 15, 2013 12:47 PM
Cate, I do comment on JodiAriasIsInnocent.com and very much enjoy most of the lively and civil discussions. It's the only site I have found (other than this site) discussing this subject where one is not required to have the same opinion as HLN's program hosts.
My remarks there about the grieving families have been sympathetic only. (Please note, I used the plural "families" because I see not one, but two families who have been deeply harmed by the occurrences of that fateful evening in 2008, this trial, and particularly, the media coverage.) I am disturbed by Travis Alexander's texts and remarks to Jodi, and I have made remarks about those. He reminds me of my ex-husband. I am only in control of my own remarks, however I see very few disparaging remarks about the Alexander family. On other sites, I have witnessed truly disgusting remarks made about Jodi, her family, and her attorneys, which include death threats.
I've met and spoken with many abuse victims -- many of whom have had much worse luck than Jodi. Many of them have not been able to seek help because the abuse they endured was primarily non-physical. Perhaps that's why you have not met them.
Cate Ellington - March 15, 2013 1:01 PM
Vlad,
I think I may have not been as clear as I should have been. First off, my apologies if my question ws worded in such a way as to imply you have been biased in relation to whether you think jodi guilty or not. In fact I think I recall you stating in one blog yr belief that murder 2 was appropriate. I guess my questions revolve more around what I believe to be an exclusive criticism of the prosecutor without taking into consideration how the defense has been operating. Their whole strategy. Obviously, it is encumbent on the state to prove their case in what they believe to be the well being of the public good. It is my opinion they have done this appropriately and at times been forced to do what they can against a highly manipulative defendant and defense strategy. Like I said at this point in time, given everything I have heard at trial alone, I think they've proved their case. I think I wished only that you had considered the tactics and strategy of the defense too, because I respect yr opinion and find you interesting to listen to but give talked only from the perspective of criticizing the state without listing also the defense manipulations they MUST respond to.
So while I believe you there are people "blood Lusting" after arise who are not looking at the trial and only responding to media hype, there are many too, like me listening only to trial, that based on life experience, see clearly the abuse excuse is a lie. I wld disagree with yr statement that some abuse victims would be hard pressed to have objective proof beyond just defendants word. Having worked with abuse victims I have NEVER come across someone with nothing and I mean nothing like ms arias' INCREDIBLE bad luck.
As an aside, I hope Also Abused is a patron of the same innocent site I referenced earlier. If one is going to be taken seriously re their screams of sensationalism as foul, one must walk the talk. That site's editor FILLS his diatribes with sensationalist tactics. And they are often grotesquely about the victim and his grieving family.
Also Abused - March 15, 2013 4:01 PM
Mr. Gagic, do you think then that the state was foolish not to accept Jodi's offer to plea to murder two?
Have you seen the memorandum submitted? http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Plea-Bargain-document-2011-Jodi-Arias-Is-Innocent-com.pdf
Cate Ellington - March 15, 2013 4:28 PM
Hi Vlad ,
I didn't get out of my meeting in time to participate, but hopefully te radio show will be posted soon. Do you do them every Friday?
Mr. Nobody with Nothing to say - March 15, 2013 4:35 PM
Cate:
You are quoted as saying:
"It is ALL emotion based on that site",
"yet repeat over and over and over the most non-sensical, NOT based on fact or evidence, theories that leads any logical person to just shake their head.",
"It is very interesting how none of them seem to realize that they are just as bad as the "Nancy Disgraces". "
...
Well, as one of those "all" posters on "that" innocent site, i take exception to your close minded comments. I post frequently on "that" site, yet i do not make comments based on my emotions or from my own past experiences. I ONLY base my comments on facts and i do not feel they are "non-sensical". I do not feel that i post anything hateful, biased or unjustly opinionated to gain sensationalistic TV rating like miss nancy.
However i do appreciate your ideas and input, and that is what is important after all. Also I do understand that some of the people on the site ar every biased and emotional. I don't think this makes them wrong in their opinions, i think this just means some people can not articulate themselves as well as others and they try to compinsate for it with emotion and judgement. JUST like the folks on the other side of the coin.
Some people hate both cats and dogs. :)
What i do post about is facts. Fact, Jodi should be found innocent of the CHARGES. (this does not mean she didn't do many bad things) What she is guilty of, in my opinion, she was not charged with. However she was charged with a very set of specific crimes, these crimes have not been proven. not even close to proven.
Did she lie? YES, she was not charged with lying.
Did she KILL? Yes, she was not charged with killing someone.
Did she conspire to cover up a killing? Yes, she was not charged with conspiracy.
Did she do "bad"? yes
Did she do "mean"? yes
Did she do "dirty"? yes
did she do "icky"? sure...whatever you wanna call all her naughty actions. SHE DID IT...she wasn't charged with these things.
Facebook, anti-Jodi, HLN, etc... for the most part act like the charges are based on all of the above mentioned things, yet they are not. She was charged with 1st degree PRE meditated murder. PERIOD. She was charged with FELONY murder. PERIOD.
I do not, up to this point, think the state has proven either of these 2 charges. They have painted a picture of how she COULD be guilty, but COULD is not proof. They have NO SOLID proof. circumstantial evidence may get you a 2nd degree murder charge..but it doesnt hold up in court when you are charged with capital murder. Witness? Confession? Video? a note book with a plan? that is proof. 2/3 gas cans, a missing gun and some poor thought out story do not prove anything.(she doesnt have to tell us what really happened to prove she did it..the state does. They have not.
I also take a harsh look at anyone that uses the defendant’s actions AFTER the crime to prove actions BEFORE the crime. Let’s not forget, she killed someone. She acted just like I would if i killed someone. Hide, Lie, run, .... These are actions of a person that killed someone. They are not exclusive to the action of someone that committed PRE meditated murder. I hear over and over "she admitted to killing him! what is there to argue about?" well, lets remember she wasn't charged with "killing" she was charged with "murdering, and not just murdering but FELONY and or PRE meditated murder". In that case, there is ALOT to argue. IMO.
Clear points made by the article author. "pre" meditated means she had an intention to murder before the 'battle' and then carried out that intention as planned. 1st degree FELONY murder means that she was in the process of doing some OTHER felony and that resulted in the murder. What did she do other than "killing" that would be a felony? I dont see another felony here.
I will be calling for a full investigation as to why this woman was not charged with 2nd degree murder, conspiracy to cover up a murder, lying to a police officer, and several other obvious charges. We all know WHY they charged her with 1st degree..but i want to know HOW they are able to justify it. THE state is going to lose this case either way.
Christopher Caldwell - March 15, 2013 4:47 PM
Much commentary about this case concerns Arias's lack of emotion, as if that is proof enough of premeditation. Is it not possible for someone with a sociopathic personality to be a victim of abuse?
Heather - March 15, 2013 4:53 PM
Cate Ellington.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion; because you have never come across anything like this, then, its obviously not abuse that Jodi suffered? And.. based on life experience you see the abuse as a lie? So, because you haven't experienced it, it didn't happen?
Wow. I find what you say, quite astounding!
Er.. talking about sensationalism.. have you not heard of Nancy DISGrace and her cronies? Death by Media!
''a highly manipulative defendant'' ?..... What about a total Bully for a Prosecutor? Hmm? What about that? You think that's appropriate?
I'm from London, UK and I am shocked at how the Prosecution is handling this case and even more shocked at the haters' comments; they are simply savages, some of them wished me dead because I defended Jodi. They are Vultures waiting for the kill.
Such 'people' don't need a trial, they just want to Make it fit, just like in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Words fail me, Ms Ellington, sorry.
Also Abused - March 15, 2013 5:04 PM
>>>Much commentary about this case concerns Arias's lack of emotion, as if that is proof enough of premeditation. Is it not possible for someone with a sociopathic personality to be a victim of abuse?
I see Jodi as quite emotional at times. At other times, she displays some of the "flat affect" that I have been accused of myself. Mine is considerably worse than hers when I discuss most of the abuse I endured. It's the only way I can speak about it. I have to actually segregate the emotion from the facts. Otherwise, I would fall apart completely and be incapable of functioning on any level.
Is it possible for someone with a sociopathic personality to be a victim of abuse? Sure. But I think it's unlikely. Abusive relationships basically require a person with a great deal of emotion to literally "feed" the abuser. It's not much fun for them if they can't provoke a reaction from their victim. A sociopath wouldn't be likely to experience emotion.
Moreover, as Mr. Gagic said on his broadcast today, a sociopath would come up with much much much better lies than Jodi did.
Heather - March 15, 2013 5:12 PM
Christopher Caldwell.
Why should it have to be asked if its possible that a woman who has been abused, might have a ''sociopathic personality'' ?
Is it not possible for a woman who has been abused, to just be a normal woman without having to have Any label?
I do find your question quite bizarre; as if there Has to be something wrong with someone who has suffered abuse. On the contrary, I think there Has to be Something wrong with her abuser.
Heather - March 15, 2013 5:40 PM
I want Jodi to walk free. Jodi is innocent of pre-meditated murder and, she has spent 4 Years in Jail for self-defense, I mean, what Should she have done? Been noble and allowed him to kill Her? Because in the state he was in I believe she may well have lost her life.
I just Wish people would try to place themselves in Jodi's shoes for that instant; faced with possible death, she pointed the gun thinking he would stop, anyone else would stop, so Why is it that so many people seem to have a mental block to this?
I have a HUGE problem with Anyone finding Jodi guilty of Anything. Travis wouldn't stop and lunged at her and the gun went off. Is it too easy to think, that, had she intended to kill him, she had many other chances? Because she did and didn't do it.
As for slashing his throat.. no, I don't believe she did it, think about it, she was in terror, she must have been shaking..she wouldn't have slashed his throat from ear to ear, she just wouldn't. She possibly stabbed him, but 28 times? I think its doubtful but possible. But, Someone slashed his throat.. and I don't think it was Jodi--it bears the hallmarks of a Mormon.
Jodi is telling the Truth and should be aquitted. After all this she deserves her life.
I defy Anyone in a position of having to fight for their life not to fight, and would They like to be found guilty of 1st degree murder and face the death penalty? It could happen to any one of us, and what we have to be grateful for, is that it hasn't.
This was 100% Self-defense.
Heather - March 15, 2013 5:46 PM
One more thing..
All, every single one of the haters, say that the people who support Jodi, are.... obsessed with her--I have been accused of this many times..
If that means we are obsessed to see Justice done and see that she's aquitted, I agree wholeheatedly!
Heather - March 15, 2013 6:05 PM
Mr Nobody with nothing to say.
''I will be calling for a full investigation as to why this woman was not charged with 2nd degree murder, conspiracy to cover up a murder, lying to a police officer, and several other obvious charges. We all know WHY they charged her with 1st degree..but i want to know HOW they are able to justify it''
I am concerned with this. Did you see last night's trial with the expert? I think he explained it painstakingly well that Jodi suffered from PTSD, which explains everything you say you want investigated.
The way the State has presented this case, they deserve to lose, in my opinion; I see it as a Kangaroo court--they just want her to die! How dreadful. Martinez isn't interested in having her explain and demands yes/no answers? Appalling. This case is something out of the Middle Ages. Its shocking.
Heather - March 15, 2013 6:11 PM
Darlene.
All I can say to you, is that I hope Martinez' sidekick, Flores, has a spare pair of pants when Martinez cross examines the expert witness, I have a feeling he's going to need them!!
john appel - March 15, 2013 10:50 PM
I think that the question of her grandfather reporting the 25cal gun burglary could be construed as evidence for premeditation. How does the defense counter that?
bonnie - March 15, 2013 10:52 PM
Re: 25 caliber gun...thought this was interesting...
If it is on sale for $100.00, it is overpriced by about $95.00. I would not want to get shot with a .25 ACP, but if I were going to get shot, I'd rather be shot with a .25 ACP than any other cartridge. I figure that unless someone got real lucky, and I got real unlucky, I'd have a good chance of killing the SOB who shot me before I drove myself to the hospital. The .25 ACP is extremely underpowered, and should be rated as an expert's tool, not a gun for a novice. Raven pistols are big and bulky in comparison to their caliber. (There are plenty of .38 & .357 Magnum revolvers that are smaller and lighter, and plenty of .380 and 9 mmP pistols that are smaller and lighter.) Their safeties are a bad joke. Carrying one with a round chambered is just asking to be shot by your own gun. Ravens are very inaccurate beyond powder burn ranges. And worst of all, they are terribly unreliable. The best use I've found for Raven it to attach it to the end of a fishing line and use it as a sinker. Save your money and buy a decent firearm. That Raven will give you the illusion of being able to defend yourself. And if you are going to be packing iron illegally, you might as well go to jail for packing a serious defensive weapon as for popgun. Doc Source(s): In his famous study on handgun stopping power, Evan Marshall related the story of a hooker who went to the ERcomplaining of severe headaches. X-Rays revealed seven (yes I said 7) .25 ACP bullets in her head. Her pimp got mad and tried to kill her, shooting her 7 times in the head with a .25 A P. None of the bullets penetrated her skull, the just deflected and ran around her skull under the skin. She didn't even seek medical attention until a week later when the headaches caused by the pressure of the bullets on her skull became annoying. Now that is stopping power for you! HA!!
bonnie - March 15, 2013 10:53 PM
Re: 25 caliber gun...thought this was interesting...
If it is on sale for $100.00, it is overpriced by about $95.00. I would not want to get shot with a .25 ACP, but if I were going to get shot, I'd rather be shot with a .25 ACP than any other cartridge. I figure that unless someone got real lucky, and I got real unlucky, I'd have a good chance of killing the SOB who shot me before I drove myself to the hospital. The .25 ACP is extremely underpowered, and should be rated as an expert's tool, not a gun for a novice. Raven pistols are big and bulky in comparison to their caliber. (There are plenty of .38 & .357 Magnum revolvers that are smaller and lighter, and plenty of .380 and 9 mmP pistols that are smaller and lighter.) Their safeties are a bad joke. Carrying one with a round chambered is just asking to be shot by your own gun. Ravens are very inaccurate beyond powder burn ranges. And worst of all, they are terribly unreliable. The best use I've found for Raven it to attach it to the end of a fishing line and use it as a sinker. Save your money and buy a decent firearm. That Raven will give you the illusion of being able to defend yourself. And if you are going to be packing iron illegally, you might as well go to jail for packing a serious defensive weapon as for popgun. Doc Source(s): In his famous study on handgun stopping power, Evan Marshall related the story of a hooker who went to the ERcomplaining of severe headaches. X-Rays revealed seven (yes I said 7) .25 ACP bullets in her head. Her pimp got mad and tried to kill her, shooting her 7 times in the head with a .25 A P. None of the bullets penetrated her skull, the just deflected and ran around her skull under the skin. She didn't even seek medical attention until a week later when the headaches caused by the pressure of the bullets on her skull became annoying. Now that is stopping power for you! HA!!
Andy - March 15, 2013 11:17 PM
To my understanding this should have been an open and shut case in Jodi's favor from the very beginning. Our judicial system dictates that the benefit of the doubt be given to the defense and the state is obligated to prove thier case beyond the shadow of a doubt; most of us learn that in our high school civics class. With no confession, written out plan, co-herts (spelling?), video nor any kind of eye witness how can any juror be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt of Jodi's guilt? I don't question that Jodi killed Travis- the why could never, EVER be proven to me beyond the shadow of a doubt with no eye witness or video. The sad thing is the impication of where our society stands today- that today's society has totally disregarded what our judicial systems stands for in the sense that one must prove their innocence rather than the prosecution proving the defendant's guilt.
Another thing that drives me up the wall when it comes to this particular case is the questioning of Jodi's self defense in retaliation of Travis' abuse. Here's the thing- when most people hear the word "abuse", as it pertains to domestic disputes, they automatically assume it's physical. There is a place for that but I don't see it in this case as being physical. In fact, part of Webster's definition of "abuse" is: TO DISHONOR; TO VIOLATE, TO RAVISH. One can most certainly meet this definition in all kinds of ways that are NOT related to physical violence. Perhaps the most common is oral which I'm convinced is what we're talking about in this case.
I'm not condoning what Jodi did in any way, shape or form but I can understand where she's coming from in her reaction. I personally have been in situations where I slugged my dad in the face, took a baseball bat to my brother's lungs as well as nearly drowning him in the lake outside our house. All of these things were done after being constantly bombarded with insults and verbal abuse while at the same time I did not realize what I was doing. The only way I can talk about them now is by being reminded of what went on and the pictures my brother took after I hit him. I'm convinced that Jodi was behaving in a similar manner- that she got fed up with the fighting, the verbal abuse, took the gun and pointed it at Travis as a means to the end of the abuse. Like a lot of kids who kill themselves, I believe that she didn't know how to work it and the gun went off shooting Travis but not instantly killing him. He went into a rage again and Jodi, trying to protect herself, reacted in the only manner she could as a result of severe stress and panick- this is where the knife wounds come from.
Now, I'm not an eye witness so I can't say for sure that this is exactly what happened. On the other hand, since there were no eye witnesses, video or any other evidence that has come forth no one can rationally refute my hypothosis because you, I, Martinez, any of the jurors just don't know. Only Travis, Jodi and the Almighty Himself knows exactly what went on before Jodi killed Travis. But because there is that doubt there is no way that one can convict Jodi- especially me. Doing so would be in direct violation of our judicial system's doctrine- that the obligation rests with the prosecution, the benefit of the doubt rests with the defendant and the prosecution MUST prove thier case beyond any reasonable doubt.
christopher caldwell - March 16, 2013 1:07 AM
Heather said "I do find your question quite bizarre; as if there Has to be something wrong with someone who has suffered abuse. On the contrary, I think there Has to be Something wrong with her abuser."
It seems as if you are interpreting my question as if it's a statement. Obviously, it's a question. I find your response offensive and even more bizarre. It's like you have assumed that its something against Jodi Arias. I have no opinion. I'm not on the jury. So even if I did have an opinion, it's meaningless. As is your opinion.
Many people in the media and on forums have opined that Arias must be a sociopath, since she displays no emotion. I'm simply asked if it's possible that someone who suffers from a personality disorder such as sociopathy could be a victim of abuse. That's a great question, in my (meaningless) opinion. Because if the answer is "yes", then whether or not she's sociopathic would be irrelevant, and it would be wrong to conclude she's guilty just because of her flatness of emotion. Which is exactly what a majority of TV talking heads are saying. Got it? Hope that helps clarify.
It seems that you may be seeing what you want to see, hearing what you want to hear, and drawing conclusions based on assumptions. Open your mind and see that not everybody is bashing Jodi Arias. This is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with your life or mine.
Heather - March 16, 2013 6:05 AM
john appel,
I don't know how you can even start to think like this; all because her grandparents were burgled and a gun was taken, does not mean that it was That gun and in fact it wasn't, so unless you can prove this as Fact, no, you can't use it as evidence of premeditation because it simply isn't, so the defense will have no trouble with that. The gun belonged to TA.
I'm at a total loss to know why some people seem desperate to prove premeditation, a total loss. Somehow people seem to think that the State Must be right, just because its the State, just like they believe the police because they're the police, even though this is where there is the most corruption. I cannot understand this mindset at all and I never will.
Why is it that people look for lies first; I look for the truth first. In this case Jodi is telling the truth; her life is at stake here so why on earth should she lie? We all know the reason she lied at first and she has admitted that. I wish people would see her sincerity and honesty--to me it stands out a mile.
Its as if it becomes more exciting to some people, to turn 'super-sleuth', to look for lies, and of course we have the likes of Nancy Grace and cronies to thank for that; they are delighting in brainwashing the media, which seems to be frighteningly easy to do. I guarantee that if Jodi was NG's daughter she wouldn't be poisoning the media and would be down like a ton of bricks anyone who did and would sue them as quick as lightening for slander. Its sickening how people like her get such a thrill and excitement out of doing this, and it just goes to prove how many sheep there are in this world who soak it all up like a sponge. Its worrying; this is the sort of person who believes anything as long as it brightens up their dull existence.
I find it so easy to read Jodi; why is it so hard for others to do? I don't think they want to, they just look for ways of damning her. What the hell is wrong with society?
Heather - March 16, 2013 6:55 AM
I ask myself about the women haters or those who say that ''pretty Jodi'' is guilty. or, some say she's ugly.. and I think to myself, is this ALL about this case or is it something else, something more deeply hidden, something that they relate to themselves?
I think they look at Jodi, see how educated she is, how strong she is now compared to the Jodi of 4-5 years ago, see how far she's come, see her obvious beauty and her eloquence and somehow compare themselves to her. I think that probably there are many women who have suffered abuse, I know that there are plenty of women who long for approval in relationships, just like I think Jodi did, so why this hatred for her (that goes way beyond this case) ? Why is it they have no understanding and no empathy for her, that they just want to see her die?
Maybe the reason for this is some sort of jealousy; they would like to be as strong as Jodi is, but think of themselves as being weak, and perhaps not as beautiful, not as well educated, weak self esteem? Not being a psychologist I cannot state this is the case, but it would certainly explain their vile behaviour to her. I cannot for the life of me think of another reason why another woman would not have that understanding and compassion, yes they don't have Any of that at all, they just Hate a woman they don't know and have never met, and there Has to be something wrong with that. One would surely expect them to identify with her, but, they don't, just the opposite.
This case has certainly opened my eyes in so many different ways, to the law in Arizona, the whole legal system and it seems, to the majority of people who live there.
In the UK Jodi would probably get a charge of self defense, the trial would not have taken this long and, because she has already served 4 years in Jail, be set free. That's another thing, why has she been in jail for... 4 Years? Here people would be free until their case came up--they would be out on bail in a case such as Jodi's.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The judicial system in the US is FAR more fierce than it is here in the UK and, I think, way over the top. For example we don't have the death penalty; you can't bring anyone back if a few years later you realise you made a mistake and it was the wrong person or strong mitigating circumstances.
Jodi has been to hell and back and I am praying for God to intervene and that she is aquitted, for this is what she rightly deserves--a right to enjoy the rest of her life. She has already been scarred for life with what happened and ontop of that, jail and this protracted case with a bully for a prosecutor who asks her questions, such as, is it possible.. just for her to say what he wants the jury to hear, which is for her to answer, yes; he is banking on the jury not to notice the word ''possible'', just to hear her answer, especially if they have already made their minds up she is guilty of premeditated murder. I have never seen such an underhanded Prosecutor in my life.
I just wish I was a member of the Jury and I would have flown out of the UK to be there.
joan kamen - March 16, 2013 8:18 AM
I want to comment on the horrible media presentations by HLN. Nancy Grace and
Dr. Drew in particular. After they went after Jodie Arias they went after the expert witness,
Dr. samuels . Completely misconstruing one topic he was talking about which had
nothing to do with Jodie Arias. He was presenting information about the causes of
different types of memory loss. It is naive to believe that some jurors will not be
influenced by some of this false information. The sad part about it is Nancy grace and
Dr. Drew Pinsky are both professionals, they should now better.
Pitchforks - March 16, 2013 1:07 PM
Vlad, it is great to have this connection to your legal expertise and sense of ethical responsibility towards your profession. It is a very valuable complement to my own perspectives which come from the psychological/psychiatric perspective. I had no idea about the blurred line the prosecution is drawing between the two counts, and what I wonder is why the main network covering this trial, tawdry HLN, has not devoted any significant time to outlining the legal characteristics of the two counts, never mind the discrepancies of logic therein. But then I suppose I have answered my own question. Why would they? They are not in the business of educating about legal process, they are in the business of extrapolating the most tawdry elements of criminal proceedings and dressing them up in the deceptive trappings of being “your front row seat to justice.” More like “front row seat to gladiator blood-sports”, as you so rightly said.
The notion that those who are concerned about the gross distortions and misrepresentations in the media of Arias are “sickos” who think indiscriminately that she is “innocent” in some global all-embracing sense is simplistic. Even on the “Jodi is Innocent” website I doubt if the majority of their followers are of that indiscriminating mindset. What they are reacting to is the overwhelming representation of Arias as having an ”evil” agenda in everything she does from the number of times she removes and replaces her cardigan in court to the usual B-movie clichés about wanting to boil any woman rival’s bunny, interestingly not backed up by photos, activity statements or police reports for the tire slashing, breaking in, bank hacking etc. What man would let this all go by with a “mehh..” a shrug and a whinging session with his buddies over a cup of chamomile tea – unless he was invested for other reasons in slandering a person's reputation?
The fact is the media encourages you not to think, to accept the easiest fairy-tale elementary school primer version of events, with all the protagonists cast in archetypal and clearly defined roles of nasty witches and pious knights in shining armour, where policemen and prosecutors are always the “goodies” and defense attorneys are the money-grubbing Shylocks shamelessly in cahoots with the “baddies”.
The view expressed above, that Arias has “studied abuse victimology, traits etc. and has rehearsed her victim role for the last 4 years” is highly speculative. Many of the spontaneous ways she explains, excuses and clarifies would require the acting skills of Meryl Streep, so I guess she really does qualify for an Oscar nomination. Secondly, as pointed out in the article Vlad mentioned, if she has indeed spent so much time “studying” how to come across as an abuse victim, then where are the corrections officers attesting to the mountain of books and internet searches (if she even has internet access) she has accessed in order to train for her starring role. As another person said, the lack of “evidence”, by which is meant police reports and photos does not “prove” that abuse did not occur. Probably most abused women, finding themselves in court for assault or murder of a man and asked to “prove” abuse would be hard-pushed to provide it. I am sure Vlad can attest to the overflowing women’s prisons full of women convicted due to such “flimsy” assertions of self-defense or cruelty that caused them to “snap”. I refer you to the following for a more in-depth discussion of these issues. http://babelbooth.com/2013/02/21/physical-abuse-of-women-undermined-issue/ http://babelbooth.com/2013/03/04/lying-for-the-lord-a-conveniently-ignored-phenomenon/
I agree with Heather, that the disproportionate hate of Arias, that is led by women, is in part a reflection of resentment, a kind of inverted snobbery against someone who is bright, articulate and at least used to be very pretty. Insecurity so often breeds an unwholesome glee when a person one feels threatened by is brought down with a resounding crash – and if one can assist in that demise, the relish is all the more delicious.
will - March 16, 2013 2:16 PM
It is unquestionably wrong, for the MEDIA to become active participants in an on-going court case, regardless of public demand for up-to-date and "close to action" coverage. When the MEDIA interferes with the legal system, it does harm to "every american citizen" who may go to court, as well as itself. It is unconstitutional, and it is unethical when the Media crosses lines and decides innocence or guilt of a person (s), it becomes not simply a purveyor of information, but rather a jury instead........We have TV shows (HLN) with their "own jury". & non-stop one-sided coverage of an on-going trial with "professional people" with panels who are screaming & all talking at the same time. Another show has a 'jury' that sits in the courtroom then appears on the nightly show where they too all talking at once, screaming, cutting each other off or if the host don't like something another said, it's then "cut his mic". What happened to these " professional people" who are now making total fools of themselves on national tv........who are interfering with our justice system (which happens to be the best in the world).
TRIAL BY MEDIA: Dr. Sam Sheppard Sheppard v Maxwell Case no: 384 US 333
MEDIA ETHICS WITH A LIFE AT STAKE:
http://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2001-conferences/media-ethics-with-a-life-at-stake-the-sam-sheppard-murder-trial-index.html
WIKIPEDIA: http:1/en.wikipedia.org
john derr - March 16, 2013 3:04 PM
What about the gun stolen from Jodi's grandfather's home being the same caliber as the gun used to shoot TA. That would support premeditation. Also if TA had a gun; why didn't he use it to defend himself, if as it's alleged the stabbing occurred before the shooting?
vg - March 16, 2013 3:39 PM
I think Travis was the stalker, with his addiction to using her for sex, and that he referred to her as a stalker to justify keeping seeing her. And that Travis' friends/followers from the PPL-Mormon group wanted and still want to point to her as a 'stalker' to protect their own actions and jealousy then and now for the new Hispanic convert who got all the attention from their leader.
They are the ones who originally 'stalked' her for their group, gave her a free ride to Las Vegas where they introduced her to Travis, the motivator, and are now coming out of the woodwork on TV to slander Jodi in any way they can.
Do you think that this trial is fair? Should it not have been moved to another county, and the jury sequestered?
Justice needs to be served - March 16, 2013 3:41 PM
When you take all of Jodi's actions leading up to June 4th 2008, I do believe the state has proven their case. A .25 caliber gun going missing from her grandparents home ONE week before the killing, renting a car and asking for a car that would not be noticeable to law enforcement, taking and buying gas cans, her license plate being off and/or turned over, and leaving absolutely no evidence that she was EVER in Arizona that weekend. Travis was shot with the same type of weapon that happened to be the only weapon that was taken from her grandparents house. She claims it was his BUT she happens to be the only one who knows about his gun. No ammunition was ever found in his home making that claim unbelievable because you don't have a gun and not have ANY ammunition. Cleaning up the crime scene and getting rid of ALL the evidence. While maybe non of these factors alone prove premeditation, them in WHOLE do. I'm not on the jury, so I don't get a dog in this fight. This is my opinion, and I do think the jury will see everything as a whole.
I want to add just one more thing, to be in a relationship where there's abuse, don't you actually have to be in a relationship?
Cate Ellington - March 16, 2013 4:40 PM
This idea that because there is a disproportionate number of women watching this trial -who don't buy into Ms. Arias' third version of the story- and MUST simply be 'jealous' of Jodi Arias' because of her beauty or her ability to speak a bit better than your average illiterate- is a preposterously shallow observation. I am truly at a loss for words with that one. But maybe, once again, this is a reflection of feelings the POSTER is all too familiar with and although they might not feel them in re: to Jodi Arias, they once again are projecting their own emotions and feelings into this case. "I feel that way, so they MUST feel that way". Or "it happened to ME like that, so it MUST have happened to Jodi Arias like that". Jodi Arias IS well spoken, but I would not call her smart. Manipulative and deceptive-yes. But manipulative and deceptive do not always equate with smart. (She is lucky that she has Kirk Nurmi - a talented lawyer. His legal trickery has been abundantly on display in court and it appears he has guided her carefully.) Jodi Arias IS a very pretty girl, but what on earth has that to do with this trial? Other than making for good tv, sensationalism etc, something you all espouse to detest? Like I said most of the comments (not all) I read on "that site" are all over-the-top, based not at all on fact or the evidence presented in this trial and often not even presented by Ms Arias herself OR her lawyers. Again, the posters just "feel something is not right here so that MUST be the case". The mis-characterizations of the victim are particularly grotesque.
For ANYONE to believe that it must be jealousy, instead of for example, horror, sympathy and grief for what she did to this young man and his family, tells me way more about the stunningly superficial person making such an accusation- then it does any thing about the demographics of said group thinking Jodi Arias guilty of premeditated murder. I tend to believe there are a lot of women watching the trial because it is a fascinating case. I for one, am a mother, a wife and a sister to three brothers. It is probably through the prism of being a mother that this case cuts to the bone most. And I think another reason that so very many women AND men are outraged at this defendant and her defense- has more to do with the audacity of the claims being made against the real victim here, Travis Alexander in a despicable attempt to garner pity from the jury and to confuse the matter with a politically sensitive defense.
I know you like to point to the media as the reason no one believes Jodi Arias, and in your minds its the media's manipulation of the facts that accounts for all the "haters". To a large degree perhaps you are right. But there is also a legion of folks watching the actual trial, not sensational tv shows that are outraged at this defendant. (Not "blood-lusting" ...just outraged.) I know that does not quite fit with your idea of the haters, but it is the truth nonetheless.
Don - March 16, 2013 5:32 PM
You people are loony! She's a murderer and a liar ~ as guilty as sin. Wake up
Nk - March 17, 2013 12:18 AM
Cate,
No one is able to tear down a woman better than another woman, and no one enjoys it more. This is something I have encountered over and over and over.
While, yes, some people are sympathizing with Travis's family, let's go ahead and be honest about what this trial is really about - it centers around religion and sex. (Something media outlets constantly discuss).
People are arguing:
1) Jodi enjoyed the sex, so she couldn't possibly be an abuse victim. (Because abuse victims can't enjoy pleasure? Really? That is outrageous! Jodi already admitted that Travis was not always abusive, that he could be nice too. She also testified whenever he was abusive, he'd apologize later. Abusers tend to do this).
2) Jodi should have been the one to set limits. After all, she is the female. Travis was a virgin before that, Jodi was a "whore" who tempted him and seduced him. Travis is a man, he gave into this weaknesses, he's just a normal man. (Again, completely outrageous!! First of all, even if Jodi asked, Travis should have said no if it was religiously important to him. If him saying yes means he gave into a human weakness, that means Jodi asking is her giving into a human weakness. If Travis asked, and him asking is giving into a human weakness, then Jodi saying yes is giving into a human weakness. Please let us stop acting like if a man has sex it is less of a sin than if a woman has sex. That is blasphemous! Because if that were really true, it would mean God is not just, but God is just and fair. A man and woman committing the same sin are both equally accountable. People are turning this into an Adam and Eve situation. Travis is like Adam, Jodi is like Eve, evil Jodi tempted Travis to "eat the apple" (have sex) and fall.).
3) Jodi couldn't possibly be a true Mormon because she didn't follow the beliefs. Well neither did Travis and he was practicing longer. If anything, it would have been harder for Jodi to adjust to the new lifestyle.
4) Jodi didn't leave Travis, that means she wasn't abused. (Because all women leave their abusers as soon as they get abused right? That is why we have no abused women - NOT! Again, a foolish notion. Oh, she doesn't have evidence, well not all abused women do. Travis was not like that in public - well the people best at being abusive are the ones that are loved by society. Decorate police officers have abused their wives or g/fs. The way a person presents themselves to society is not always how they are behind closed doors).
5) Jodi stalked Travis. She came to his house unannounced, he did not want her there. (Um, no, I'm sorry, but if he thought she was a stalker, he would have changed the locks on his door, started locking his door, and he would not have sex with her or allow her to take graphic photos- do not tell me, oh he was a man, he gave into his weakness. That is foolish! If a woman went around and told people a guy was stalking her, but she continued to hang out with him, talk to him, have sex with him, she'd be criticized. How come in this case, it is a man being a man?)
This is ridiculous. People are judging her for the pictures she took and allowed Travis to take, for her graphic phone conversations.
I am not saying Travis was a terrible person. God rest his soul. He was human, even if he was abusive, he was human and he made a mistake. That was a horrific way for him to die. I am merely stating, that yes, Jodi could telling the truth. There is no reason to assume she is lying just because of the above points I mentioned the media spews out. She never wrote a violent word in her journals, was never clingy or violent in past relationships. She has been writing journals since she was in high school. Unless she could predict the future and knew this would happen so she started covering her tracks early on (which is nonsense), she is not violent or a sociopath.
Travis and Jodi are both victims of terrible childhoods. Maybe if they both got proper counseling, this situation wouldn't have happened. Yes, people from abusive environments can become abusive or allow themselves to continue to be abused in adult relationships.
One of two things are true:
1) Self defense - very unfortunate situation for both of Travis and Jodi.
2) Murder 2/manslaughter - Jodi made a terrible mistake, poor judgement call. She snapped from all the abuse she suffered from childhood through adulthood.
Let me clarify, Travis being abusive is also a human mistake that was probably due to his awful childhood.
Again, both are victims. There is no reason to add more hate to this situation. Jodi's life will never be the same even if she does walk. Nobody is walking away from this situation unpunished.
Heather - March 17, 2013 1:45 AM
vg - I agree with you completely.
John derr - It maybe the same calibre gun.. but tell me, are there only 2 guns made with this calibre? No, I didn't think so.
Heather - March 17, 2013 2:05 AM
Hi Vladimir,
Just like to thank you for that very interesting link ''Undermining of abused women''. I also want to say that, being a Brit in London, I was very pleased to be able to listen to your chat radio.
My thanks too, to Pitchfork!
Heather - March 17, 2013 8:06 AM
Bob..
A saying rather comes to mind: Don't you think you're trying to teach your grandmother (in this case, grandfather) how to suck eggs?
Why is it that you can state, with all certainty, as Fact, that Jodi ''slit his throat'' ? Its about as ludicrous as saying she slashed his tyres (yes, its the English spelling as I'm a Brit)
There is no proof whatsoever that Jodi did these things, its a presumption on your part that she slashed his throat, which I don't believe for one minute she did, and as for the tyres, its hearsay from an ex girlfriend!
Sorry to have to say this, but its people like you who only want something said once, and it becomes a 'fact', that can end someone's life; its dangerous!
Pitchforks - March 17, 2013 9:26 AM
The responses to conclusions about women’s hate for Jodi reflecting their own insecurities have missed the point. The interpretation that one is connecting these insecurities directly to an assumption of Jodi’s guilt, that one is making a blanket statement that any woman who believes Jodi is guilty must be insecure, is misguided. What I and others are saying is that it is the tone and extremity of the hate with which their views are expressed about Jodi and other high-profile female defendants that reflect underlying issues, not the views themselves. It is natural and healthy to be disturbed and deeply concerned at a universal level about any acts of brutality in society, but the negative emotion expressed in these media-hyped cases is disproportionate to the personal involvement of the haters. If one is so worked up with violent thoughts towards someone with whom one has no remote contact, how much emotional energy is left for one’s personal, tangible life? Violent emotions or obsessions directed towards abstract or inappropriate targets often reflect suppressed or subconscious emotions that do not express themselves where they are really due.
The media know such emotions can be easily tapped with hype, so they feed the kinds of stories that hook right into people’s emotional and psychological red buttons.
Abusive insults or death wishes, not infrequently seen, towards the speakers of alternative views only confirm the impression of insecurity, desperation and an inability to articulate and express emotions in a reasoned, healthy manner. Such haters would benefit from investing the same amount of energy towards examining the true source of their resentment within their own lives.
Justice needs to be served - March 17, 2013 11:07 AM
People need to STOP making excuses for her. Jeez! Just because she's never been violent before doesn't mean travis didn't have that effect on her to make her act like that. How are you 100% certain that she didn't do all these things? Because she said so, someone who lied to law enforcement and everybody else that she wasn't there, then two other people did it, and when those two stories didn't work, now it's self-defense... Maybe this one will work since its justifiable homicide... She did slit his throat, how can you even attempt to make an excuse after we KNOW she was the ONLY one in that room with him. I mean, she came in the early hours so anybody else in the house was most likely sleeping and they stayed in the room and no one saw her there on June 4th. Remember, she rented a car so no one would have known that was her car in the driveway. I can't fix stupid so I really shouldn't even be trying. We must be trying to just tear her down because we do believe she is capable of this. In case you missed, she admitted to it.
Please someone, answer my question, to be in an ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, don't you actually have to be IN A RELATIONSHIP? They were just fu** buddies!
Pitchforks - March 17, 2013 11:10 AM
Hate: the Oxycontin of Women in Social Media
http://babelbooth.com/2013/03/17/hate-the-oxycontin-of-women-in-social-media/
Heather - March 17, 2013 12:04 PM
Justice needs to be served.
I agree, it does, Jodi's freedom would be justice. She has already served over 4 years in jail--for self-defense.
You, too, say that she used her grandfathers gun and are saying this was premeditated; so please explain; if this was indeed the case, why she didn't just pump him with bullets as soon as she got to his place, after all, she was standing behind him, he was playing with the computer with his back to her.
Next opportunity would be when they were in bed, but that didn't happen either. Tell me how this is premeditated?
Justice needs to be served - March 17, 2013 12:16 PM
Heather, answer my question first please...
Heather - March 17, 2013 12:22 PM
Pitchforks, your post expressed my feelings. Thank you..
Heather - March 17, 2013 12:58 PM
Nk,
A very good post. I could understand it if Jodi Did snap, my own feelings are that she didn't; she didn't know the gun would go off--I honestly think she didn't mean it to, she pointed the gun in the hope that he would stop, so that she could calm him down, probably with sex as that was the foolproof way at other times when he got angry.
She was probably shaking, and when he was coming at her the gun went off I don't think she would have been in control to know what she was doing at that moment, she was petrified; he had just body slammed her in the bathroom. Pointing the gun was the only way she thought he would stop--most people would stop, I know I would, but Travis's anger got the better of him and he didn't. After the gun went off and he kept coming at her she thought she was going to die and, like anyone would do, she fought for her life; had she not, I think he would have killed her, he had already previously tried to choke her and she lost consciousness.
From the way he spoke to Jodi he definitely had problems with his anger, and then he would be sweet and loving, then he would demean her; the poor girl, she was only young at the time and thought she could help him with his problems with her love and support... and that in itself is no crime, just very sad, and I would say, not at all uncommon in abusive relationships.
And because she did the only thing she Could do, which was to fight for her life, she finds herself on a 1st degree murder charge; we would ALL be on a 1st degree murder charge if we were to find ourselves in the situation of having to fight for our lives. The alternative is life in Jail, is That fair? Would any of us think we deserved that, if we were in her shoes?
I don't think so, neither would Martinez. Its all wrong, very wrong, man's inhumanity to man is simply disgusting.
I am not saying btw that anyone deserves to die like that, but by his actions he chanced with death; no one made him abuse Jodi.
Heather - March 17, 2013 1:13 PM
Justice needs to be served,
Sorry, I did answer, but I don't see it, anyway I will try again . All I really have to say, is that what you have said is all presumption, and whether added as a whole or not, doesn't alter anything, it certainly doesn't make it premeditation, where is the proof?
One Has to have evidence beyond all reasonable doubt and there isn't any. Could you honestly be happy giving a verdict of 1st degree murder when there is no conclusive evidence? Could You take Jodi to be killed?
The State has not proved this case as 1st degree murder and IMO, won't be able to.
Yes, Justice Does need to be served, Jodi needs to be aquitted.
Justice needs to be served - March 17, 2013 1:55 PM
Heather,
Her defense is self-defense using the battered women's syndrome. She states she was in an abusive relationship with travis, and she killed him while he was attacking her. My question, as it's clearly visible on my previous comment is, to be in an abusive relationship, don't you actually have to be in a relationship? They were just having sex!
What would it take you to convict her? A video of what happened, a witness to the entire crime? There isn't always those kinds of things. Circumstantial evidence of ALL those factors(I forgot to add convincing him to take a shower and moving his dog so she could kill him) prove premeditation. There was no witness or video to what Scott Peterson did to his wife and son but ALL the circumstantial evidence pointed to premeditation and he was convicted and ultimately sentenced to DEATH. Casey Anthony is sooooo different as there is/was no cause of death for Little Caylee.
Cate Ellington - March 17, 2013 2:22 PM
Pitchforks,
I know you'd like to add credibility to yr argument by trying to imply yr the author or media entity thanks wrote artcle Vlad posted, but its obvious where you post regularly and yr views are anything but neutral. If u read my post above, you'll see I didn't disagree there ARE posters probbly postg for reasons u state. But to assume that most women postg r doing so is jst silly and yr rationale is simply argued in order to attempt to gv credibility to yr argument and yr desire to try and make "haters" sound irrational. There ARE some of those, I have no doubt, but to say that women can NOT be outraged primarily due to the heinousness of crime and the continued slaughtered of Travis Alexander that jodi arias and co. are continually perpetrating in court is to seriously underestimate women. Not to mention the fact there are also hundreds if not thousands of MEN watching that r just as outraged. Are they simply jealous too? The ones not influenced by media bt evidence in court?
I have no doubt that most of above posters on this blog r coming from that innocent site. I know you love to try and simplify the "haters" in order for you to dismiss anything said. You especially like to keep insisting that most of us don't nderstand abuse and all its nuances. When people say she's lying you like to point out things like, "many abused women protect their abusers and because Arias HAS, (in COURT, with the jury listening), you take that as PROOF she ws abused. But you ignore what most r saying, its NOT that we are simpletons and oblivious to the hallmark of abuse, its that we see a defendant who is PLAYING an abused woman, to win her case. She has been rehearsing this role for at least 2 years, using a defense that is very well known. There are many women for which it legitimately applies and some for which it does NOT. You are all so very quick to condemn Travis A. for the most remote reasons that jodi and co. Put forth. And yet, you in no way hold Arias to the same standard of proof, becs if u did, you'd have reached a different conclusion.
Heather - March 17, 2013 2:45 PM
Also Abused.
I hope you have managed somehow to re-build your life and I wish you peace and happiness.
Nk - March 17, 2013 2:47 PM
Justice needs to be served -
They may not have been in a relationship in a traditional sense, but they were in a relationship - a sexual one.
That graphic recording of the both of them, I believe was after they already broke up. Travis was discussing how he was going to visit Jodi after Cancun and how she would be priority on that trip. Both Jodi and Travis called each other "baby" during that call. It would appear that they were in some type of relationship. And yes, even in a friends with benefits type relationship, a person can be abused. In any relationship that involves sex, it is easy for the relationship to turn abusive. He still seemed upset at the thought of her having a sexual relationship with another man (based on some of his text messages he sent after she accidentally sent a message to him that was meant for another man).
Just because they weren't exclusive, does not mean they were not in some form of relationship. No relationship would mean no contact. Even friends can be abusive toward one another (this happens with girls, where one girl in the group might be the "most popular" or "leader" of the group. She insults her other friends/puts them down).
Heather - March 17, 2013 3:01 PM
Cate:
Just a quick observation.. would you say your post is neutral, by any chance?
''We see a defendant PLAYING at being an abused woman''.. ?
Maybe You do Cate, maybe you do.. and I have given up wondering why.
Also Abused - March 17, 2013 3:15 PM
>>>>Her defense is self-defense using the battered women's syndrome. She states she was in an abusive relationship with travis, and she killed him while he was attacking her. My question, as it's clearly visible on my previous comment is, to be in an abusive relationship, don't you actually have to be in a relationship? They were just having sex!
So "justice needs to be served" having sex regularly with someone is NOT having a relationship with them?
I might be able to buy that if she was a prostitute that he paid for by the hour. But seriously, they weren't having a relationship even though they went on trips together, had all sorts of sex with one another, talked on the phone regularly, emailed and texted one another? Not to mention the fact that they had a dating relationship previously.
So, let me get this straight. If a woman is married to an abusive man and they get divorced, but then, they continue to have sex and see each other. Is she not still in an abusive relationship because they got divorced? If a woman breaks up with her abuser, is she still not a battered woman? I really need help with your logic on this point.
Also Abused - March 17, 2013 3:24 PM
Cate Ellington, where is the proof that Jodi "rehearsed" and is "playing a role"? I guess that could be said of ANY abuse victim then, couldn't it?
I didn't realize Sheriff Joe, who feeds his inmates mouldy bread and rotten fruit, provided them with incredible acting lessons. I'll say this: if she is playing a role, no other actress this decade should be awarded an Oscar and Hollywood should snatch her up.
But the biggest problem with your idea here is that there are abusive texts from Travis. There's also his voice on a tape saying some pretty nasty abusive words towards her. And then, although they haven't been brought out in the trial, there's evidence that there were texts and emails from Travis's own friends complaining about the way he treated Jodi and another girlfriend. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/20121227womans-trial-set-death-lover.html
That, to me, shows a profile of an abusive man.
Heather - March 17, 2013 3:41 PM
Justice needs to be served.
Are you saying what I think you're saying, that because they were ''just having sex'' and ''not in 'a relationship'', that she couldn't have been abused? Is That what you are asking me?
I find it unbelievable that you seem to be proud of the fact that a man was sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence?
Cate Ellington - March 17, 2013 3:51 PM
Heather,
Your post to Bob proves my exact point about why it's so very difficult to take most posters at that 'jainnocent' site seriously. You said that his post about Jodi slitting Travis' throat was based on 1 comment. Are you serious? Are YOU getting your information strictly from that site? And by "1" - I assume you mean the prosecutor's? Jodi HERSELF has admitted she was responsible for this as has her defense, and the fact you choose to ignore this tells me your posts are again, just about emotions and projections and no better than the 'misinformed masses' you scream about. Any comment by you and the others over there that she didn't slit his throat is based solely on magical thinking. This idea that you STILL cannot accept what even Jodi Arias is saying in court about it, that she DID this thing, is just silly.
I say MOST, but not all. Some observations, imo ARE based on critical thinking but they're far and few between. Some posts are because the poster has experienced abuse themselves and they believe Jodi's situation could have been THEIR situation and so understandably are angry about the idea that someone "abused" might not be believed. I believe however they are not looking at this particular situation in its totality- no matter what they might say and are not giving Travis' side of the coin anywhere near the sort of indulgences and forgiveness they have granted Jodi. As an example, it is said over and over (again, at THAT site) that most abusers would not leave pedophilia contraband laying around or admit to people their abusive ways. They would not be abusive in public. Its almost like the more there is a lack of evidence that Travis was the monster Jodi says he was, the more they are convinced he was one! And yet at same time, they point to the lack of evidence of violence in Jodi's journals, the lack of her writing anything about a plan to kill Travis, as if that is PROOF that Jodi was not over the edge about Travis. What??? There are so many examples of over the top double standards there that I just end up questioning the intelligence of many of the posters that post most often. Intelligence or emotional health. Why are they still so angry that they are incapable of looking at this case from both sides? Just as you say the "haters" post horrible things about Jodi and family, the extreme hate exhibited toward Travis, his family, sisters, the prosecutor etc, on THAT site with the actual owner dude's headlining posts (outrageously obscene& grotesque) but it appears THOSE posts are perfectly acceptable with you people, makes your argument so incredibly and completely null and void.
And, in using YOUR logic about the women that seem to hate Jodi, that it MUST be about simple jealousy, then what about most posters over there APPLAUDING the hate of the editor, does that mean you are all just jealous of Travis? Or the editor is? Because according to YOU, it cannot be simple outrage about the actual event. Isn't that correct???
Heather - March 17, 2013 6:47 PM
John Derr.
In answer to your question: Travis couldn't get the gun because Jodi took it from his Closet. The accidental shooting of Travis came first.
Jodi is telling the truth; if my life was at stake I would be, too.
Justice needs to be served - March 17, 2013 8:09 PM
Also abused, I don't need to explain logic to you. Nor do I want to. They were having sex, that's it! He wasn't beating the crap outta her as she's claiming.
And heather, yes I am happy Scott was convicted on circumstantial evidence, it's just as good. Or maybe you're forgetting that is what our country relied on for the last 200 years? If you think she's gonna walk you're mistaken, they're not gonna let her walk away from this. And she can't talk her way out of it. ALL those factors point to premeditation and by the jurors questions, they do NOT believe her and they don't like her. They were NOT even making eye contact with her. They will have NO problem sentencing her to death. But IF she gets life without parole I would be just as happy since EITHER way she would die IN PRISON, which is far better and more humane than the fate travis suffered.
Justice needs to be served - March 17, 2013 8:33 PM
Cate is right!! You guys can't even believe something she's ADMITTED to, why should any of us? She's a proven liar and only came up with self-defense after her first two stories didn't work.
Cate Ellington - March 17, 2013 9:26 PM
Also Abused,
I ws going to respond to yr earlier post but got sidetracked with responsibilities at home. Well, again, i disagree with yr assessment of j arias' acting ability. There also seem to be many more people that agree with my view than yours. But nothing I can say about that since its just an opinion. As for sheriff Joe providing acting lessons that's clearly a joke. Do you not understand that ms arias has had almost unlimited access to her attys? Do u really think she could be denied access to all sorts of books that provide the most intimate details of women who have been abused? This again, is really not nuclear physics we are talking about here. She hs had countless hours with which to perfect this role in which her life depends on it. I'd think that motive enough to use every possible resource available. Cell mates, strategy discussions with Matt mccartney, Ann Campbell etc. The exposition to the psychologist and DV expert, further research. J Arias has already shown us she has nerves of steel and has no qualms lying. She has just changed her demeanor from bubbly confident girl who wasn't there or that said she ws innocent becs 2 intruders did it and ws in fear for her family's safety to demure, quiet, unbelievably naive girl that only lied to avoid having to tell the awful things about Travis after all the monstrous things she claimed he did and was. Oh, and whenever possible come across sweet as pie and almost virginal EXCEPT when the prosecutor brings up all those pesky despicable things she did and at that point admit really quickly and do not give long rambling answers geared to give plenty of options later as to why she did certain things. Maybe the jury won't remember if I admit real quick.
No Also Abused this is hardly an Oscar worthy performance. Just long and tedious and manipulative. It has not gone unnoticed either, kirk nurmi's attempt at choreography. They knew that in order to make Jodi as sympathetic as possible and, as believable as possible, since they had so much to overcome, nurmi had to be the bad cop. Becs of brutality of her actions, it would not do, to hv her be the one to initiate all the monstrous claims against Travis. As we saw, nurmi made sure it would look as if he ws literally hving to FORCE jodi to ADMIT what Travis did. Pure theater, pure predictability.
Can u name one other example of a woman on trial for the murder of her mister of an abuser in which, after all this time has passed and she is not angry as hell for what he forced gee to do to him/? OR same woman has NO physical marks left from that attack or any attack that someone saw? Again, Matt mccartney doesn't and won't count based on his earlier admission he wld lie for her. And the coded messages Arias sent to him in order to get him to lie to her own attys. Again....individually of course justifications could be made. But when you have that MANY inconsistencies? The answer is obvious.
Again, you give Arias more passes than logic would deem to be rational. Yet you condemn Travis on texts and a phone sex tape easily read very differently.
Heather - March 18, 2013 12:54 AM
Cate Ellington,
The One thing that is really noticeable in your response to Also Abused, is that you have not mentioned once to her about the obvious abuse she suffered, not one ounce of sympathy for her; all you have done is to verbally pull her post to pieces.
Also Abused - March 18, 2013 7:39 AM
Justice, how do you know he wasn't beating her? How do you know he wasn't verbally abusing her? How do you know he wasn't emotionally abusing her? In fact, there is more evidence (his texts and the recorded phone conversation) that would lend one to believe he was being, at the very least, verbally abusive, than that he wasn't. Calling a woman a whore, saying he raped her, calling her his 3-hole wonder, wanting to live out a rape fantasy ... those are all the types of statements abusive men make and which are reported by women who have been abused. Ever spoken with any? My ex once wrote in permanent marker on my bottom that I was his "little ho." And if "just having sex" accompanied by talking on the phone and in text multiple times a day isn't having a relationship with someone, then I would not like to think about what your view of a relationship is.
Also Abused - March 18, 2013 7:48 AM
Cate Ellington, if Jodi read all the books about abuse that you seem to think she did, then why hasn't the prosecution brought that forward in evidence? Why isn't it being discussed on HLN? There are former cellmates of hers who are now out of prison. Why aren't they gaining their 15 minutes of fame going on the air talking about it? You do realize that ANY books she read in prison are recorded and logged, right?
And I know plenty of women that were abused but do not have marks that anyone else saw or that would be considered evidence. I also know women that do have marks or missing teeth, but they were ruled inadmissible. As for hating an abuser, that's actually very rare. Call the National Domestic Violence Hotline and pose that question to them, or speak with any counselor who has dealt with abused women. One of the characteristics is that despite all the abuse they endured, they do not hate their abusers. Many women even miss them -- at least, the good times they had with them -- and that can continue long after they've left.
As for Travis, saying things to her like that he "raped" her, or she was a 3-hole wonder, or he wanted her to be his ultimate whore, or wanting to indulge in rape fantasies with her, sorry but I can only take those remarks one way: demeaning and abusive. Would you really find them acceptable in your relationships? Because that's what you're implying. And these aren't things Jodi made up or that anyone can even claim she made up. They're in evidence.
Pitchforks - March 18, 2013 10:41 AM
Pitchforks is now on Twitter!
Pitchforks seeks to challenge lynch mobs of media & public prosecution, explore methods & motivations of Pitchforkers & damage done to legal process & society
babelbooth.com
Follow Pitchforks on Twitter: Pitchforks @PitchforksPosts
Justice needs to be served - March 18, 2013 3:48 PM
Also abused,
I was also abused too. And I stayed with my abuser for 6 years before I had to get a restraining order and move away. And, to me, she seems to just be playing the part. When I would tell people about the abuse I suffered, I would relive it. I was still very much scared of him after we broke up. I had nightmares that he was chasing me with a knife, that he was trying to push me out of a car. I just don't see that she is/was afraid of him or reliving anything she says. Not even when she talks about the time she was fighting for her life. Another problem I have is she was hardly even scratched for a fight where she's fighting to the death. Her worst injury was a shoulder injury she claimed that still hurts her but she's standing on her head while being interrogated... The biggest reason I don't believe her is because she waited two years to say anything about this being self-defense. She claims she was ashamed and she didn't want people to think she was capable of something like that but that is NO excuse to tell a different story just cause your first two didn't work. At that point, he was already dead and she had NO reason to fear or to lie. If it were truly self-defense, why not just say self-defense from the beginning? I think I read that you called the cops on your abuser, would you have lied to them saying you weren't there? Would you have said someone else did it? There is something wrong with her story and it just doesn't make sense. If you have to lie to the cops twice you're likely trying to cover something. And waiting two years to say the truth makes it impossible for me and a lot of others, actually the majority of others, to believe. She had two years to turn herself into an abused woman. If you've seen her in the interrogation video and have heard her on the recording, there is a HUGE difference between the Jodi there, and the Jodi we saw on the stand. It's all an act and I don't think it worked. You guys need to stop turning the victim into the villain and the villain into the victim.
Heather - March 18, 2013 4:04 PM
Also Abused,
An Excellent post!
Vladimir Gagic - March 18, 2013 4:20 PM
Heather:
Thank you for your comments on this post and my others. I am very glad you were able to listen in from England. Sadly, it seems America has forgotten its common law legacy that it inherited from England, and has seemingly degenerated in a backwards nation that treats freedom as nothing but a punch line.
My fondest wish would be that Americans would care about our right to a jury trial, a right that the Athenians held dear, as much as they do about the second amendment. I wish Americans would threaten boycotting those companies that advertised on HLN, Nancy Grace, Dr. Drew, etc... like they do when the "right to bear arms" is threatened.
Nothing is more important that our right to confront our accusers and to be judged by a jury of our peers. But now our news media has cynically diminished the value of those two rights. How depressing.
Heather - March 18, 2013 6:28 PM
Justice.
Did you kill your abuser? No, you didn't, so you wouldn't be displaying the symptoms that comes with that; the Only way you would have any idea how it would have affected you, is if you had killed him, and you didn't, so how are you an authority on that, because you what you are saying, saying it as fact that she ''playing a part''.
Just because people who have been abused can relive it and remember what happened, doesn't automatically mean that they have been so badly affected that they have PTSD, does it. You didn't have gaps in your memory because you remember it all.
You are actually telling me that she .. wasn't afraid when she was.. fighting for her life? When were you in a situation like Jodi , she was definitely fighting for her life in the space of 62 seconds.
You say the biggest part of not believing her was that it took 2 years to speak about self defense; again, since when have you been an authority on the severity of what she had done? she was traumatised, severely and you know what is going on inside her mind? Obviously.
Jodi has conceded she changed her story from 2 intruders and since when have you ever been in such a situation of total fear and such distress (that she was dealing with all on her own, she didn't tell anyone) and scared because you thought no one would believe you? You have never been in that situation, have you, where not only do you have gaps, you can't think straight.
I really don't think you can imagine how you would feel and what you would do or say if You had had to kill someone, someone you cared about and had to fight for your life, though amazingly you and others think you have, because its so simple, isn't it? I mean, you know exactly what you would do, you'd be thinking rationally, wouldn't you, you wouldn't be stunned, would you, or suffer severe shock, it'd be easy, wouldn't it.
''At this point he was already dead and she had NO reason to fear or to lie''. yes, you have just killed someone in self-defense and you fear nothing at all--just another day in your life, huh? Yeah riiight, sure, and I'm the Queen of England!
Have you ever been in the situation where you could be facing death? When you have been there, surely then and only then, you would be qualified to speak on the matter, but as you haven't....
Now, when you are in court, would you lie? I know I wouldn't. You would have to have an elephantine memory with all the questions you'd be asked, day in, day out for a solid month or longer, why would you risk lying? Jodi explained why she lied, so you can just discount that, that's done with. She is telling the truth now, as much as her memory will allow.
'' She had 2 years to turn herself into an abused woman'' What? So, you didn't hear him demean her, didn't hear him say he was going to tie her to a tree, didn't hear his threatening voice..etc. etc. you didn't hear anything, did you, you can't have done, where were you when the trials have been on every day for weeks? Unless of course, you don't consider Travis abused her, do you thik all he said and did to her.. was Normal?? Perhaps you do.
I really think the truth is that you don't want to believe her. Have you been on Pitchforks blog, in fact, have you read his post here on this site, even? It should explain why you don't want to believe her. The very fact that you are compairing your abuse with Jodi, speaks volumes. This isn't a contest to see who has been the most abused, you know, and in any case, if you had been listening intently you would know she suffered abuse in many different ways; from what you say, you were scared of him and just had nightmares; I'm not trying to diminish that, but had you listened to everything Jodi said, he was actually violent and he also damaged her finger, despite Martinez desperately trying his damndest to prove she was lying. He pushed her to the floor, almost choked her, treated her like a piece of meat.. and THIS is not abuse.. oh sorry, she learned that when she was in prison.. her finger just got like that, maybe it was the prison food.
''If you saw her in the interrogation video...'' ''she's a different person to how she is on the stand''
Well, of course she is; she's more mature, more confident, a higher self-esteem, she's almost 5 years older, she's been in jail for the past 4-5 years, I mean, what Do you expect? I expect you, too, were different when you were younger, weren't you..
You are looking for every little nuance to try to convince people she is a liar, aren't you-- looking for it? But really you're just clutching at straws, I don't know who you're trying to convince because your argument for the death penalty is too weak to stand up--you really want that for her don't you, or to spend the rest of her life behind bars, why? Because she had to fight for her life?
Would you have laid down yours, then?
So, why so much hatred for Jodi, have you zero empathy, zero compassion, zero understanding.. what's more, you don't know her at all. Can't you see there is something very wrong with this picture?
And the best you can end with, is that she initially lied? We all know that, and This is a solid reason why you don't believe her now?
Heather - March 18, 2013 6:48 PM
Hi Vladimir,
Yes, I had forgotten that point, a good one too about the arms, yes if only they would put as much energy into getting rid of such spiteful and malicious, hateful people, such as Nasty Grace and clowns as they do about keeping their guns, it would be a good start. I find it hard to believe that they are allowed to broadcast such damning rubbish they enjoy feeding you all. I really am shocked, its criminal. I can't see it happening here, people would be outraged, they are actually perverting the course of Justice by feeding the people this nonsense, its brainwashing and very depressing. I would feel very scared if I lived in America, they kill people with the blink of an eye on circumstantial evidence. I bet America has the highest rate of killing innocent people.
Well, its actually 1am and I'm feeling very sleepy, actually drained by tonights performance, Martinez tires me out but I have to watch it. I get the live feed at around 6pm! So, I have to eat before of afterwards which makes me very late getting to bed, it won't be the first time I have eaten dinner at midnight, lately!!
See you in the morning! :)
Heather - March 18, 2013 7:24 PM
Please excuse any typos.. for some reason this laptop is putting all kinds of different text where it shouldn't, plus its gone 1am and I should have been asleep hours ago!
Justice needs to be served - March 18, 2013 7:40 PM
Also abused,
How do YOU know with 100 percent certainty that she did experience all these things she's claiming? Because of her word.... That is so reassuring that you can believe a proven liar who lied under oath. But you don't believe everything she says do you? Like when it comes to the stabbing and slitting the throat. She couldn't have done that, right? Even though she admitted it. Excuses, everyone has them!
Also Abused - March 18, 2013 8:23 PM
Justic, I don't know with 100% certainty that Jodi experienced everything she is claiming. I wasn't there; neither were you. But I've heard Travis's voice and I've read his texts. And they very much remind me of my ex, and not only that, but all the other exes of all the other women I've talked to who have been abused. You see, when we talk about our exes, we all end up wondering who they're so darn similar. We've even asked one another ... are you sure you didn't date my ex? That's something you can't make up
I've also heard Jodi describe panic attacks -- without calling them panic attacks -- in a certain way that only other abused women can understand. When I talk to other women who've lived with abuse, we finish each other's sentences. I now know to call them panic attacks because I've had a year and a half of intensive therapy. But I didn't at first. I tried to describe to my therapist using much the same words as Jodi is using. I became as certain as I can ever be that Jodi was telling the truth the day she described how she felt when she woke up to abusive texts from Travis in the middle of the night. Her description of how she felt was something only a woman who felt controlled would say. And I've been there.
And yes, she killed him. And every other abused woman I've ever spoken to who has thought about killing their abuser has said that they would have shot them 100 times or stabbed them 100 times because they'd have be 1000% sure he was dead and not able to harm them. And that's the same way other women who have been abused and killed their abusers HAVE killed them. Look up some other cases sometime.
By the way, Jodi has NEVER been proven to lie under oath. She lied to a cop, yes. Perhaps she had invented some delusional reality because she couldn't actually face what happened. But she's been under oath for 19 days of testimony and she told us she was telling the truth then. And yes, I believe her.
Also Abused - March 18, 2013 8:45 PM
Justice, I'm sorry you were also abused. I'm very glad you were able to break free of that. I was with my ex for 10 years before I was able to have him arrested, and I was terrified to call the police. But sweetie, if you think Travis was an innocent man, then I really don't know what else to say to you, other than suggest that perhaps you should seek some therapy so that you don't experience yet another abuser. The things he said to her, would you let someone say them to you today?
I didn't kill my ex. I did think about it though. And if I had done so, I guess that would have made it premeditated murder for me.
One thing I do recall about the night he was arrested was that the first officers on the scene didn't believe me. Why? Because I wasn't hysterical. I was speaking in my typical flat way. They were keeping us separated but I vaguely recall hearing the office sympathizing with him about arguing with a wife and him telling him we were going to get a divorce, and the officer saying he was going through one. I really thought my life was going to end in that minute.
A sergeant came then, and watched the video I made twice. And then, he told me "I have to hear this from you with some emotion. Ma'am, have you been abused for a long time." At that, I remember I cried, because it was the first time anyone had acknowledged it. He told me he always saw this flatness in women who had been abused for a long time. With that, I recall him asking my ex "Sir, was there something about a wine bottle and a surgical glove?" My ex responded to say "Well yes. She was threatening to call you guys. So, I figured I'd hit myself in the head and that way, we'd both spend the night in jail." And with that, I remember the sergeant saying to one of the officers "Do an assault pack."
Like you mentioned, I remain afraid of him to this day. The nightmares have stopped pretty much, but I still have PTSD symptoms. I'm not the same person today I was then, and only two years have passed. I'll never be that person again.
I can't answer as to what I would have done if I'd killed him or whether I would have told the truth or not. I was barely able to speak back then. I was terrified to tell anyone what happened. And to be honest, I've experienced a lot of people -- especially women -- saying "Why didn't you just leave all those years?" and it's been very shameful and embarrassing. There's a part of me that is still ashamed that I'm a domestic violence victim. I see the way people look at me when I do admit it. I hear their words "Just get over it already," or "But your life is so much better today, so move on." I never thought it could happen to me. I'm educated and had a good career back then. I used to be very attractive (I'm old now). I didn't think this happened to women like me. I just didn't know any better.
If I'd killed him that night, I may well have just run out of that house as fast as my legs could have carried me. And when the cops tracked me down, I may have said someone else did it. I don't know because I didn't kill him. But I knew no one would believe me -- and I was right. No one did believe me. To the neighbourhood, he was a prince. Everyone loved him, and I'm sure they still do.
Sometimes, today, I try to pretend I didn't live through all that. Sometimes, I just want to be "normal" again. Sometimes, I meet people and I don't tell them about it. I just want them to see me today. But what I lived through is an integral part of who I am. And as much as I wish I could pretend it didn't happen, I don't think I -- or any other woman -- should have to be ashamed. In fact, I'd like to make more women aware that it could happen to them. No matter how pretty they are. No matter how educated or successful. I wish it was something women could talk about -- without the shame. But it still carries a stigma.
I've seen Jodi's interrogation. I've heard her flirtatious voice on the phone with Travis. I've watched her on the witness stand. I've seen her TV interviews. I see a lot of myself in her. I came from an abusive childhood as well, but mine was far more blatant. But she's me, and I'm her, in so many ways.
The most difficult thing for me to understand is why another woman who was abused could so easily dismiss her claims and just assume she's lying. Have you listened to all of her testimony? Have you read the texts from Travis and listened to his voice on the sex tape? Have you read his blogs and looked through his MySpace? There are tell tale signs all over the place. And I'm happy to say that after a year and a half of therapy, I see them today.
That doesn't mean he deserved to die. But when it came down to me or my ex, I almost did what Jodi did. I'm not religious, but as the old saying goes: But for the grace of God, there go I. It could be me on that stand today. Would other abused women believe me? I doubt it.
Also Abused - March 18, 2013 8:57 PM
Heather, I missed your kind post earlier. Thank you so much. Life is very good today, thank you. I am still afraid. I am still dealing with the appeal of the divorce. But I have a wonderful relationship and a good job. I moved over 1000 miles away and started over, from scratch.
Moreover, thanks to the Address Confidentiality Program of the state I live in, I have been able keep my address confidential and keep him finding me. The divorce court in Florida ordered me to give him my new address (denying my motion for a discovery protective order). I refused, my pleadings were stricken, and lost everything -- and was even barred of the right to participate in my own divorce (which should have been my constitutional right). He was, therefore, able to obtain a default judgment against me, based on fraud, for $31,000. This gives him the right to track me down to garnish my wages and bank accounts.
I have appealed and my new state's attorney general and secretary of state filed as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to support my argument that I should never have been ordered to turn over my new address to him. It's a landmark case that, if not overturned, could set a legal precedent that would essentially nullify and render moot the work of Address Confidentiality Programs all over the US. Worse, it could result in "forum shopping" for abusers who desire to track down their victims. It will most likely be another year before the appellate court decides. Until then, I'm very proud of my new state for standing up for the work they have done for domestic violence victims.
Justice needs to be served - March 18, 2013 10:32 PM
Is she stabbed him first, she could have ran out of the house. If she shot him first, she could have ran out of the house. Where's the self-defense in the overkill? For being so traumatized from this and so scared of Travis, it didn't stop her from asking someone to take her to the crime scene to "feel close to him." She's crazy.
Justice needs to be served - March 18, 2013 11:04 PM
Also abused,
I am also sorry you were abused. I'm equally happy you were able to break free of that as well. I'm happy to say that I've been happily married for almost six years now. My husband is just the best and now I know what a good man feels like. I was waiting for the day that he would just change like the other. But he didn't and he won't. You're right, I am more mature now. I was 13 when I got with my abuser and 19 when I left. I was only single one month then I met the man I ultimately married. I wish nothing but happiness for you and other abused women. I'm not a mean person, but we do see things differently and you have your reasons for believing jodi and I have my reasons for not. I really appreciate the fact that you expressed sympathy towards me even though we do see things differently and I don't want you to think I'm mean or hateful. I'm glad jodi has supporters, she needs them just as the other side needs them. I really am sorry you were abused and truly happy you got away.
Heather - March 19, 2013 5:19 AM
Also Abused.
Oh my goodness, to allow him to have your address? That is totally outrageous! I can hardly believe it, no one in their right mind would order you to do that, where was their head? This is The most appalling thing I've heard in a long while. I do so hope you win your Appeal, it Should be the easiest thing in the world, its so blindingly obvious he shouldn't have it--it totally defeats the object, a child in Kindergarten would see that. I am so shocked! To pay on top of that too? Unbelievable! And you have to wait all that time, too.. the courts drive you mad taking so long.
I hope you get all the money back because if you do win your Appeal you should get every penny plus compensation. I wish you luck. Thankfully apart from that, things are at least looking up a bit now for you and he can't find you, at least you can relax a bit, I hope, its just shaking off those scary feelings can't be easy. What he put you through was terrible; far too much of it in the US, you could easily have been in Jodi's situation, thank goodness you're not.
You'd think by now America would know about people, such as your ex husband and TA, wouldn't you; There's so many people walking around with a personality disorder--the US has the highest rate. Seems the more one has had to suffer, the more suffering the court piles on. I really can't understand man's inhumanity to man, its shocking; everyone knows about abuse--when it affects Them, but if its happening to someone else, well, they're lying. How can people be so cruel? As my late father would have said ''I don't understand any of it.''
There are at least some of us who Do care, thank goodness.. its the gap between person to person; to vary so much--its mind blowing.
Keep smiling, all the very best to you, from Me xx
Heather - March 19, 2013 11:17 AM
Justice.
A person is many-faceted, as I expect you know from your abuser. So, to try and answer your post: Jodi loved the other side of him, the part where he was sweet and loving to her, but as she said in her diary eventually, there's something wrong with that boy, I can't marry him. However, she loved him and when he was being nice and loving to her she felt happy, but she moved back to N California because they had both decided to end their relationship and Jodi thought (as anyone would do), it was over.. Travis told his friends that it Was over, but Travis couldn't let go of her, he missed her for sex. So he called her and was really nice to her, told her he wanted to see her and so she went there; they were back in a relationship again although their triangles were very different; he just wanted her for sex but she loved him, so she didn't need much persuading.
They both went out with different people but TA didn't like Jodi going out with anyone--he didn't want her having sex with anyone but him--but he didn't want her--he wanted to USE her and cheat on her. Jodi did enjoy the sex with him because it made her feel loved.. but then he would just switch and demean her, then after a bout of temper he'd be sorry, saying he'd change; at NO time did TA ever tell Jodi that he wanted her just for sex. Jodi, even though she was ok at the finish of their relationship, wanted to remain friends with him--just like she had with her past boyfriends.. but the abuse and violence he showed her did not stop.
Jodi had tried to get away from him once by running out of the house, but he caught her and pulled her wrist; she was Not going to risk that happening on June 4th 2008, she was terrified, he had just body slammed her on the bathroom floor for dropping the camera, plus he demeaned her. Jodi knew he was angrier than he'd ever been before and she ran, petrified, saw the OPEN closet, ran in there and grabbed his gun to point at him, she thought he would stop him. It didn't and as he lunged at her shouting fucking kill you bitch the gun went off. They both fell in the blast and she got out of his way so she could free herself--this was all done in an instant. He chased her down the hall, she grabbed the knife and stabbed him; it was either HER life or HIS.
What would You have done? Let him kill you OR do what you HAD to do to save your life?
This was the size of it. It was Self defense.
Why wasn't it premeditation:
When she got there (he expected her) she let herself in, he was on the computer with his back to her, she could have shot him then.
They slept together all night: She could have shot him then.
They had sex: She could have shot him afterwards.
She didn't.
It was Self defense.
She went back to the crime scene.. because her mind had blocked it out, she was Traumatised, surely that would be obvious--she had just killed the man she loved, why can't you understand this? Try and think of state Your mind and brain would be in. She wanted to feel close to him, she just couldn't accept what she had just done. I mean, could You? She knew she wasn't that sort of person, and yet she had been in FEAR of HER LIFE.. what else COULD she have done? She was FIRMLY in DENIAL.
Imagine if you had been in fear of your life and HAD to shoot someone before they shot you? Its really not that difficult, is it?
I hope this has clarified things more for you.
Heather - March 19, 2013 11:23 AM
Justice.
I am sorry too that you were abused, I hope you can be happy now and I wish you the best. However, it puzzles me that you (who knows what its like to have been abused) can't find any understanding for Jodi? I cannot understand that.
Perhaps you would like to explain, taking into account my last post to you?
Heather - March 19, 2013 1:55 PM
Justice.
You might like to do a bit of reversal:
How would you have felt if no one believed you were abused? And, say you killed someone, you had no choice, it was your life or theirs, wouldn't you be shocked at what you had done, I mean, you didn't deliberately choose to kill them. How do you think you might be feeling? You know you have to keep this to yourself because no one would believe you.. one hundred things are going through your mind, haunting you and haunting you every second of every day, you disn't think you could kill anyone. You know what, nobody thinks they could kill anyone, but until we are in that situation (that none of us behind our computer screens and our TV's have ever done), we cannot say we wouldn't; its human nature to preserve ones life and to honest we are all capable of killing IF we have to.
The enormous shock--that we can only but imagine, of knowing we have killed someone is what we would be thinking about all the time, every waking moment, and, just like if we over-load the computer, it Freezes.
Same thing happens, we HAVE to block it out--or should I say we have No choice in the matter, our memory does it to stop us from going mad, going over the edge; imagine it, you cannot off load, can't tell anyone--you have to bear it all by yourself. So, once the memory has blocked it and we're in denial, we don't have those thoughts--they're GONE.
I would think we wouldn't be feeling A1 though and our thoughts might be scattered, maybe our mind has gone blank or we know we've done something terrible, too shocking to admit to ourselves,, or we maybe so scared that we make up a story, but somehow our mind believes it and we see it as the truth. I'm guessing here, I have never killed anyone so how would I Really Know.. that is my point, there are people who look at it and think, well, why didn't she do this/that? I would have done xyz.. so, yep, she MUST be lying.. I don;t understand, BUT, well, she lied.. NOT , well, I have never been through anything as traumatic so whatever she said, the mind, memory is complex.. so I can't really say for SURE, so how can I condemn? How Can I say she is lying. The medical expert says she has suffered from PTSD.. well, I 'm not an expert, that's why we have them, they've studied this their whole life, they Must know something more than we do.
Until we have been in another person's shoes, how do we know What we would have done? The only thing we Can be sure of, is that if we were in the situation that Jodi was in, where it was either his life or ours, we would kill.
Anyone would.
Would this be Murder? To be murder it would have to be with intent, so the answer has to be, No, it was Self Defense.
Jodi has already spent 4 years in Jail.
She should be Aquitted.
Heather - March 19, 2013 2:34 PM
continued:
It goes to explain how Jodi could carry on as normal: going to see her friends, and behaving like nothing had happened, also, how she could call the police and offer help. Her pretence was mixed with reality; she wasn't lying consciously; in the interview she said, when shown a photo of herself, the finger print, etc.. she said ''Well, it looks like me''.. what I'm getting at is that it had all gone from her, she was in denial--it wasn't her. And people, Joe Public, who has Never been in her situation, immediately without any thought, say she's lying.. because it doesn't look normal to Them. And they'd be right because its not Their idea of normal, but it IS Normal when one has just killed someone.
Cate Ellington - March 20, 2013 1:33 PM
Heather-
Many of us are NOT "Joe Public". Many of us did not "immediately without any thought" decide she was lying. Many of us, have listened very carefully at trial. We know much about the horrors of domestic violence and what an abused woman's experiences are like as well as what abusers look like, do to cover their tracks etc. You say it is normal what Jodi did given she had just been abused and killed someone. I say that is just not true. Her actions were so opposite of what the majority of women who have been abused - that have just killed their abusers -do immediately following. Her actions before do not line up with her claims. You say that you believe because of the tape and Travis' texts that he was what Jodi says he was. I have three questions for you and would appreciate if you would take the time to respond to them, specifically:
1. If, as Jodi claims, she was "trying to help Travis" with this horrible problem she claims he had, then why, weeks before the phone sex tape, MONTHS AFTER she claims she was horrified by the "masturbation episode" with a young boy and was doing what she could to "help him" with this alleged "pedoph." problem, would she, of all people, send a text to Travis, initiating and encouraging a sex-play fantasy in which SHE says to HIM that she wants HIM to put HER over his knee "and spank me like a 12 yr old little girl"??
2. Did you know that Jodi Arias actually submitted the Travis Letters TWICE to the judge, in order to get them to be admitted at trial? The first time, her defense WITHDREW the request. They withdrew it at a hearing in which it came out that the state's expert had compared them against Arias' journals and found them to be forged. But because the defense withdrew the request @ the hearing, there was no ruling on them. Taylor Searle, who is very close to Travis' family who has been keeping updated on the progress of the case, commented in Dec 2012 (before the trial even started on his fb page) the reason that Arias wanted to defend herself was because she was furious that her lawyers withdrew the request as she believes they are critical to her defense. Evidently, it was reported that the defense had a DIFFERENT handwriting expert at the time of the FIRST request and if their own expert -also believed the letters forged, then Arias' attorneys BY LAW would be required to withdraw that request! At the time of the SECOND request - the defense suddenly had a NEW handwriting expert -who obviously was willing to say the letters were most likely Travis'. It did not matter in the end as the judge ultimately ruled that no matter, because they were not originals but copies, any sort of verification of authenticity would be tenuous at best and could not be relied on. (BTW, THIS is what Nurmi's comment during the recent Prosecutorial Misconduct Hearing referred to - the SECOND handwriting expert, not the first, and there is even more back story as to why the Hugheses were so angry at the defense and some legal trickery they were using on the Hugheses at the time to subpoena them to testify about something the wife said in RESPONSE to Mr Nurmi telling HER that the letters had been 100% verified as authentic and that they would be coming out.) I was always a bit confused as to why Nurmi brought up this non admissable evidence during a televised hearing and imo came to the conclusion he was hoping it would get out and the jury might hear it. Taylor Searle also says that a jail staffer found scraps of paper in Arias' cell in which she was practicing a certain person's handwriting. There is speculation this is all going to come out during rebuttal. But another question in relation to this is, WHY would Ms Arias have REFUSED to give the court, the judge, the name of the mystery person who sent the email with these scanned letters to her defense attorneys? Why would she have had a COPY of the original only, kept a copy but NOT the original? Is it credible that any handwriting expert could say he could authenticate a letter with 100% accuracy while ONLY looking at a scanned copy? I know that I have had many questions as to why the defense has or has not done certain things in relation to these "letters". When I read the above fb post by Travis' friend though, it cleared up many questions I had. What are yr thoughts?
3. Why would an innocent person EVER try to get a future witness to lie on their behalf and to her own attorneys by sending coded messages in the pages of magazines? Not to mention the fact her coded message itself hardly matches up with the person she has been portraying on the stand and who her attys would have you believe she is.
I know that part of the last two questions have not been presented at trial yet. But let's just say they do get presented as is speculated. What does this say to you, at this point?
Thanks,
anonymous - March 20, 2013 7:18 PM
Honestly I have nothing seen any of this on tv and the written blurbs on various sites and blogs are all pretty much the same.this site us different as to approach and content And a breadth of fresh air.
MC - March 21, 2013 3:22 AM
Apparently you folks are out of touch with reality. There's a lots of evidence that points to one, and only one, conclusion. Jodi went to Travis' house to kill him. If you think she's going to get away with this, you are dreaming!
Also Abused - March 21, 2013 6:15 AM
Sorry for my delay in responding, Justice. Thank you so much for your kind words. I'm so happy to hear about your wonderful marriage now. That's very uplifting. May you only have happiness from here on out in your life. You certainly deserve it.
As to your question about the "overkill", you know, that's where, when this case first entered my realm of consciousness, I had questions. Strangely enough, that night, I had troubles sleeping, and came across the HBO documentary of Wendy Maldonado "Every F---ing Day of my Life." (It's on YouTube, if you're interested.) She was a woman abused for years by her husband. One night, she (with her son) went into his bedroom as he slept and killed him. She plead guilty and is still serving her sentence so there was no high profile trial. They stabbed him repeatedly with an axe and and bludgeoned him with a hammer. I also read about Barbara Sheehan, the wife of an abusive cop in NY who killed her abuser by shooting him 11 times with 2 different guns. She said she kept shooting until she was sure he was dead. And I also read the story of Susan Wright, who killed her abusive husband by stabbing him 193 times. She buried him in the back yard and didn't tell the truth for several weeks.
I had frank talks with friends who were abused about what we would have done if we'd killed our abusers. We've all been asked that question: why didn't you just hit him back or take a knife to him? We all knew that if we'd reached that decision, we wouldn't have stopped until we were sure he was dead. Overkill! We all tried to run from our abusers at some point (whether it was inside the house or running out). They came after us. One woman I know was very badly beaten while trying to run and almost lost her own life in the process. Luckily, neighbours got involved and the police came quickly.
So, sure, Jodi might have been able to run out of the house with just one shot or one stab, but knowing an abuser's rage as I do, unless he was knocked out, things could have become worse. I don't know anything about how to kill someone with a gun or a knife myself. Actually, I don't know anything at all about guns. I wouldn't have known how to stop him and save myself. I can't really answer what I would have done if it had come to that situation for me that night. I can only speculate. It was my life or his. I got lucky and the police believed me. But what if they hadn't?
Have you ever thought about what might have happened if you had been in a situation with your abuser where it was your life or his? Not a pleasant thing to think of, I know.
As for Jodi wanting to see the crime scene, I haven't heard about that, to be honest. I don't recall that coming out at trial. If it was said on the media, I have found many things they say to be untrue. Can you please point me to the source of that information? I will read it and respond then.
Also Abused - March 21, 2013 6:29 AM
Cate, I'm not Heather, but I do have comments on your questions to her.
Have you read about the Susan Wright case? She "covered up" killing her husband.
Not quite the same, but when I caught my ex masturbating to gay porn, I wanted to help him, assuming he was gay. I thought that explained his rage. Perhaps Jodi thought role playing with her would have helped him.
I'm inclined not to believe everything Taylor Searle (or any of Travis's friends say). I believe Jodi wanted to represent herself because Nurmi wanted to withdraw (as he'd left the PD's office -- not unusual) and she was devastated. I relate to this, having felt the same way in my own divorce when my attorney withdrew because I could no longer pay him to replenish the retainer and wouldn't accept payments. I was devastated.
I'd need to see more evidence than you present about the letters because I've read a very different version in the minutes of the case, and it seems they were authenticated, but not admitted as evidence because they were not the originals. Since Jodi was incarcerated at the time the letters came out, I don't have any problem with the fact that she did not have the originals of the letters.
As to why she didn't want to give the name of the person who she got them from, that could have been to protect that person. Can you imagine how the media might have attacked that person?
I'm not sure the "coded magazine" messages were to get a future witness to "lie". They may well have been to get that witness to tell the truth. I'm not even sure who they were intended for. I didn't feel the prosecutor did a good job of presenting that evidence and it confused me.
A Facebook message from one of Travis's friends doesn't clear that up for me at all -- or many of the other questions I have -- such as why was Travis dead for 5 days, decomposing (which stinks) and no one noticed the smell, but the reporting officer and Detective Flores were overwhelmed by the smell? And yet, the roommates and their girlfriends were in the house during that period?
There are so many questions we'll probably never have honest answers to.
Cate Ellington - March 22, 2013 12:20 AM
Also Abused, I actually have a very long post (can u imagine?) that I started to write to you. I actually have it saved on a word doc. I just haven't had time to finish it.. but I will. This case really has been so time consuming and exhausting. But I did want to tell you, despite what some posters might think , that I was very sorry to have read your story and I really am so very happy for you that you did get away from your abuser. The fact you had videotape of the abuse - him trying to break a wine bottle over your head, and the police thought it did not prove anything, is pretty shocking to me. I have far more compassion than you'll know. I started volunteering at a shelter for women who have been abused because of my sister. She is no longer here btw, so yes, I know how serious abuse is. Anyway, just wanted to say that.
Yes, I am familiar with Susan Wright. She did initially try to cover up the killing by filing a restraining order against him to explain his absence. Three days later she told her attorney she did it but it was because she was abused and had to kill or be killed. I know she was found guilty and convicted and I know the prosecutors theory that she tied him up was flawed based on the ME's findings that he had cocaine in his system. But I certainly did not follow that case like this one.
I understand your point about the letters and the magazines as nothing has been satisfactorily presented at trial to explain these discrepancies. So we will have to wait, if they come out at all.
I guess, like with Vlad, we will have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate the civility in yr posts. I don't agree at all with the ugly ugly things being said about Jodi Arias and her family. The crude things that really have nothing to do with this case. I could care less if she enjoyed sex. I have never seen her as or called her a "whore". I don't like those type of people at all. They are mentally unbalanced imo. I DO get angry at her smugness and what she continues to do to Travis since he is not here to protect or explain or defend himself. Maybe If there were evidence that told me what she was saying was true, I would probably feel very differently.
I went to the innocent site quickly today and saw another post the editor posted from someone else. I just don't understand that kind of thinking. Its the same with the ones that call Jodi the names I mentioned above. How can people with any kind of heart or intelligence honestly applaud and say "bravo" to the kinds of nasty things that person over there posts? He is literally encouraging people over there to HATE when he posts stupidity like this:
"Travis is in hell paying for his sexual perversions".
"He deserves what he got"
"Hey Alexander family, quit acting like Travis was a good guy, he was a disgusting wicked sodom+++ who had perverse fantasies about little underage etc etc etc".
And that is really tame in comparison to other posts he has authored himself.
And what is so astonishing, is that he/she has the nerve to say that the 'Travis pedo-huggers' (I guess he would include me in that group since I believe Ms Arias guilty of premeditated murder) are the ones filled with hate. While there may be plenty unbalanced on that side, to say THIS side is not just as filled with hate when they enjoy posts like above, makes me wonder whether he/she really does not see the irony? I also wonder about his mental stability too.
Anna - March 22, 2013 7:05 AM
Cate-- I come late tot his debate, although I was made aware of it by Heather much earlier, due to health issues.
But, after reading Also Abused's stunning rebuttal of your points, just above, which you have not, I notice, answered, I feel little need to say anything at all.
I have an extensive background in psychoanalytic studies; first, Jodi's actions, in regard to her alleged "cover ups" are the typical actions of abuse victim / trauma survivor. Such people often try to protect others, not simply because these others are friends of theirs, but simply because this sort of protection (which can include lying for them) is a form of projection of their own need to be protected; also, if they can focus on protecting someone else, it enables the said trauma victim to transfer the focus on her own trauma away to protecting someone else. And if you know anything at all about trauma studies, you have to know that the real experience of trauma lies not in the actual traumatic experience, but in remembering the traumatic experience; trauma victims have been known to lie, put up multiple defenses (including refusing to speak at all) just so that they don't have to "go there"--to that place in their minds where remembering their trauma constitutes reliving that trauma; many trauma victims would actually face the electric chair rather than "go there", and face what was really done to them, which caused them to act in self defense.
Also, you referred (I believe it was you--forgive me if I have you mixed up with someone else) to Jodi's suggestion that she and Travis engage in a form of sexual activity during which he could "spank her like a twelve year old girl"; this sort of attempt on Jodi's part to transfer Travis's unspeakable desires to a sex phantasy (my alternate spelling of "fantasy" comes from my background in psychoanalytic studies) that would have been normalized, made acceptable; it's an obvious attempt on Jodi's part to help her abuser normalize his forbidden desires for little boys by replacing her body for the unacceptably desired body that Travis felt so guilty about desiring. In short, Jodi was willing to give her body for an abusive sex phantasy to help her abuser (demeaning oneself in order to help someone else is certainly allowing a type of abuse in order to help someone else--and "being spanked like a twelve year old girl" is certainly a demeaning sex fantasy that she was willing to undergo for Travis).
In short, Jodi's contact with Travis, that we know of, shows Jodi trying to help Travis in multiple ways--she tried to help him more than she ever tried to hurt him, by accounts given by anyone other than Travis's friends who are obviously not unbiased witnesses on any level--and I'm given to believe that at least one of the people who would be expected to lie in favor of protecting the honor of a dead Mormon male has said that Travis's behavior toward Jodi and another girl friend of his were abusive.
The relationship between Jodi and Travis (and the term relationship is still valid whether or not you wish to qualify it as a bf / gf relationship or not--one has a relationship with many people, and it's not a bf / gf relationship; ex. I have a relationship with my mother, the woman who cleans my house twice a week, my friends--etc) shows that Jodi was by far the more giving person throughout that relationship--she allowed herself to be abused physically and psychologically; she lied to protect Travis, and probably others as well; she's done a lot of things that, far from painting her as a liar, show her as a self sacrificing person, who's given four years of her life already just for her act of self defense.
Jodi deserves to get her life back. She's had four years taken from her already, just for being an abuse victim who survived. The latter is not a prosecutable crime.
Also, in regard to the women who seem to hate Jodi, a person they've never met or spoken to--they've apparently hardly even attempted to understand the people who want to defend her; they prefer to attack such people, often on very personal levels--how do YOU explain such exorbitant behavior? Why should these woman hate a woman who is well spoken, shown extraordinary emotional resource and inner strength in her behavior at the trial, and is also a lovely woman, physically speaking (let alone the facts that would allow me to justly say that she's a beautiful person spiritually speaking, as well)? What possible motivation would these people have for such animosity?
Several people said that such women who seem to hate Jodi without a cause, and exonerate Travis without a cause, have to be jealous of such a well spoken, beautiful woman. And you, I believe (again, I profoundly apologize if I've confused you with someone else--I'm very busy and it's hard for me to keep track of screen names after one skim of a thread), have said that it is absurd to say that such women (who so vehemently, with such strange hatred, attack this woman they have never met on the basis of evidence that is hardly sufficient to convict her of anything but self defense, at best) maintain this hatred of Jodi on the basis of jealousy of her obvious level of education, formal or not, and her physical beauty. Since there is no other reason why these women would take such an militantly antagonistic stance toward someone they don't know, and which the evidence doesn't convict beyond a shadow of a doubt, the guess that it's plain sex jealousy that is driving Jodi's female haters is as good as any guess we have; otherwise, how on earth do you explain the entirely disproportionate extent of the hatred on the part of some women posters--the apparent need to see Jodi actually die for a crime for which she can't legally be proven to have committed?
One thing we can learn from studying cases presented in the psychology journals is this--when there is an obvious reason that a person is behaving in one particular way, and there is no other explanation for that behavior, it is logical to assume, as a working hypothesis, that the obvious reason is likely the reason for the behavior. That is not to say that this will be the final assessment of the case--just the basis for a working hypothesis as to why an analysand is behaving in particular manner. Analogously, a medical doctor will take an obvious reason for a patient's physical complaints, and assume that the obvious reason is the cause of the patient's complaint, instead of even digging deeper with further tests after seeing that there's an obvious reason for a given complaint (ex. when a doctor has a patient with anal bleeding, and sees that the patient has hemorrhoids, the doctor usually assumes that that is the reason for the anal bleeding and that further tests are unnecessary, unless more symptoms than simply the anal bleeding pop up).
So, we have a single, obvious reason for the completely out of proportion hatred shown by women on a message board toward a woman they have never met, and certainly never gotten to know as a human being--jealousy. Unless you (or anyone else) can present me with another believable reason for the out of proportion fury directed at Jodi by these women, there's no reason for myself or anyone else to believe that such posters are motivated by simple jealousy of Jodi for what she is--talented, well educated (formally or informally--she's extremely well spoken, etc), physically fit and beautiful. And don't say that these people are simply driven by righteous indignation on Travis's behalf--this is a man who apparently liked to masturbate to images of 12 year old boys; this is a man who physically abused a woman after baptizing her into his church. How much indignation does his death really warrant? How much have we as a society lost by losing this man as a member of it?
So, again--your dismissal of the claim that a lot of women hate Jodi irrationally because of jealousy is absurd (if this dismissal belonged to someone else, I apologize, because it's a really embarrassing dismissal) is absurd in and of itself.
As for other points--other posters have answered them brilliantly, so I don't feel the need to cover any more old ground (nor do I really have the time to do so).
Cate Ellington - March 22, 2013 2:48 PM
Anna, you ARE confusing me with others here in parts, thats ok, easy to do, I am also guilty. As to the "relationship"issue that also wasn't me. I agree with u, no matter the nature, there ws certainly a relationship. Not sure which quests u think I didn't respond to, but most everything I believe I've responded to in earlier posts. In terms of jodi's behavior, explanations etc being in line with other abuse victims I don't deny that she has crafted a story that's in line with the victimology of abuse. But the entire story, the timing, the obsession she had with needing Travis' attention, the extraordinary coincidences you attribute to mere bad luck, and a myriad of other things related to this case are more in line with a woman needing a compelling defense excuse for a murder. I know u are familiar and perhaps study trauma and all its implications, but I am far from unfamiliar, in fact am quite aware of these issues as well. Independent of the rest of what we know about this case, has jodi presented with abuse/trauma signs? Of course. But this again, is not rocket science, no matter how many psychologists want u to believe it is Anna. If one reads pretty regularly, this information is well, thoroughly documented. I think also we shall see a far wider encompassing analysis of what jodi could be and imo IS presenting by the states expert witness. The good doctor told is all we need know about his either pretty remarkable naivete about what people are capable of lying about or he is just doing his job and dxing her with something perhaps true, but also, reinforcing her defense with psychiatric jargon becs that's what he says he'll do for defendants on his website. I think given the questions yesterday, the jury is quite aware of his purpose. They aren't satisfied this doctor is presenting the whole story or that he is even willing to. When he said, when asked whether someone who premeditated a killing could HAVE PTSD, just as someone who did it in self defense, tat "while possible is not probable",they know he is not giving an opinion his peers would agree with. The state imo, gas shown that jodi had an obsession with Travis. Her own doctor acknowledged this when he said ystrdy that she was in fear of Travis abandoning her. When a jealous person, an obsessed person kills in rage, there is VERY much room for an extremely violent and chaotic crime scene. The good doctor assumes all premeditated killings are perfect and logical. THAT IS absurd. Especially when rage is involved.
I really don't know what to say to your assessment that the majority of women outraged by this case are jealous. It's an extremely limited in fact juvenile and elementary theory especially as it is being related by someone claiming some sort of understanding of psychiatry and human motivation. You should consult a professor on the subject to see if they'd agree with you. Talk about setting women back decades. You are either very young or yr not truly what you claim to be. I've responded in length to this assertion already. I don't doubt there may be a small minority out there that might, but my god, you are saying Travis' slaughter is not enough. You vase this on such remote "evidence", far more INCAPABLE of proving what jodi says it was about, than the evidence against the defendant in which mental gymnastics are required to explain away. I have already said Travis was far from perfect and he certainly was weak when it came to sex. Yes, he actively had a sex life that included fantasy, bit there is zero independent corroboration that Jodi was not as active and pleased with the same fantasies. For THAT, all we have is the defendants words. Jodi gas shown us, proved to us, she gas nerves of steel and is extremely comfortable telling lies. I think you are being taken for one big ride.
Someone asked on another thread, whether anyf you would be defending Travis so voraciously if he was the one on trial saying exactly what jodi was saying. Would you?
Do you know that women are just as capable of evil as men?
I have also agreed ad nauseam about some of the vile things being posted about Arias. But I ask AGAIN, why is it APPLAUDED on that innocent site when its about Travis. To applaud and even participate by posting under those hideous commentaries by the owner makes anyone less credible in their argument. Sorry for spelling errors, typing from phone.
Heather - March 22, 2013 4:28 PM
Cate:
Its late in the UK so will answer a couple of your questions that I feel relevant, that to my knowledge no one else has answered:
ALL Travis' friends were Mormon, so of course they will support him and lie for him! I'm amazed that you haven't worked that one out; there's a stark Mormon cover up to this case!
Chris Hughes (another Mormon), wrote emails to Travis that Support Jodi, so is it any wonder the State--Martinez, has objected Strongly that they are forgeries; they Don't want the jurors hearing and seeing Them, so they Would say they were forgeries, wouldn't they!
Gosh Cate, I would have thought you'd have been able to work That out!
Other people that Gus Searcy mentioned in his interview--are Mormon, and know something, but they Won't tell because they are Fearful! (Mormon's rules are, that they slash the throats from ear to ear of those who break them!)
Heather - March 22, 2013 4:57 PM
Cate:
''The state imo, gas shown that jodi had an obsession with Travis. Her own doctor acknowledged this when he said ystrdy that she was in fear of Travis abandoning her. When a jealous person, an obsessed person kills in rage, there is VERY much room for an extremely violent and chaotic crime scene. The good doctor assumes all premeditated killings are perfect and logical. THAT IS absurd. Especially when rage is involved.
I really don't know what to say to your assessment that the majority of women outraged by this case are jealous. It's an extremely limited in fact juvenile and elementary theory especially as it is being related by someone claiming some sort of understanding of psychiatry and human motivation. You should consult a professor on the subject to see if they'd agree with you. Talk about setting women back decades. You are either very young or yr not truly what you claim to be''
When you re-read the 2 paragraphs you have written above (without showing any valid argument yourself other than to put people down in their chosen careers), you will realise why I had become so exasperated with you.
For some reason, you and those like you have the need to say that you know far better than those who have shown they are far more knowledgable than you are, such as Pitchforks, Anna, and not forgetting the Doctor! I have to say here, that, apart from showing your ignorance, it is not very becoming, is it?
Heather - March 22, 2013 5:13 PM
Cate:
''The good doctor told is all we need know about his either pretty remarkable naivete about what people are capable of lying about or he is just doing his job and dxing her with something perhaps true, but also, reinforcing her defense with psychiatric jargon becs that's what he says he'll do for defendants on his website. I think given the questions yesterday, the jury is quite aware of his purpose. They aren't satisfied this doctor is presenting the whole story or that he is even willing to. ''.
I take it then that you have spoken with the jurors? Now you say that the ''good doctor'' is naive and question his ''capability.'' Have you all his qualifications so as to speak with such authority?
Heather - March 22, 2013 6:16 PM
Cate:
''I DO get angry at her smugness and what she continues to do to Travis since he is not here to protect or explain or defend himself. Maybe If there were evidence that told me what she was saying was true, I would probably feel very differently.
I went to the innocent site quickly today and saw another post the editor posted from someone else. I just don't understand that kind of thinking. Its the same with the ones that call Jodi the names I mentioned above. How can people with any kind of heart or intelligence honestly applaud and say "bravo" to the kinds of nasty things that person over there posts? He is literally encouraging people over there to HATE when he posts stupidity like this:
"Travis is in hell paying for his sexual perversions".
"He deserves what he got"
"Hey Alexander family, quit acting like Travis was a good guy, he was a disgusting wicked sodom+++ who had perverse fantasies about little underage etc etc etc".
And that is really tame in comparison to other posts he has authored himself.
And what is so astonishing, is that he/she has the nerve to say that the 'Travis pedo-huggers' (I guess he would include me in that group since I believe Ms Arias guilty of premeditated murder) are the ones filled with hate. While there may be plenty unbalanced on that side, to say THIS side is not just as filled with hate when they enjoy posts like above, makes me wonder whether he/she really does not see the irony? I also wonder about his mental stability too.
Cate, you may not like what has been said on that site, but he/she hasn't said anything that isn't true about Travis (if you have watched the trial)
Whilst you might want to say, ''I guess that would include me.'' Only you can answer that question.
Again you have to say something derogatory about the person; why is it that you cannot resist doing this in practically every one of your responses? Is it supposed to give credence to what you have said?
Heather - March 23, 2013 7:14 AM
Cate:
What I have noticed you are prone to doing, is only putting forth a Part of a story; this I think you are doing to emphasise the point you are wanting to make, but you also use it to demean the person to whom you are writing. Let me give you an instance: (you stated this in your response to Anna)
You said that the doctor, when giving evidence, said that Jodi felt an abandonment by Travis (you were talking about her ''jealousy'' at going to Cancun) What you in fact, omitted to say, was, due to Jodi's low self-esteem, it would have been a natural response. This of course would not have anything to do with any jealousy, which of course was what you wanted to convey as Fact.
Its clever you should be able to do this, but, not clever enough. You so wanted to say that she was jealous and killed him out of a ''jealous rage'', didn't you, but perhaps you had something wrong with Your memory and it was the reason for omitting the rest of it!
Heather - March 23, 2013 12:47 PM
Court Minutes doc #1 – 5-24-2011 ——- Court Minutes doc #2 – 5-25-2011
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Take a look at her permanently deformed hand, where he broke her finger in one of his many angry outbursts.
Q. Why wasn’t it set?
A. She didn’t go to the hospital that’s why. She was protecting him.
Q. Why didn’t she go to the hospital???
A. Because a report would be made that could lead back to him and he knew it.
Jodi is an artist. Her hands are a critical element in her life. Not only is she a photographer, she is also a painter.
I personally witnessed the purple finger shaped bruises on her neck. She originally claimed was from a seat belt. Later, after much debate, she admitted they were from him. She assured me that: “He is a good man” and “He didn’t mean it”.
In one of our many conversations, I asked her why she wouldn’t “Just leave him.”
She said: “I can’t leave him, you don’t understand, I’ve tried. He wont let me!” She refused to elaborate.
I was Jodi’s boyfriend for around two years and in that time, she wouldn’t so much as squish a bug. I caught her on many occasions, fishing bugs out of the tub, so they wouldn’t get washed down the drain. She had this crazy neurotic cat, that would flip out and attack her for no reason and she didn’t so much as swat it. Jodi is NOT a violent person!
When we ended our relationship, I was living and working at a distance. During that period, I began spending time with a colleague. One of my douche bag coworkers decided to “inform” her. There was lots of crying, many talks and a few letters. She was NEVER VIOLENT in any way. We remained friends and since then, she had a few other relationships ending with Travis. I personally know the man she was with before Travis. He and Jodi maintained a friendly relationship after they parted. He also had NO issues with violence. So why now? What changed?
Before Jodi was arrested we would talk on a regular basis. I am one of her longest lasting friends and former lovers. I could be a important character witness. At one point, I asked Jodi to leave me out of this situation, so as not draw attention to myself or my new family and since then, she has.
Her life is on the line. She could get the death penalty. Yet she’s made it a point not to involve me.
Why? Because I asked her not to….
That is the kind of person Jodi is!”
Cate Ellington - March 23, 2013 6:45 PM
That's funny heather, I must admit girl, you got my number. You've figured out my modus operandi. I'm done.Exposed. ;-(
I'm beginning to believe you have the ability to read my mind. You are JUST that good. Very, talented. If I were u I wouldn't waste your time trying to uncover REALMEANING or motivations behind little Cate Ellingtons posts...no...yer far too gifted for that. Ever think about getting a job n the CIA working to prevent pirate and terrorist activities???? No????
Heather, not only did u epicly FAIL to understand the POINT of my post, you misunderstood it in a spectacularly BAD way. (Not to mention, for the umpteenth time, that just because Arias and her paid 'expert' has words coming out of their mouths in defense of this or that, it does NOT mean said words mean anything, are the truth Anyway, and should even be repeated. Ever. Maybe u can read my post again and perhaps then you will understand my point.
Anyway, hence the boredom, hence the last post. Weren't u satisfied on the innocent site Heather? Like minds and all that?
Heather - March 27, 2013 7:39 AM
Cate:
http://babelbooth.com/2013/02/21/physical-abuse-of-women-undermined-issue/
The above link is what Vladimir urged you to look at.
Heather - March 28, 2013 11:02 AM
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 - March 29, 2013 8:18 AM
Not sure I comprehend the distinction between being a 'guest' and an aggressive action that suddenly converts the guest into intruder with intent to do some sort of harm... Suppose the attacker and victim both resided in the place where the attack took place. Does this mean that when one shifts from normal behavior to attack mode they are automatically dispossessed of residential status and considered an intruder or non-resident??
I believe that such distinctions, made by the court, the prosecution or the defense, will fall on dull ears. This is not because the jury is not intelligent, but because the reality the jury will be drawn to is intuitive and lies not in fine legal distinctions so much as in human interaction and probabilities. To convict Jodi Arias one would have to think her capable of planning a brutal murder without provocation, at least without immediate provocation. Everything about her personality indicates a careful, even cunning, intelligence. With such a mentality, it would be hard to imagine a pre-meditated crime as sloppy as this one. The very nature of the crime, it's wildness, speaks to improvisation in reaction to some behavior that tipped the balance into chaos.
A legal mind such as V. Gagic makes wonderful sense up to a point. The legal process is complex and we need to know what it says. But in the last analysis the human heart is not so mysterious and impenetrable, no matter what the circumstances, that it is beyond comprehension of a jury trusting their own instincts and knowledge of human nature.