Outline of a Dog or Is it Jodi Arias?

By | April 15, 2013

Below are a series of photos from court. Pictures of Travis’s eye are included. Prosecutor Juan Martinez: “Basically, what the defendant is asking the court to do is take a look at what is clearly a dog and say that it is a person.” Leave a comment about what you see in the pictures.

Courtroo,Travis3 photos of travisFamilyJodi And Jenniferwithout lines 2linesdude laughing

18 thoughts on “Outline of a Dog or Is it Jodi Arias?

  1. Janice Harper

    Wasn’t it during the 19th century that people thought the eyes of murder victims recorded the image of their killers? What next, a phrenologist is going to testify that the lump on Jodi’s head proves she’s naturally submissive?

    1. Dr KR Post author

      I can’t imagine why they think this would be good to bring into court. If I were JM I would not care if they presented it to the jury since no one would think that this shows anything of value. It seems ridiculous.

  2. komiska

    Mr Neumeister is very knowledgable!
    And probably everyone who has dealt with Photoshop and image enhancement will agree, that there is ( well, there must be ) a reflection of the person who took the photo in Travis’ eye.

    And I admit, I got carried away and said he was outlining the wrong part of the pupil.
    But actually, it is possible to guess Jodi’s outline standing there.
    Also, just from taking a screencapture of the enhanced photo while he was testifying, I could see even two reflections of Jodi’s face in the same section .
    One of them is quite obvious – Jodi’s neck, left cheek, a part of the ear, tip of the nose infront of a light source:https://twitter.com/komiska_/status/323862198579499009/photo/1

    The other outline is quite visible too.
    But I still miss the point of this testimony ( except for trying to reach a mistrial) .
    We do know she was there and we know what she did.

    But i don’t believe anyone could prove to the point of no doubt it was or was not Jodi on that photo, without using other corroborating evidence.
    So what exactly was the point?
    Or as Mr Martinez nicely put the relevance of this into perspective: “It’s clearly a dog”
    :)

    1. Ria

      I’m probably totally wrong here but, I think the purpose of the hearing was Nurmi trying to get the judge to agree to Neumeister being called in as an expert witness on the photo’s. Not so much about this precise photo per se, but just to prove that what he does is an actual science, therefore he’s an expert…once the judge confirms this then the defense can bring in the photo’s they really want to bring in. Probably nothing that would change anyone’s thoughts anyway but the defense is grasping at straws right now.

      I saw the enlarged photo of Travis’ cornea on another site and I swore I saw a close up of a woman’s face…her eyes, her mouth, her nose…I showed my husband and he said he saw nothing. But, like I said, I don’t think it’s as much about this specific photo as it is about the judge granting Neumeister expert witness status when it comes to photo’s. I’m probably way off on this, as I have been on pretty much every aspect of this crazy trial!!!

  3. McKealty

    I’m usually a very visual/spatial type of learner and have always seemed to find patterns or other things.

    I don’t see anything here and have to agree with Martinez that ten different people would tell you they see 10 different things.

    I personally see a person walking away with a backpack on their back and their arms up adjusting the straps…or something.

    This is Man In The Moon stuff.

    But the most important outcome of all this was that they reached a stipulation agreement that “Jodi was not holding a gun or knife when she took the pictures”.

    The knife or/and gun could have been in her pockets, on the sink somewhere else.

    She cornered him, regardless if we see the pope in his eye or see nothing at all.

    Just my opinion, and it is probably very far off base because I don’t see anything.

  4. McKealty

    I’m usually a very visual/spatial type of learner and have always seemed to find patterns or other things.

    I don’t see anything here and have to agree with Martinez that ten different people would tell you they see 10 different things.

    I personally see a person walking away with a backpack on their back and their arms up adjusting the straps…or something.

    This is Man In The Moon stuff.

    But the most important outcome of all this was that they reached a stipulation agreement that “Jodi was not holding a gun or knife when she took the pictures”.

    The knife or/and gun could have been in her pockets, on the sink somewhere else.

    She cornered him, regardless if we see the pope in his eye or see nothing at all.

    Just my opinion, and it is probably very far off base because I don’t see anything.

  5. Don Osborne

    I don’t see anything in the pictures, Dr. K., but I do see a desperate defence that has run out of steam – not that they had much to begin with. Many people would see different things in such an image, including experts in this field, so its relevance seems highly dubious.
    I also see this as a further example of time wasting, as is the fiasco involving the prosecutor’s autograph signing which I believed had been dealt with earlier in the trial. It is difficult to rationalize why the defence continues with this strategy other than to prolong the ordeal for the victim’s family – and these attorneys are coming across as completely insensitive to that. Perhaps there are others besides the ‘expert’ witnesses that have done harm to their careers during the course of this trial.
    Nurmi’s attacks on the prosecutor are childish, particularly his reference to his ‘fan club’ and his alleged intimidation of the ‘expert’ witnesses. It would be interesting to know what the prosecutor referred to when he commented that if La Violette was upset then she should have been because of what was uncovered at that sealed hearing.

  6. Allyson

    I think the defense wants two things with this

    1 – another distraction

    2 – they seem to think they can use it to corroborate her version of events. I don’t see exactly how the fact that she may not have had a weapon in her hand at that instant has anything to do with it… but they seem too.

  7. 4 EYES

    “I S33 nothing” said the infamous Sgt. Schultz.

    The defense team does not bring any NEW evidence to the case with this testimony. That leaves one to speculate on their motive, which Mr. Martinez nailed with his “pennies to their kettle” comment.

  8. Elaine

    To the outline of a dog, it seems the point was lost on Mr. Nurmi. Though not exactly stated tongue in cheek, Mr. Martinez may have been drawing the distinction between two individuals, one by referencing a “dog” and the other by naming the breed, the “Chiuahua.”

    The examiner is a sell out to the profession, a dog. Mr. Martinez calls him out on it, it’s voodoo. He cannot substantiate what cannot be seen and the defense is all to willing to forego the obvious if only to suggest the flash supports Arias as not holding something other than the camera, that cannot be seen either.

    In the eye of the beholder, the Chiuahua does not shake from his voice, does not run, does not fear, she begins the slaughter of Travis, rabidly. The sequences in photos and times give way to Arias having something very near at hand.

  9. KimP

    I personally see a dinosaur… is that possible??? Maybe a dinosaur killed Travis. That was probably one of the worst defense attempts thus far.

  10. JZ

    I think the whole thing was ridiculous and the judge did the defense a favor by not allowing this testimony, whether they know it or not. Why? Because Jodi stated that Travis was sitting in the shower and she was kneeling down taking that picture. This put her in a more vulnerable position than if he was sitting down naked in the shower and she was standing, right? Unfortunately this person told us that the person is standing and holding the camera low, like around her waist area. They were saved from the jury learning that Jodi, once again, lied to them.

Leave a Reply