Crime & Trial Discussion Forums

Duluth, since Martinez called the Yreka detective, the car rental agent and the Wal-Mart employee to the stand, he does intend on bringing up the premeditation with the staging of the burglary to steal the gun, the renting of the car 100 miles from home as a blond so she wouldn't be recognized, the gas cans and the turned off cell phone. I agree with every word you wrote and I think Arias and Nurmi have deliberately played their little games of Blame the Victim and Feel Sorry for the Little Mentally Ill Girl to manipulate at least one or more jurors to think the Big Bad Mormon Batterer must have done something to provoke her so therefore we can't put her to death.

The judge has ordered a transcript released to the media of the proceedings in chambers Oct. 30, 2014 where Kirk Nurmi argued in a hearing to convince the judge to allow Arias to testify in secret.

In an order 2/11/15 the judge wrote:

The Court has considered the media request to release the transcript of the proceeding

conducted in chambers on October 30, 2014. The State does not object to release of the

transcript. Defendant objects to release of transcript pages 17 through 22 and pages 27 and

28. The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The Court previously sealed the proceeding to

determine whether the defendant’s request to testify in a sealed proceeding should be

granted. The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a ruling that the defendant may not testify in a

sealed proceeding. The defendant filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme

Court. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review. Accordingly, the Court

finds no legal basis to seal the transcript from the proceeding conducted in chambers on October

30, 2014.

IT IS ORDERED unsealing the proceeding conducted in chambers on October 30, 2014.

Court Chatter

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByBlLbpcgb3wV1lQMFFkeEZlWmc/view?pli=1

(02-14-2015, 02:43 AM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]Duluth, since Martinez called the Yreka detective, the car rental agent and the Wal-Mart employee to the stand, he does intend on bringing up the premeditation with the staging of the burglary to steal the gun, the renting of the car 100 miles from home as a blond so she wouldn't be recognized, the gas cans and the turned off cell phone. I agree with every word you wrote and I think Arias and Nurmi have deliberately played their little games of Blame the Victim and Feel Sorry for the Little Mentally Ill Girl to manipulate at least one or more jurors to think the Big Bad Mormon Batterer must have done something to provoke her so therefore we can't put her to death.

The judge has ordered a transcript released to the media of the proceedings in chambers Oct. 30, 2014 where Kirk Nurmi argued in a hearing to convince the judge to allow Arias to testify in secret.

In an order 2/11/15 the judge wrote:

The Court has considered the media request to release the transcript of the proceeding

conducted in chambers on October 30, 2014. The State does not object to release of the

transcript. Defendant objects to release of transcript pages 17 through 22 and pages 27 and

28. The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The Court previously sealed the proceeding to

determine whether the defendant’s request to testify in a sealed proceeding should be

granted. The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a ruling that the defendant may not testify in a

sealed proceeding. The defendant filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme

Court. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review. Accordingly, the Court

finds no legal basis to seal the transcript from the proceeding conducted in chambers on October

30, 2014.

IT IS ORDERED unsealing the proceeding conducted in chambers on October 30, 2014.

Court Chatter

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByBlLbpcgb3wV1lQMFFkeEZlWmc/view?pli=1

In my last posting, I meant to ask you all whether you think Arias will allocute? I don't know if I spelled that right. I for one was very surprised that she did not take the stand. I seriously thought that she would take the stand because I believed that she thinks she is so interesting and intelligent and thinks that almost anybody would find her interesting and intelligent and would believe her lies. I know all of us here will be looking forward to closing arguments, at least Juan's closing. I hope the poor jury keeps a very open mind when they hear the defense's sur-sur-rebuttal and closing. I am so looking forward to the end of her. Do you know what I mean?

The jury has been instructed that they must accept this was a premeditated murder.

So when I think of premeditated, I think of Arias admitting to the jurors that she lied to cover up her crime - but is that the same as admitting to premeditation? I don't believe it is, because she denied that...strike one. I'm grateful that the first jury didn't accept her web of lies during testimony - to which Arias had stated she was now telling the truth. "He attacked me (pause) and I defended myself." This phase however, the same reasoning is being used, she committed a crime because......

This "secret testimony" now coming to light appears cloaked, you'd think Arias would be her best defense in mitigation since no one else can vouch for her - fail. Strike two. To me, it seems more like an allocution, a slow regurgitation of non-facts, as they're not related to premeditation as much as they're relateable to an excuse for the heinous act of slaughtering Travis.

I don't see one question by Willmott nor Nurmi, leading Arias to speak of sincere remorse. That says to me there isn't any reason for her to be sorry even though she's capable of mimicking that response - because, after all, have pity, there are justifications for her actions - says the defense and Arias. They continued to lead her down the path she chose and try as I might, I cannot fathom the defense team believed her about anything and if they did...strike three. I've often wondered why her defense didn't forgo the obvious, lie after lie after lie...and advise their client at the onset to plea life, without chance for parole. Death, potentially, now looms at her door.

It all seems in vain now - filing after filing for mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct and demands to remove the death penalty from the table, citations without clear and convincing facts in law and with only one motive at the forefront, to remove the death penalty - it seems more on a personal level than where the law stands at this time in the state of Arizona. She was justifiably convicted.

The death penalty, by the way, is on the ballot to be abolished in AZ, it will be voted on during the general elections this year. With the new governor, Doug Ducey, it's anyone's guess whether somewhere down the road he would commute Arias' sentence if she receives death. He's Roman Catholic with several ties in the community and local organizations. He's also the former State Treasurer and former founder and CEO of Cold Stone Creamery. Presently, the state is in financial straights, Ducey is looking to rob Peter to pay Paul in every corner that he can. That means cuts. The state has not revealed their costs but we do know the defense has netted some serious money as the penalty phase appears to be nearing the same amount of time that the trial lasted.

I found it interesting that Arpaio endorsed Ducey, as did Jan Brewer...along with some heavy hitters out of Florida. So it remains to be seen where Ducey's loyalty resides. Personally, I could not find a single mention of Ducey's position on the death penalty. The ADPIC of course took notice of Zervakos' opinion on the death penalty during his interview with the Arizona Republic and one of my least favorites, Keifer who reports for the AZR. His dissertation last year on the DP and dislike for Juan Martinez and overall office of the prosecutor is no surprise. Misconduct was a running theme throughout his lengthy article.

I don't believe anything about Arias' testimony regarding her parents and their "drug" preferences. In fact, when Flores did the interview with Arias' father, I was taken by this one statement, which I'm paraphrasing; 'she would yell at my wife.' I saw that as her parents being united, not against Arias, but because of her behaviors. Especially her lying, deceptions, secrecy and tendency to violent outbursts. I think they were afraid of her on some level. I don't believe Arias has been 'normal' for a long time. It's anyone's guess, but I'm thinking since early childhood.

I do have empathy for Arias' family, though like a lot of dysfunctional environments, the results are the consequences that often play out in the worst possible scenarios. Listening to Arias' mother during the interview with Flores, her disbelief in Arias' behavior when she returned home said a lot to me. It does boggle the mind that Arias' display was one of having had a good time - and the chilling interaction of their having gotten along better than they ever had before. It's sad.

I actually feel there's a lot more about each boyfriend Arias was with, and this is just a personal opinion, but I think Arias had something on each one that she held over their heads to use against them should she need to at any time. Could this possibly get any worse as we get further into her secret testimony? Seems to me, the chaos, drama and financial upheavals individuals faced after encountering Arias were enough to make anyone run for their life. Travis wasn't fortunate enough.

I'm also thinking about the allocution, whether Arias will take advantage of this because what I do find laughable is that Nurmi defends "mental illness" as reasoning for Arias not returning to the stand to testify...what are the jurors left with to imagine... that her allocution will somehow sound rational and sane? I think Nurmi chewed off the rest of his remaining foot with that premature comment. It will be interesting to see if Arias does present her allocution.

Welcome Elaine. Good post.

Duluth and Elaine, Arias has already said she will do an allocution. I knew she would because it is an opportunity to manipulate the jury without being cross examined by Martinez.

Arias has been planning the allocution for the retrial for two years. Maria de la Rosa got in trouble at the jail for carrying out a drawing of Arias in an envelope marked Allocution many months before the retrial even began.

Arias sees this as her opportunity to convince the jury that she is a talented artist and a philanthropist who gives the proceeds to cancer victims, domestic violence survivors, the poor, the hungry, the downtrodden, a talented book reviewer and writer who plans to write a best seller self help book. How could they kill someone who has so much to offer society?

Arias plans on showing at least one drawing and bragging about auctioning off a drawing and the glasses she wore in the last trial and donating the proceeds in Travis Alexander's name to St. Jude's and the food bank. She will also mention she let her hair grow from the last trial to the beginning of the retrial so she could cut it off and donate it to Locks of Love.

I'm sure she will show the pictures of her with Bobby, Mat and Daryl to show she was desired by men. Maybe she will be even show a picture of her niece whom she has never seen or her cat to try to pull on their heartstrings. There will be no picture of former best friend forever Patty Womack because they are now arch enemies since Patty announced on the Dr. Drew Show that she was no longer Arias friend and she didn't testify because she sympathized with the Alexander family. Them are fighting words to Ms. Arias who doesn't tolerate anyone siding with her "abuser" and his family against, her the self appointed spokeswoman for all domestic violence survivors.

I doubt if Arias will talk about forming a book club and recycling program at Perryville because those were laughed at but I am sure she will have new ideas to save the planet since she tweeted about how Estrella Jail was polluting the planet with using Styrofoam cups.

I doubt if she will tell the Alexander family she is sorry she murdered their brother because she thinks he deserved it and she is still hanging on to her self defense story even though this jury will not hear it because she can not say she is remorseful if she says she killed him trying to save her life.

Elaine, at the murder trial Arias admitted she lied to cover up her crime but in her "secret" testimony to the new jury, she said she lied about killing Alexander for two years because she couldn't face that she would do anything so horrific, that she is not a violent person and she just wasn't herself that day.

Duluth,

I don't think there will be anyone on the jury that will pity her. There is nothing to pity.

Pity and/or sympathy are for those who have suffered greatly by a deep loss.

She has not had a loss of friends - she drove them all away.
She has not had a loss of family except by her own doing. She chose to throw them under the bus. Punishment?
She did not lose Travis as she never really had him except for a booty call and because as you say Duluth, he was a kind and generous human being.
She lost Travis by slaughtering him in an extremely cruel manner.

The only loss that Arias has had is her freedom.
And she could have the ultimate loss - her life.

I feel the only debate that the jury could have in their deliberations is one over whether her diagnosis as a mitigating factor outweighs the abundance of evidence of fact that has been presented.

I do not think that the defense (Arias) accomplished their goal of confusing the jury.  
Their continued rehashing of computers, porn and pedophilia  only served, IMO, to turn the jury off. They listened but I would think they started to take it all with a grain of salt.
The defense's (Arias') trashing of Travis in every move they made became too much and demonstrated definitively that Arias has no remorse for what she did because she feels she was justified.
I also believe that calling a Bishop, a professional like DeMarte and an honest woman - Deanna - liars would not sit well with the jury.
The defense's (Arias') own "experts", if one can call them that, were easily discredited by Martinez.

And on top of that, two other issues stand out.....
1, McGee lied in his affidavit
2. NO ONE has come forward to speak in open court as to why Arias should live and not receive the DP.

As Elaine has stated, the jury MUST accept the conviction of Premeditated First Degree Felony Murder with the aggravating factor of Extreme Cruelty.
That is where they must begin in their deliberations.
Then they must take each of the mitigating factors that the defense (Arias) submitted and relate them to the evidence presented in court.
And the evidence against Arias is huge despite all the slimy efforts of the defense (Arias).

This is a sentencing trial based on mitigating factors brought forward by the defense (Arias in this case). It is not a retrial.
The jury must weigh these factors and determine if they carry enough weight to spare Arias' life.
To date, the defense (Arias) has not put forth a mitigation case with the exception of saying that she is mentally ill and because of that, she should not die.
But the jury must remember that Arias knew right from wrong.
She methodically fabricated lie after lie. When one did not work, she told another.

Elaine,

Hi  

Arias, IMO, will allocate. SHE must have the last say.

In her allocution, and a serious mistake on her part I believe, she will be eloquent and play the little, sweet girl victim.
She will go on and on about herself and what all this has done to HER.
She will express all her hopes for the future if she were to live - even in prison.
In her statement, she herself will prove to the jury that she knows exactly what she has done and is doing.
She will sabotage her own case by her sense of superiority. After all she is smarter than anyone!

If, on the other hand, she decides to say nothing and rely on her "secret testimony" to persuade the jury, she will be making a grievous mistake.

Who knows what she will do or say. She is unpredictable to say the least.

I think that there is a lot more that we do not know about Arias and how she has lived her life.
We may never know - unless SHE writes a book in the future.
This is something I would not put past her.
If she ever did, I would never read it.
I like Non-Fiction that is factual and true!

---

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Travis/posts/784568841619260?notif_t=notify_me

YES!!!!!!!!

$.02 worth' I think Jodi will sing a lullaby in her allocation! She wants the jury to understand that she is cunningly crazy and best friend material, she has nothing else!
Another Power Point presentation and nothing can work' never to have millions for an appeal, first DP appeal fails.

Don't we have to fear Presidential pardons just prior to surrendering office!

Hi Elaine' tell us a little about you, what state or area..

(02-14-2015, 03:34 AM)ElaineJ Wrote: [ -> ]The jury has been instructed that they must accept this was a premeditated murder.

So when I think of premeditated, I think of Arias admitting to the jurors that she lied to cover up her crime - but is that the same as admitting to premeditation? I don't believe it is, because she denied that...strike one. I'm grateful that the first jury didn't accept her web of lies during testimony - to which Arias had stated she was now telling the truth. "He attacked me (pause) and I defended myself." This phase however, the same reasoning is being used, she committed a crime because......

This "secret testimony" now coming to light appears cloaked, you'd think Arias would be her best defense in mitigation since no one else can vouch for her - fail. Strike two. To me, it seems more like an allocution, a slow regurgitation of non-facts, as they're not related to premeditation as much as they're relateable to an excuse for the heinous act of slaughtering Travis.

I don't see one question by Willmott nor Nurmi, leading Arias to speak of sincere remorse. That says to me there isn't any reason for her to be sorry even though she's capable of mimicking that response - because, after all, have pity, there are justifications for her actions - says the defense and Arias. They continued to lead her down the path she chose and try as I might, I cannot fathom the defense team believed her about anything and if they did...strike three. I've often wondered why her defense didn't forgo the obvious, lie after lie after lie...and advise their client at the onset to plea life, without chance for parole. Death, potentially, now looms at her door.

It all seems in vain now - filing after filing for mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct and demands to remove the death penalty from the table, citations without clear and convincing facts in law and with only one motive at the forefront, to remove the death penalty - it seems more on a personal level than where the law stands at this time in the state of Arizona. She was justifiably convicted.

The death penalty, by the way, is on the ballot to be abolished in AZ, it will be voted on during the general elections this year. With the new governor, Doug Ducey, it's anyone's guess whether somewhere down the road he would commute Arias' sentence if she receives death. He's Roman Catholic with several ties in the community and local organizations. He's also the former State Treasurer and former founder and CEO of Cold Stone Creamery. Presently, the state is in financial straights, Ducey is looking to rob Peter to pay Paul in every corner that he can. That means cuts. The state has not revealed their costs but we do know the defense has netted some serious money as the penalty phase appears to be nearing the same amount of time that the trial lasted.

I found it interesting that Arpaio endorsed Ducey, as did Jan Brewer...along with some heavy hitters out of Florida. So it remains to be seen where Ducey's loyalty resides. Personally, I could not find a single mention of Ducey's position on the death penalty. The ADPIC of course took notice of Zervakos' opinion on the death penalty during his interview with the Arizona Republic and one of my least favorites, Keifer who reports for the AZR. His dissertation last year on the DP and dislike for Juan Martinez and overall office of the prosecutor is no surprise. Misconduct was a running theme throughout his lengthy article.

I don't believe anything about Arias' testimony regarding her parents and their "drug" preferences. In fact, when Flores did the interview with Arias' father, I was taken by this one statement, which I'm paraphrasing; 'she would yell at my wife.' I saw that as her parents being united, not against Arias, but because of her behaviors. Especially her lying, deceptions, secrecy and tendency to violent outbursts. I think they were afraid of her on some level. I don't believe Arias has been 'normal' for a long time. It's anyone's guess, but I'm thinking since early childhood.

I do have empathy for Arias' family, though like a lot of dysfunctional environments, the results are the consequences that often play out in the worst possible scenarios. Listening to Arias' mother during the interview with Flores, her disbelief in Arias' behavior when she returned home said a lot to me. It does boggle the mind that Arias' display was one of having had a good time - and the chilling interaction of their having gotten along better than they ever had before. It's sad.

I actually feel there's a lot more about each boyfriend Arias was with, and this is just a personal opinion, but I think Arias had something on each one that she held over their heads to use against them should she need to at any time. Could this possibly get any worse as we get further into her secret testimony? Seems to me, the chaos, drama and financial upheavals individuals faced after encountering Arias were enough to make anyone run for their life. Travis wasn't fortunate enough.

I'm also thinking about the allocution, whether Arias will take advantage of this because what I do find laughable is that Nurmi defends "mental illness" as reasoning for Arias not returning to the stand to testify...what are the jurors left with to imagine... that her allocution will somehow sound rational and sane? I think Nurmi chewed off the rest of his remaining foot with that premature comment. It will be interesting to see if Arias does present her allocution.

She has said that this was one day out of her life and she should not be defined by this ONE day. What a load of crap. She murdered someone! It wasn't just one day. She slaughtered Travis without even a blink of the eye. Because it is only one day, she should be excused for her behaviour and be able to go on living as she chooses and has a right to do so!

Lunarscope said = TRAVIS Journal thread!

Travis kept assorted daily Journals and likely had one designated for Jodi and what Journal would Jodi steal to reinvent history, all we have is Travis saying a journal was missing,' he had to have informed Jodi that he possessed a timeline of accusations that pinpointed her devious involvement, so Jodi steals that journal (you are the worst thing that ever happened to me' three hole comment) and reading it ("I don't know what's wrong with that boy") starts planning the slaughter, negating her desire for a Cancun vacation!

NOTE below Kathy to Music (well said) post (Music's post) was pasted here pages back!


KathyH said

Well said MusicMan, well said. I've read all 534 pages that Beth Karas has posted (I subscribe) but unfortunately there are only about 20 pages written by Travis. The rest are all Jodi Arias, and the time period is ~ Jan 2007 thru July 2008. I'd say half of JA's journals are notes she's taking during telecons, seminars, and book excerpts. But the other half really show how fixated she was on Travis and all things Travis. I bet if one were to add up how many times she wrote his name it would surpass the 1,000 mark by far. My take-aways from reading these are:

* JA used the "teachings" from her PPL seminars/conferences to figure out better ways to entice Travis. Most people skip over all these development-type notes in her journals lol but I read them. And I think she was interested in them only as a means to "sell to" Travis. If you've ever read a sales development book you'll know what I'm talking about. And you'll see that JA was adapting these characteristics with Travis. "Ask good questions, listen, BE NICE, appear interested, mirror your customer, close the deal, etc." I don't think she made those notes to improve her PPL selling; I think she made them to try and figure out how to sell herself to Travis.

* She wrote negative things all over the place. The whole Law of Attraction was bullshit - IMO. She does write often about it, but not nearly as much as we were led to believe with her testimony. AND she acknowledges in many places that it "just isn't working!!".

* No mention anywhere of an "official" relationship with Travis. In fact, I don't believe she ever had an "official" relationship with Travis after reading these, I think she made it all up. There are entries indicating that Travis had already called off the romance as early as January 2007. Which is not surprising considering her willingness to give up sex so early on in their relationship (a week after meeting him? What person is going to consider that a good thing for a potential spouse lol? Maybe I'm old fashioned...). Or maybe - just maybe - there never was any sex until much later? Or maybe there was some and Travis stopped it?

* I don't get the impression there was much sex going on at all between them, not until late 2007 into early 2008. She writes about "making out" and "intentional" bumping into each other. In fact, it's kind of creepy how she writes about things most people would consider insignificant (like "he touched my hand during the conference). But I really get the feel that the sexual part of their relationship was building - and not necessarily occurring - until much later than her testimony indicated. And when it did start, she admits several times that she was the instigator and/or otherwise the leading contributor/director of their "fruitful" sessions. And none, zero, nada mention of anal sex.

* I strongly believe she re-wrote her entire last journal (which started around 5/14/08 thru 7/14/08). The 'style' of her writing changes. Much longer passages which include historical references, background, etc., that one would not bother to note if it was only one's daily thoughts, in my opinion. I think she spent her six weeks between the murder and her arrest re-writing this journal. Unfortunately, she hadn't yet figured out her revised defense so nothing on abuse or pedophilia. What is appalling about this particular journal is how much "fun" she is having with her family, her friends, going to concerts, shopping, and just having a grand 'ol time. Oh but several "why did this happen to Travis! Who did this!!!????" entries for drama.

* Ryan Burns was not nearly as "into her" as she stated before her trip. In fact, before she solidified that trip with him, she was journalling about him not calling her back, must not be that interested, 'oh-well, I need to move on....' Then on 5/30/08 she notes that she spoke with him (I think she called him again) and they agreed on the date! But even in that journal entry she wrote "But he doesn't seem overly interested in me, although he seems happy that I'm coming out to see him".... Remember she testified that Ryan was pushing her to come visit..... right.

* The building resentment and rage is obvious to me. I'm not trained in any mental health field mind you, but I'm pretty sure I can spot resentment building. I raised two kids lol. She is extremely frustrated that she can't get Travis to commit to her and that frustration keeps building. WHY won't he see this? WHY won't he understand how much *I* love him!! I see a ticking time bomb....

Just wanted to share my observations since Lunar started the journal discussions lol. In fact, I'm going to post two pages that you will find interesting. Beth Karas gave me permission on these two pages BTW in case you are wondering 

NOTE the handwritten Jodi journal pages didn't paste, I cannot take liberty and just assume its OK to repost anyway, so I don't think it's allowed!

KathyH said

Here's two pages from Jodi's journals. The 10/27/07 entry has two very interesting points I think. First, the poem. She writes that this is a poem that she wrote in "January". So since this is 10/27/07, she must mean January 2007 - just a few short months after meeting him. The poem certainly does suggest the relationship was over to me. And talk about resentment....

Second, her reference to suicide and how this has only become a "thought" recently. The testimony we've heard implies she's been suicidal on and off most of her life, right? Well I guess she doesn't know that.


MusicMan983 said

Kathy,
Thanks for sharing your insights on this, as well as the various pages from JAA's journal as well. It's pretty clear that the defense distorted the image of who JAA really was/is to the point where it simply does not add up with any real person (and when compared to the more candid and private moments captured in her past journals). It was a mistake of her defense team to try and present the image of her as a completely non-real person (and perpetual victim), which only highlighted for both juries the stark contrast to the person who comitted the murder, and then carried out so many monstrous things in the course of either tryng to cover her tracks or try to got off scott-free in court...

- You certainly raise an intriguing possibility of JAA's final journal being a complete re-write. Certainly, once she starting "staging" various entries after the murder to try and appear as if she was somehow innocent of the crime, it opens the door for the accusation that the post 5/14/08 journal was ALL a re-write and a work of grand fiction - After all, even JAA was not stupid enough to journal her various actions of premeditation. Can you imagine?...
1) "I stole Grandpa's gun today, and a few other things, then made it look like a robbery! -I am sure no one suspects me (even though I was home alone before the robbery)! "
2) "Daryl agreed to trade me for two of his gas cans. I can pick them up on the way when I am in So Cal. All I need is one more can and I can slip into Arizona undetected! The cops will never be able to figure/prove out my movements! "
3) "I think I will dye my hair like Lisa or Mimi, so if anyone spots me near his house, they will not recognize me! "
4) "If I turn my cell phone off when I am in Arizona, I can always slough it off that my battery died and/or I lost the charger! "
5) "I read an article some time ago that if you turn your license plate upside down, the traffic light cameras will not be able to read the plate! 
6) "Finally decided! if I can't have him, no one can! "
...etc!

- One of the biggest understatements of ALL TIME from JAA's 10/26/07 entry: "I am quick to fall in love and very slow to fall out!"...Hey! No sh*t, Sherlock!

- Or how about this nugget of utter denial from JAA: "I spoke w/ Matt McCartney for the first time in three months. He's thouroughly convinced I should commit myself. I don't think I need to do anything that drastic!" - It's a shame that JAA did not take her friend's advice back in 2007. Had she done so, perhaps none of us would ever have heard about Mr. Alexander, or her (or ever seen her journal pages) or ever seen WAY to much of her in photos, or heard WAY too much about their love lives...etc? But I somehow doubt it! Dangerous folks like JAA set their feet down a long and tangled road towards a tragic destination early in their lives; and it seems like it's VERY hard for them to avoid it (especially with someone like JAA who refuses to listen to the sound advise of family/friends to get help, and who does not want to admit that SHE is the problem, not the other people in her life)!...


lunarscope said

Wow and double Wow you guys understand deeply, I say demented from birth or soon after birth, If it wasn't Travis someone else would've been slaughtered' likely a serial slaughter in the making!

Lunarscope, I did not know this:

"- Or how about this nugget of utter denial from JAA: "I spoke w/ Matt McCartney for the first time in three months. He's thouroughly convinced I should commit myself. I don't think I need to do anything that drastic!" - It's a shame that JAA did not take her friend's advice back in 2007. Had she done so, perhaps none of us would ever have heard about Mr. Alexander, or her (or ever seen her journal pages) or ever seen WAY to much of her in photos, or heard WAY too much about their love lives...etc? But I somehow doubt it! Dangerous folks like JAA set their feet down a long and tangled road towards a tragic destination early in their lives; and it seems like it's VERY hard for them to avoid it (especially with someone like JAA who refuses to listen to the sound advise of family/friends to get help, and who does not want to admit that SHE is the problem, not the other people in her life)!..."

Matt, telling her she should commit herself. And he's an ex-boyfriend! Very interesting? Plus the fact that she tried for a LONG time with Abe, to see if he could help her force Travis to make a commitment to her! Tried to recruit Chris and Sky Hughes to help her 'get him to commit' to her.

I honestly don't think Travis had all the sex she claimed. At first, it seemed he did, but when his own journals began coming out, and so may lies have been torn to shreds by Juan Martinez, and the latest testified to by Dworkin have all convinced me that the majority of it was in her head, or in deliberate lies told from her very own mouth or what she wrote in her diaries.

I think when she finally realized that nothing was working to get him to marry her, she began the plan to eliminate him. I wish she had listened to Matt.

I also believe that if she had been successful in snaring him as her husband, she would have still killed him eventually. She's a predator and the men she met were all her prey. Speaking of her being a predator....

She claimed a customer at her job as a waitress asked her, "What do you think you will be doing 5 years from now?" He then told her about PPL and gave her a DVD about it. Sometime llater she decided to watch the DVD, and called the 1-800 number to learn more about it. I believe she found out about Travis in her internet search to find out all she could about PPL. I am 98% convinced she found out about him and that he was single and she went to that meeting with a plan to meet him during that time. I think he was her prey before she actually met him.

But her plan did not work. He did not want her. That is the bottom line.

I can't trust a word Arias has written in her journal because to me they are nothing but the lies and fabrications of a narcissistic psychopath. Many times in her journals she said Travis wanted to marry her or would propose but she couldn't marry him. That was a lie. She told the Hughes right after she met Travis that she had a vision that she was going to marry him and even described her wedding dress. From the time she met him, every waking moment she was plotting and planning to get him to marry her.

After being arrested for murdering Travis Alexander, Jodi Arias told his family in the letter from jail she and Travis loved each other and were discussing marriage and the kids they were going to have and the only problem in their relationship was Deanna Reid, his jealous ex girlfriend. We know that was a lie. I think her earlier journal entries were no more true than the entries she made after slaughtering Travis and the email she wrote to Travis after killing him.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that Arias knew about Travis Alexander before that PPL meeting where all of his friends witnessed them meeting. She could tell from meeting him he was good looking, a "rising star" in PPL and was charismatic and had lots of friends and connections. She also learned quickly that he was LDS and was marriage material. That would have been enough for her to see him as the Prince who would sweep her off her feet and pamper her and give her the life she wanted to become accustomed to.

I too believe that the relationship, if you call it that, lasted a couple of months at the most and there was little sex. What they were discussing on the sex tape were sexual fantasies and reminiscing about one or two sexual trysts. Nurmi is leading the jury to believe their romantic/sexual relationship lasted from the time they met until he died and that they were having sex at the time Alexander was emailing those women and Arias was trying to log him off. She was in Yreka at the time so they couldn't be having sex.

Jurors are individuals so I have no idea what they are believing and thinking but I have faith that in the deliberations, the jurors with logic, common sense and reason will convince jurors who may have bought into the dirty tactics of Nurmi and the fake remorse of Arias to vote for a death sentence because I believe good triumphs over evil.