I'm not trying to be snide, especially to a new person. But that whole debacle belongs on the NY Post or the National Enquirer web sites. There is plenty of coverage of the trial and commentary on the trial on the sites like ABCnews.go.com.

I'd really like to not have to wade through it here.

in the news which still has a lot of mysteries and legal intricacies, we won't bother you

there'll be no talking about true crime in this group!!!!

I didn't follow the story otherwise I'd love to talk with you about it.

point now.

Catch ya on the next one !!

So what is worthy of discussion for you?

To the OP, I'd love to see this group become more active, so discuss away! While I've had lots of experience with domestic violence, in a professional sense, her self-defense claim seems far-fetched.

When I am not interested in a subject, I just don't read it - rather than feel like I have to "wade through it."

I kept seeing the headlines for weeks and weeks before I even knew what the case was about and after I did, I still didn't understand why all the major nightly recap. This is a garden variety crime about a pissed off woman killing her boyfriend who didn't want to be with her anymore. The rest is the media, which isn't supposed to go all tabloid, writing their own screenplay about a real life tragedy, which for the family of the victim it certainly is. The massive attention is stupid and after this I plan to continue to ignore it completely. Just don't give a damn and I don't understand why anyone outside of those directly affected by the crime are caring about this trial.

I only got interested at the end of it. I think if it didn't have all the sexual detail there would not be much interest in it.

Do you think she acted in self-defense? It sure does NOT sound like it to me - but as I said I have not watched it closely.

I can't decide if she really wants the death penalty or is just trying to manipulate the jury.

wonder how she completely overpowered him. I was telling my husband that if I came at him with a knife - there is no doubt in my mind that he could knock me out in one swing. I know he had defensive knife wounds on his hands...but I wonder what got him so incapacitated to start. She must have really surprised him and had a very sharp knife. Maybe she took Ninja lessons :&gt

Since the whole thing was captured on camera, one moment he's just indulging her taking naked photos of him in the shower and the next she plunges a knife in his chest. Totally unexpected. His being in the shower was mostly to trap him in there with no way out but through her with the knife, but I believe she also envisioned he'd die quickly and neatly in the shower with all the blood evidence swirling down the drain, and that would be that. Clean and tidy, and she could quickly make her escape before the roommate got home. Didn't work out that way. I'm still amazing that he was able to get to the bathroom sink and then all the way down that hallway before collapsing with her stabbing him all the way. I really like to hope he was at least unconscious when she slit his throat. I don't think so though since when his body was found his eyes were open. Just horrific.

yesterday saying that on Wednesday, the jury decided that Jodi Arias had been "especially cruel" in the murder of Travis, which means she could get the death penalty.

Is the jury still deciding whether to give her Life or Death, or did I miss the sentencing?

Monday, Jodi Arias has her side - mitigating circumstances - why she shouldn't die. Weird part is that the prosecution gets to cross examine. Like her mom won't be getting up there to beg for life vs. death - because it would open the door for questions about their relationship. Maybe this is only the way they do it in AZ? I don't know.

She trashed every one of them. The only people they could find to speak for her were Darryl Brewer and her doped up childhood friend Patti Womack who hasn't seen or spoken to her in many years. Now Patti won't be testifying after all. She came to court, but rumor has it was inappropriately dressed and stoned. She also has a lengthy criminal record. I don't know if the defense cut her off or she refused to testify or what happened.

wise because the prosecution would get to cross-examine and they have had a very rocky relationship and the mom would have to probably answer to that. Yikes, who wants to see their own daughter get killed? no matter what they did? Bet you would feel partially responsible for the way you raised her - or for not recognizing the severe problems before she did what she did - that you might have been able to prevent it. Same with that guy in Newtown....the mom and the dad did nothing to get him help.

I heard a psychiatrist from Yale talk about that - that the key is having the awareness and the resources available to recognize that point when a person makes a decision to do something crazy.

Usually I love true crime stories to figure out either who done it, how they done it, and why they done it. This one was easy to determine all that, but I'm just fascinated watching Arias lie on the fly and mimic human emotions. It's like watching some strange animal you've never seen before at the zoo only a million times more interesting. And of course the ridiculous "expert" witnesses were a hoot. Even the defense attorneys are bizarre... Nurmi with his flashy attire, melting in his chair like it's a Barcalounger and constantly digging for gold in his nostrils in court, and Wilmott with her cocaine infused rushing Minnie Mouse voice, painted on skirts and always looking like she's about to have a meltdown or a seizure.

I've never seen a trial with more craziness and more sidebars than trial. The phrase "may we approach" should be forever stricken from the English language.

Thank goodness for a few good people putting up each day's testimony on YouTube so I could watch the whole trial at my leisure.

the defendant until there is no doubt in my mind, absolutely no doubt. What amazed me on this one is the judge. I am not surprised there are so many sidebars since she is the antithesis of an activist - Repukes must love her. She says virtually nothing. There were so many times I could not believe she didn't cut off the endless, endless sexual details that seemed to have absolutely zero relevance.

I put myself in the position of Jodi and the defense. I think it is interesting to think about how they must have developed a defense from the end backwards. I imagine them saying, "ok...you did it, you admit it, and you did it was an absolute vengeance. Now, we have to come up with the why. And it really can't be that he spurned you or you were jealous that he was taking someone else to Cancun."

How do you think it went from there? They obviously decided on having him be a pervert and a batterer. Then they had to make everything that happened in their relationship lead (or sound to lead) toward pervert and batterer. Problem was, it didn't all fit neatly. There were all those words written and tapes and texts. Funny how the alibi of seeing that guy in St Lake City actually hurt her in the end because she wasn't beat up. If she had first automatically assumed the would have gotten caught, she could have played everything completely differently.

This is weird, but from a female perspective, the guy, although not a batterer, was an asshole to her. He used her. Too bad she didn't get vengeance in another way besides murder.

From all accounts she threw herself at him and used sex to try to keep him. He was never dishonest with her... she knew about other women he dated. When he finally decided to end the relationship he told her, but she was having none of it. First thing she did she moved to Mesa just a few blocks from him and starts stalking him. His friends have a lot of stories about how she would sneak into his house through the doggie door and be found sleeping in his bed or on the sofa and even hiding in his closet, show up uninvited to various get-togethers at his house and refuse to leave, started peeking in his windows, threatening any other woman she even thought he might be dating, slashed his car tires as well as those of one woman he was dating, sneak into his email, phone and even hacked into his facebook, etc. His mistake was still letting her talk him into having sex with her while all this was going on. But it was HER that was throwing herself at him knowing that any of the nice Mormon women he was dating weren't having any kind of sex with him. She used sex to try to keep him, and unfortunately for him he was unable to refuse it. You can't claim to be used when you sexually throw yourself at someone and they accept it particularly when you've been stalking them and they have to worry about what you might do next by refusing your sexual advances.

It was Jodi's idea to drag Travis's reputation through the mud as a threat when the prosecution refused to make a deal for her for murder 2. The defense filed a motion that if the prosecution didn't accept the plea deal they wanted then they would trash Travis's reputation in court, and wouldn't that be oh so terrible for his family to endure. Not that her defense counsel had any problem with that. These days it's popular to blame the victim. That motion was a really gross threatening read.

I first got interested in this case when the first 48 Hours episode about her came out when she was still doing the intruder story. Immediately I knew she was full of crap, and she scared the shit out of me like no other criminal has. The more I've watched her the more she totally freaks me out.

she should have played up the fact that he used her (sorry still think that) but, millions of men do and that's not enough to warrant killing someone. Why did she move back to California? That doesn't fit if you are obsessed. I missed the first part of this trial so don't know all the beginning details.

Based on the tapes I heard of him, it doesn't sound like he needed to be "talked into sex" at all, IMHO

I kind of think that she made that fateful trip to Mesa with the idea that she would give him one more chance to accept her with the fallback being: if he doesn't, I am going to kill him. Guess that's kind of like "premeditation light" ?

What is different about Murder 2? No premeditation? What would it be if she had said "he used me and used me and then he said he was taking someone else to Cancun and I flipped out and I was so furious, I went into the kitchen and got a knife and just started stabbing him?"

PS (last sentence) I think that was Nurmi was trying to intimate in his closing. It probably would have been their best strategy by far - and he realized that at the end.

Probably only about 15 years. And since she's already been in prison for 5 years that would knock it down to 10. Then she could get out even sooner for good behavior (though she hasn't had good behavior in there so far), it might finally get drilled into her head that she can knock off years of her time if she has good behavior and can convince the parole board that she's remorseful and accepts the blame for what she did as her own (though so far she just can't seem to get it in her head that that's what she needs to do in order for anyone to feel the least bit sympathetic toward her). Getting out of jail even after having to do years as punishment makes all the difference in the world to Jodi. She's relatively young and still would be by the time she got out and could start a new life.

Murder 1 was explained in detail by the judge and also by the prosecutor in his closing. The jury could either decide it was murder 1 because of premeditation or felony murder or both and it had to be unanimous, but some jurors could vote for either premeditation or felony murder or both. As you mentioned, if she suddenly became enraged with him and went down to the kitchen for a knife and back upstairs and killed him that would STILL be premeditation since during the time she took to go down to the kitchen for the knife and back upstairs with it is a reasonable amount of time for her to rethink her actions. Premeditation as explained by both the judge and the prosecutor doesn't have to be a long time at all nor planned out in advance. As long as a reasonable person would believe there was enough time between the desire to kill and the killing to rethink what they were doing it's still premeditation.

Murder 2 would be an unpremeditated sudden killing. Like if she became enraged for some reason and there happened to be a knife right next to her that she suddenly grabbed and stabbed him with without really thinking. This case just had so much evidence of premeditation as well as overkill that I never believed a jury would possibly vote for anything but murder 1. Jodi just wanted to make a deal for murder 2 so she could get out of jail at some point especially with the 5 years that she already put in. That's why she used the threat of dragging Travis's reputation through the mud during trial if they didn't accept a murder 2 deal. Even she knew that if she went to trial it would be a very slim chance of her getting murder 2 or any lessor charge. There was just sooo much evidence in this case that clearly pointed to murder 1. Also, with her going to trail with her third story of the crime made her believability practically non-existent no matter what she said.

Like you, I believe that she decided days beforehand to make this trip to see him in AZ with the plan that either he take her to Cancun instead of Mimi and take her back as his official girlfriend or she would kill him. Even though she planned to give him that choice it's STILL premeditation because she STILL planned to kill him if he didn't do as she wanted. She prepared for his killing and her cover-up in detail... she rented a car for the trip an hour and a half distance from where she lived, she dyed her hair dark just before she left, she calculated how much gas she would need to get in and out of AZ so there would be no record of her having been in the state at all which required that she have three 5-gallon gas cans (two she borrowed from Darryl and one she bought herself at Walmart), she staged a robbery at her grandparents' house where she lived at the time and where she stole her grandfather's .25 caliber gun with seven hollow point bullets, and planned a trip to Utah where she was to see a new love interest. During trial the only part of that the prosecution didn't prove was her having stolen her grandfather's gun (she claims the gun belonged to Travis though no one either knew or thought he had one, and there was no gun accessories in his home like ammunition, cleaning kit, holster, etc., and there was no gun of any kind registered in his name ever. But she also claimed during her interrogation before her arrest that Travis didn't have a gun and would never want one... yet one more of the infinite number of her lies to fit whatever story she used at the time. Her original story and how she prepared for the killing was to claim that she was never at his home that day and never in AZ at all which is what she prepared for before getting there.

The felony murder charge was a bit more confusing. In this case what made it felony murder was that regardless of what you believed as far was whose gun was used the gun was still burglarized - either she stole Travis's gun and took it with her and disposed of it in the desert as she testified, or it was her grandfather's gun that she stole days before, took with her to commit the crime and took away with her and got rid of in the desert somewhere afterward. But there was also another way it would be felony murder and that is that she was not welcome in the home from the time she started to kill him. I think some of the jurors didn't really understand this since it's a bit strange. What it means is that it doesn't matter if she was invited in the home before the killing or not for it to be burglary because from the moment she started to kill him she was automatically no longer welcome in his home, and she stayed for awhile to try cleaning up both him and the crime scene. I can see why some jurors didn't get this bit and why some of them didn't believe it was also felony murder. But they all voted for premeditated murder 1, so it doesn't matter in the end that some didn't believe it was felony murder. I don't think that either the judge or the prosecutor explained that as well as they could have.

As for him using her, I guess you could say that he did in the sense that she practically begged him to. He was always honest with her that he didn't want her as a girlfriend, didn't think she was marriageable material, and that he was actively looking for another woman to marry. His still having sex with her was what SHE wanted and what SHE insisted on though he did take her up on that. In hindsight it wasn't a good idea that he continue to have have sex with her even though he told her that he didn't want her to be his girlfriend nor his wife and was actively looking for another woman to marry. She used him in a way by continually seeking him out and encouraging him to continue having sex with him... she used sex with him as a tool to try to get him to take her back. All he did was take her up on what SHE was insisting on - continued sex with her. And considering she was actively stalking him it's reasonable that he may have continued to have sex with her in order to placate her so that she would either stop stalking him or at least not escalate what she was doing - she had slashed his tires twice and those of a woman he was dating once which is hardly cheap to replace. Having been stalked for years myself by an ex-boyfriend I totally get it about still having sex with them or even taking them back because it's just EASIER than trying to deal with the stalking behavior.

As for her moving back to CA, she had no choice. She wanted to stay in Mesa near Travis. She had to move back because she wasn't working, was broke, was thrown out of the home where she'd been staying, and there was no way on earth Travis would allow her to move into his house since he never wanted her to move to Mesa after he broke up with her to begin with. Even after she moved back to CA though she was constantly traveling back to Mesa to stalk him, and her stalking behavior was escalating.

I really can't fathom what in the world the defense team was thinking with their strategy. They knew they couldn't go with just self-defense since it's only self-defense if just enough force is used to stop the attack. It was abundantly clear with this case that it wasn't self-defense but a overkill rage killing. I'm not sure what else they could have gone with as a strategy, but even the intruder story would have been better than the self-defense story.

Defense Strategy
I think you are very right about the "self-defense" strategy being the wrong one. " With self-defense "just enough force is used to stop the attack." If someone broke in your house and started attacking you, you would do whatever you could to stop them (like throw something at them or shoot them) and then you would scream and run like hell to get out. That is normal reaction - almost involuntary. And many people, despite the attacker being a bad guy, would still not want them to die - and would call an ambulance. So, because she didn't try to get out (jury question) and because she didn't stop at one cut one shot the jury had to think "Ok, why did she do this?"

The choices from there are
(1) She was super pissed at him for being spurned and all her rage came out with the repeated stabbings.
This might have worked if there was no evidence that she planned it (Murder 1). But, there was. I found
this video you might like. Although Jodi had an excuse for each of the factors that point to premeditation,
the probability that all of them could have happened is astronomical.


(2) She went temporarily crazy
Same problem - her premeditation activities. Plus, no doctors said she was crazy, right? And, no real evidence that Travis did anything horrific other than to tell her she wasn't marriage material.

Based on this, I think her best choice would probably have been to actually tell the truth. To focus completely on how he had sex with her - wanted her sometimes - but didn't want her as a wife/girlfriend. And, it infuriated her so much, she was going to confront him and if he didn't change his mind, kill him. This is definitely a Murder 1 admission - but perhaps she could have garnered an ounce of sympathy for a lesser charge. Doubtful, but her absolute only shot.

TA did a lot more than tell her she wasn't marriage material- extremely abusive on that tape. They both had a very obsessive 50shades high beam focus on each other, 83k texts back & forth. Det. F
Said it would be 900 pages and take 2 yrs. to transpose.

The precipitating event was about fear and shame of exposure. Mormon religion is a strange one, their number 3 commandment is NO SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE.Not just no adultery as in 10 commandments but no single sex up to and including any foreplay. If you are turned in, you can't just do the catholic way of forgiveness, no you are excommunicated from the Mormon church if the bishop says so. TA had been through this once and I imagine it was horrifying to him at losing everything. He had become an elder. I couldn't believe this was a sin just under not believing in spirit, and murder but that is what Mimi testified to

JA had told him someone came into restaurant and said Travis was having sex.it is hard for anyone to imagine any reaction other than yeah, so what-but this religion doesn't allow for any normal hanky panky. So, he was furious. Notice on the tape, he never says what she has done to hurt him worse than his father....never says the words.

So, he goes for her vulnerable spot by saying he will expose her to everyone...he threatens to out her to her friends & family etc to all crazy shit she's done". This is her Achilles heal. She wants desperately to be accepted by them as she feared big time exclusion once again.

I didn't start watching all this til the middle of her trial. sounds like I really need to back up and read the transcripts from the start. 83,000 texts?? Yikes almighty. That is just amazing from a guy who was being stalked. That alone makes me think he bought into the relationship a lot more than I thought. Unless of course, it was mostly her texts.

TA had been accused of having sex before (and got turned in to the elders) ?

Wonder why JA would bring up the sex thing (that someone was saying Travis was having sex) ? If I was desperately worried I would lose the guy...wouldn't bring up something that could jeopardize things.

Do you think the "worst thing she had done to hurt him" might be just that she tempted him and he broke all the sex rules?

Was that the last tape - before she started planning revenge/murder?

And I think you should become a host of this group.

Hosting is fun!!!

I think there are certain cases that are fascinating - the ones that you can not be absolutely sure about - and getting into motives and defense strategies.

The Arias case was definitely like that. Her next hearing is coming up in a couple weeks - but all that's left is whether she gets life or death.

Maybe the next one that's a mystery is Oscar Pistorius who shot his girlfriend in the bathroom thinking it was an intruder. Not til March.

The True Crime Group doesn't have a host, and all you need to do is post an OP about it in this group, then write Skinner an email and wait.

This was his email back to me:

Then we'll see you in the Host Forum, which is fun!

Didn't Jodi go back to court on Friday for a scheduling hearing?

I believe her attorneys were asking that cameras not be permitted this go around for the sentencing phase. I bet they didn't ask her about that ahead of time. Jodi miss out on being in the spotlight?? No damn way.

October 4

http://www.latintimes.com/articles/8960/20131004/jodi-arias-back-court-today-rare-closed-hearing-travis-alexander-death-penalty.htm

Convicted murderer Jodi Arias has another hearing scheduled today in an Arizona court. The Jodi Arias trial played out in front of the entire nation. Today's hearing was originally supposed to take place in September but for an unknown reason the judge overseeing the Arias case postponed it until today. It was originally believed that today's hearing would also be canceled since it is a death penalty hearing and it looks as though Arias' lawyers are looking to settle. A settlement hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24. The defense and the prosecution will meet to try and reach an agreement on the amount of time Arias will spend in jail.

For the defense it is likely that their whole purpose for scheduling the Oct. 24 hearing is to make sure Jodi Arias does not receive the death penalty. Today's hearing will be closed to the public. This is a rare turn of events especially for a case that played out in front of the entire country. It is unclear what the purpose of today's meeting will be. What is known is that the hearing is part of the second phase of Arias' death penalty case. Jodi Arias was convicted in May of the 2008 murder of her on and off again boyfriend Travis Alexander. Arias has not yet been sentenced because the jury that convicted her could not decide if they should give her the death penalty.

Arias was convicted of first degree murder and in Arizona that could mean a possible death sentence. Arias' only other option is to spend the rest of her life in prison. When Arias was first convicted she held an interview with her local news station. Arias told the reporter that she would rather die than live because to her death meant freedom. When it came time to speak in front of the jury Arias changed her mind and asked the jury to give her life. Arias said it was because of her family that she wanted to live.

In 2008, Travis Alexander was discovered murdered in his home. The victim was found with 27 stab wounds and a bullet to the head. Alexander was nearly decapitated when his throat was slashed, cutting his arteries and voice box. When Arias was first questioned she denied being at Travis' home the night he was killed. Jodi then lied again saying she witnessed Alexander die when two masked intruders broke into the home. Finally Arias settled on a story saying she killed Travis Alexander in self-defense.