Jodi Arias Trial

[Dabs]

I hate it when people say...."well all of the lies that Jodi has told doesn't make her a murderer"....fuck youuuuuuuuuuuuuu...she admitted she killed Travis.
She made up a lie saying ninjas did it...then saying she did it in self defense.
How can you claim self defense when you has ZERO wounds on your body...and the victim had stab wounds in his back. Just how the fuck is that self defense?? Stabbing someone when their back is turned on you.
I am sick of the trial tho....her attorney reminds me of a fat slug after he smoked a huge joint and Martinez is like Speedy Gonzales.....and Jodi...sits on the stands and smirks.
Being on the closing arguments please...put her fucking skank ass down!

 

[Rinata]

I really am not a supporter of the death penalty, but sometimes it doesn't bother me when someone is sentenced to death. It would not break my heart if it happened to Jodi.

So many women are abused by men and most of us women want the book thrown at them. That's one of the reasons why what Jodi is doing really pisses me off. She's lying. I don't believe Travis ever abused her in any way, shape, or form. She is doing such a disservice to truly abused women.

Also, Travis seemed like a nice person to me. He trusted her. She put him in a place of vulnerability and then abused his trust in the worst possible way. If she is not found guilty of 1st degree murder there is no justice.

 

[Noomi]

^some women will act in self defense when the deceased hasn't harmed them.

There was a woman here years ago, who lived in my town. Her husband beat her, raped her, anc controlled her life for the better part of 20 years. She tried to leave, he found her and raped her again and again. One night, when he was driving home from work, she hid in the bushes outside the house with a gun, and shot him.
She got life in prison, but a few years ago, her sentence was quashed because it was deemed that she acted in self defense. She couldn't leave as he always found her - and this was back in the days when there wasn't any support for abused women.

The point is, just because someone has no defense wounds doesn't mean they didn't believe they were acting in self defense. Is this bloke really as squeaky clean as he sounds? From what I am reading, the guy was a saint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unfortunately, they may not happen, Rinata.

 

[Esmeralda]

^some women will act in self defense when the deceased hasn't harmed them.

There was a woman here years ago, who lived in my town. Her husband beat her, raped her, anc controlled her life for the better part of 20 years. She tried to leave, he found her and raped her again and again. One night, when he was driving home from work, she hid in the bushes outside the house with a gun, and shot him.
She got life in prison, but a few years ago, her sentence was quashed because it was deemed that she acted in self defense. She couldn't leave as he always found her - and this was back in the days when there wasn't any support for abused women.

The point is, just because someone has no defense wounds doesn't mean they didn't believe they were acting in self defense. Is this bloke really as squeaky clean as he sounds? From what I am reading, the guy was a saint.

Just because she is a woman who killed a man, a lover, doesn't mean she had a reason to. Just because he is a man, it doesn't mean he was abusive. Just because she is a woman, it doesn't mean she was abused or had a good reason to kill him. She is a psycho, a murderer, not some poor, pathetic, abused woman.

 

[Noomi]

^some women will act in self defense when the deceased hasn't harmed them.

There was a woman here years ago, who lived in my town. Her husband beat her, raped her, anc controlled her life for the better part of 20 years. She tried to leave, he found her and raped her again and again. One night, when he was driving home from work, she hid in the bushes outside the house with a gun, and shot him.
She got life in prison, but a few years ago, her sentence was quashed because it was deemed that she acted in self defense. She couldn't leave as he always found her - and this was back in the days when there wasn't any support for abused women.

The point is, just because someone has no defense wounds doesn't mean they didn't believe they were acting in self defense. Is this bloke really as squeaky clean as he sounds? From what I am reading, the guy was a saint.

Just because she is a woman who killed a man, a lover, doesn't mean she had a reason to. Just because he is a man, it doesn't mean he was abusive. Just because she is a woman, it doesn't mean she was abused or had a good reason to kill him. She is a psycho, a murderer, not some poor, pathetic, abused woman.

Of course it doesn't mean he was abusive, or that she acted in self defence. She has admitted to killing him. What we don't know yet, is WHY. Lots of people assume she murdered him in cold blood, and that Travis sounds like a nice guy - no one here has met the guy, and no one has met her.

It ain't right to brand someone a cold blooded killer when the jury hasn't even come back with a verdict.

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

 

[Politico]

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

No but you are the only one who is blindly taking sides because she is a woman.

 

[Esmeralda]

^some women will act in self defense when the deceased hasn't harmed them.

There was a woman here years ago, who lived in my town. Her husband beat her, raped her, anc controlled her life for the better part of 20 years. She tried to leave, he found her and raped her again and again. One night, when he was driving home from work, she hid in the bushes outside the house with a gun, and shot him.
She got life in prison, but a few years ago, her sentence was quashed because it was deemed that she acted in self defense. She couldn't leave as he always found her - and this was back in the days when there wasn't any support for abused women.

The point is, just because someone has no defense wounds doesn't mean they didn't believe they were acting in self defense. Is this bloke really as squeaky clean as he sounds? From what I am reading, the guy was a saint.

Just because she is a woman who killed a man, a lover, doesn't mean she had a reason to. Just because he is a man, it doesn't mean he was abusive. Just because she is a woman, it doesn't mean she was abused or had a good reason to kill him. She is a psycho, a murderer, not some poor, pathetic, abused woman.

Of course it doesn't mean he was abusive, or that she acted in self defence. She has admitted to killing him. What we don't know yet, is WHY. Lots of people assume she murdered him in cold blood, and that Travis sounds like a nice guy - no one here has met the guy, and no one has met her.

It ain't right to brand someone a cold blooded killer when the jury hasn't even come back with a verdict.

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

You seem to be ill-informed about this case. You seem to be assuming that because she killed him, she had a good reason for doing so, simply because she is a woman. You seem to be biased in favor of the feminine for no reason. Do more than just peruse one or two news articles, as you said you did. I've known about this case for months. You are NOT the only one informed about it; in fact, you seem to be only superficially informed.

 

[Rinata]

^some women will act in self defense when the deceased hasn't harmed them.

There was a woman here years ago, who lived in my town. Her husband beat her, raped her, anc controlled her life for the better part of 20 years. She tried to leave, he found her and raped her again and again. One night, when he was driving home from work, she hid in the bushes outside the house with a gun, and shot him.
She got life in prison, but a few years ago, her sentence was quashed because it was deemed that she acted in self defense. She couldn't leave as he always found her - and this was back in the days when there wasn't any support for abused women.

The point is, just because someone has no defense wounds doesn't mean they didn't believe they were acting in self defense. Is this bloke really as squeaky clean as he sounds? From what I am reading, the guy was a saint.

Just because she is a woman who killed a man, a lover, doesn't mean she had a reason to. Just because he is a man, it doesn't mean he was abusive. Just because she is a woman, it doesn't mean she was abused or had a good reason to kill him. She is a psycho, a murderer, not some poor, pathetic, abused woman.

Of course it doesn't mean he was abusive, or that she acted in self defence. She has admitted to killing him. What we don't know yet, is WHY. Lots of people assume she murdered him in cold blood, and that Travis sounds like a nice guy - no one here has met the guy, and no one has met her.

It ain't right to brand someone a cold blooded killer when the jury hasn't even come back with a verdict.

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

My mind was open completely from the beginning. But we have all received enough information to form an opinion. I hope you are not defending Jodi because she is a woman, as someone suggested you are doing.

What she did to Travis is absolutely monstrous and she had no good reason for doing it.
I really don't understand why you are defending her. Why are you doing that???

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think Jodi is guilty of murder with malice and intent.

However, I think Juan is doing a piss poor job as prosecutor.

 

[Dabs]

I think Jodi is guilty of murder with malice and intent.

However, I think Juan is doing a piss poor job as prosecutor.

Not at attorneys are perfect. I think he is a smart lawyer...maybe a bit over-powering, but he wants to get his job done.
On the last day...he brought up a VERY GOOD POINT regarding the gas cans.
Jodi stating she bought 3...then took one back.....JM has receipts showing where she bought the 3rd can...she states she then took it back...but Walmart apparently has no record of any gas can being returned to their store on that day.
Might seem like a little nothing to some.....but watch, JM will have a rebuttal witness...stating there was no 3rd can brought back as she claimed.
She used the 3rd can......and putting gas in gas cans to make that long drive is premeditation.
I can hope they put her ass down.....down, down, down.
Then I will write her in prison and laugh at her skank ass~

 

[Noomi]

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

No but you are the only one who is blindly taking sides because she is a woman.

I haven't taken her side at all. She killed her husband, that much we know. How can I take her side when she is guilty of killing the person she was married to?

 

[Noomi]

Just because she is a woman who killed a man, a lover, doesn't mean she had a reason to. Just because he is a man, it doesn't mean he was abusive. Just because she is a woman, it doesn't mean she was abused or had a good reason to kill him. She is a psycho, a murderer, not some poor, pathetic, abused woman.

Of course it doesn't mean he was abusive, or that she acted in self defence. She has admitted to killing him. What we don't know yet, is WHY. Lots of people assume she murdered him in cold blood, and that Travis sounds like a nice guy - no one here has met the guy, and no one has met her.

It ain't right to brand someone a cold blooded killer when the jury hasn't even come back with a verdict.

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

My mind was open completely from the beginning. But we have all received enough information to form an opinion. I hope you are not defending Jodi because she is a woman, as someone suggested you are doing.

What she did to Travis is absolutely monstrous and she had no good reason for doing it.
I really don't understand why you are defending her. Why are you doing that???

Of course you have enough information to form an opinion, but an opinion doesn't equal fact. It's not a fact that she is guilty until the jury finds her guilty.
I am certainly not defending her - and if I was, it wouldn't be because she's a woman. I know that some women can murder their spouses, and claim they were abused, because it's an easy defense for them - and the jury will sometimes buy it. She has probably said Travis abused her because she knows that this might gain her some sympathy with the jury.
Her objective is to make him look as horrible as possible, so the jury believes she had good reason to kill him. The prosecution will try and make her look as bad as possible, painting her as a cold blooded killer. That is their job.

From all I have read about her, it does sound to me like she killed someone who didn't do her any harm. Maybe he was a little forceful in bed - as she seems to have stated - but that doesn't mean he abused her for weeks on end, and it also doesn't mean she didn't have a chance to escape months before.

I believe she will be found guilty, and that would probably be the appropriate verdict, but I shall wait for the verdict before engaging in a slanging match.

 

[Esmeralda]

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

No but you are the only one who is blindly taking sides because she is a woman.

I haven't taken her side at all. She killed her husband, that much we know. How can I take her side when she is guilty of killing the person she was married to?

She didn't kill her "husband." She was not married to this guy. Wow, you sure know a lot about this case.

She killed her boyfriend. A guy who was living 2 lives, one with her and one as a strict Mormon. He kept her away from his other life, for the most part, and that probably pissed her off. But that's not abuse. Not a reason to kill someone. She chose to put up with it. I wouldn't. If a guy had one life with me, for sex mostly, and another one for women he respected, I'd not be in a relationship with him. She chose to stay with him. At some point, over something, she went psycho on him and murdered him. There was no indication of any abuse. Not until she got caught for murdering him and started making stuff up.

 

[Politico]

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

No but you are the only one who is blindly taking sides because she is a woman.

I haven't taken her side at all. She killed her husband, that much we know. How can I take her side when she is guilty of killing the person she was married to?

Yeah he wasn't her husband. It just proves my point. She killed someone and she needs to pay.

 

[Rinata]

Of course it doesn't mean he was abusive, or that she acted in self defence. She has admitted to killing him. What we don't know yet, is WHY. Lots of people assume she murdered him in cold blood, and that Travis sounds like a nice guy - no one here has met the guy, and no one has met her.

It ain't right to brand someone a cold blooded killer when the jury hasn't even come back with a verdict.

Am I the only one who is reading up on this case, and prepared to keep an open mind?

My mind was open completely from the beginning. But we have all received enough information to form an opinion. I hope you are not defending Jodi because she is a woman, as someone suggested you are doing.

What she did to Travis is absolutely monstrous and she had no good reason for doing it.
I really don't understand why you are defending her. Why are you doing that???

Of course you have enough information to form an opinion, but an opinion doesn't equal fact. It's not a fact that she is guilty until the jury finds her guilty.
I am certainly not defending her - and if I was, it wouldn't be because she's a woman. I know that some women can murder their spouses, and claim they were abused, because it's an easy defense for them - and the jury will sometimes buy it. She has probably said Travis abused her because she knows that this might gain her some sympathy with the jury.
Her objective is to make him look as horrible as possible, so the jury believes she had good reason to kill him. The prosecution will try and make her look as bad as possible, painting her as a cold blooded killer. That is their job.

From all I have read about her, it does sound to me like she killed someone who didn't do her any harm. Maybe he was a little forceful in bed - as she seems to have stated - but that doesn't mean he abused her for weeks on end, and it also doesn't mean she didn't have a chance to escape months before.

I believe she will be found guilty, and that would probably be the appropriate verdict, but I shall wait for the verdict before engaging in a slanging match.

Jodi admitted that she killed Travis by stabbing him over 20 times, shooting him in the face, and cutting his throat from ear to ear. So far she has provided no good reason for it.

Those ARE the facts.

 

[George Costanza]

Juan Martinez did a great job outing Jodi Arias for the pathological liar and brutal murderer that she is. I want to see her go down.

The following video is one of my favorite moments of the prosecution. Juan Martinez was incensed as most of us should be. The moment is at 1:40 in the video

Woman accused of murdering boyfriend confronted with lies | Watch the video - Yahoo! News

Touchdown!

When asked if anyone could corroborate her testimony, she said "God". Juan Martinez, replies with, "Well, we can't subpoena God can we?

Juan Martinez is an annoying jerk who is more interested in his own ego than in getting his job done. His bullying of Ms. Arias could well come back to haunt his case when deliberation time rolls around. Juries don't like bullies - especially when the DA is male and the witness he is bullying is female.

 

[Dreamy]

Juan Martinez did a great job outing Jodi Arias for the pathological liar and brutal murderer that she is. I want to see her go down.

The following video is one of my favorite moments of the prosecution. Juan Martinez was incensed as most of us should be. The moment is at 1:40 in the video

Woman accused of murdering boyfriend confronted with lies | Watch the video - Yahoo! News

Touchdown!

When asked if anyone could corroborate her testimony, she said "God". Juan Martinez, replies with, "Well, we can't subpoena God can we?

Juan Martinez is an annoying jerk who is more interested in his own ego than in getting his job done. His bullying of Ms. Arias could well come back to haunt his case when deliberation time rolls around. Juries don't like bullies - especially when the DA is male and the witness he is bullying is female.

Um George, what do you think the jurors will find more reprehensible? An aggressive DA doing what he is paid to do or a lying manipulative psycho skank who killed her ex-boyfriend with such disgusting brutality?

Enough with playing the female card for this lying filthy murderer.

Alleged "word bully" versus a caculating admitted murderer? She loses. Fry her skanky lying ass.

 

[Esmeralda]

Juan Martinez did a great job outing Jodi Arias for the pathological liar and brutal murderer that she is. I want to see her go down.

The following video is one of my favorite moments of the prosecution. Juan Martinez was incensed as most of us should be. The moment is at 1:40 in the video

Woman accused of murdering boyfriend confronted with lies | Watch the video - Yahoo! News

Touchdown!

When asked if anyone could corroborate her testimony, she said "God". Juan Martinez, replies with, "Well, we can't subpoena God can we?

Juan Martinez is an annoying jerk who is more interested in his own ego than in getting his job done. His bullying of Ms. Arias could well come back to haunt his case when deliberation time rolls around. Juries don't like bullies - especially when the DA is male and the witness he is bullying is female.

Um George, what do you think the jurors will find more reprehensible? An aggressive DA doing what he is paid to do or a lying manipulative psycho skank who killed her ex-boyfriend with such disgusting brutality?

Enough with playing the female card for this lying filthy murderer.

Alleged "word bully" versus a caculating admitted murderer? She loses. Fry her skanky lying ass.

I agree. Although at times it seems questionable how 'wise' a jury's decisions are, I think your average Joe or Jane can differentiate between the significance of convicting a viscious murderer and being offended by an aggressive district attorney, and, hopefully they will not let a psychotic murderer go free just because they think the DA was hard on the defendent. Jane and Joe America are not quite that dense.

 

[Noomi]

My mind was open completely from the beginning. But we have all received enough information to form an opinion. I hope you are not defending Jodi because she is a woman, as someone suggested you are doing.

What she did to Travis is absolutely monstrous and she had no good reason for doing it.
I really don't understand why you are defending her. Why are you doing that???

Of course you have enough information to form an opinion, but an opinion doesn't equal fact. It's not a fact that she is guilty until the jury finds her guilty.
I am certainly not defending her - and if I was, it wouldn't be because she's a woman. I know that some women can murder their spouses, and claim they were abused, because it's an easy defense for them - and the jury will sometimes buy it. She has probably said Travis abused her because she knows that this might gain her some sympathy with the jury.
Her objective is to make him look as horrible as possible, so the jury believes she had good reason to kill him. The prosecution will try and make her look as bad as possible, painting her as a cold blooded killer. That is their job.

From all I have read about her, it does sound to me like she killed someone who didn't do her any harm. Maybe he was a little forceful in bed - as she seems to have stated - but that doesn't mean he abused her for weeks on end, and it also doesn't mean she didn't have a chance to escape months before.

I believe she will be found guilty, and that would probably be the appropriate verdict, but I shall wait for the verdict before engaging in a slanging match.

Jodi admitted that she killed Travis by stabbing him over 20 times, shooting him in the face, and cutting his throat from ear to ear. So far she has provided no good reason for it.

Those ARE the facts.

I know they are the facts. But they don't equal murder until a jury returns that verdict.

And my bad for mistaking Travis as her husband. I don't know how I made that mistake!