Flores investigative report- Discuss it here

[seagull65]

She did confess to killing him, herself, without help.

it's interesting though how people will say that a suspect is clearly a compulsive liar, you can't believe a word they say, they have changed their story over and over, and their behavior has been seen to be bizarre, I.e. they were doing headstands at the police station, singing to themselves in front of other people, etc, yet when they are finally convinced to confess after being told repeatedly that evidence exists that proves they are the one who did it and that no one else could possibly have done it (even if the evidence isn't actually conclusive), and even with ample indicators that they are probably not a very stable person, everyone accepts their confession as the gospel truth. lol. I guess this is a long way of saying, false confessions do sometimes occur, it's a well-known phenomenon. Can we believe her confession any more than her other stories, and which one is more clearly supported by the evidence? Whether her confession was false or not I don't know, she told various stories and her confession was one of them. Even in her confession she could only come up with memories of firing a gun in self defense and hearing the sound of a knife hitting the floor (by then she'd given up the part of the story about two other people having been there, and by this time she'd heard elements of the crime scene described over and over and over.) The memories she described reminded me of the way people sometimes describe their memories after an incident where they were drugged, i.e. a few flashes. Or of the memories sometimes elicited thru hypnosis therapy (we all know about the potential for false memory development.) Now I'm not claiming she necessarily didn't do it or anything like that, though. For me it was about 50/50, not very conclusive forensic evidence linking her but the defense didn't challenge it, investigation too limited and focused solely on JA due to fingerpointing , no evidence of motive, no history of violent or criminal behavior, no interest in weapons or past history that would have prepared her to use a knife in this manner i.e. no hunting or knowledge/experience with guns/knives, question of could she have inflicted these injuries without him stopping her and without her being seriously injured, do injuries look like one attacker or two, fact of why would she have allowed herself to be photographed plus left the camera there, plus is her confession reliable, and I thought the case rested mostly on the confession. Yet, she did confess and her defense did put on the whole self-defense plus "snapped" PTSD defense, and that could have been true for all I know. I was very surprised the jury came back with premeditated. My opinion only.

 

[seagull65]

I read it back in Feb or March, think I just googled for it using her name, not sure whose site had the link. I didn't see anything suspicious in reading through the autopsy report, but I'm a layperson so no great experience in deciphering them.

me too geevee, but I don't think the report said very much anyway, did it, from what I can recall? I just saw questions people had raised about it being ruled a suicide so quickly with no clear evidence whether it was or not, and questions about the trajectory of the bullet, and an unusual method for a female and no history of her being suicidal etc, but I don't know if any of those details are true/accurate. There was also discussion online about a police officer whose death was ruled a suicide by the same ME and the family contesting that ruling saying the evidence does not support suicide. Again, all of this only discussion seen online, could be all nonsense.

 

[seagull65]

Frankly, considering the fact that the only physical evidence found at the scene which pointed to her (if we ignore the camera) was a single hair and a mixed-DNA handprint in blood, she didn't do too bad of a job. The DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and R. Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy was no less damning, and they still got off on appeal.

(that's just a segment of weatherlady's post I am responding to)

I know, I forgot to say in the AK case they even supposedly had the emails AK had sent before MK's murder and more evidence of motive, but of course in that case the defense challenged the DNA evidence based on collection technique, tiny technicalities really, but in this case the defense never raised any challenge to the alleged mixed-blood palm print or its collection technique etc. Frankly, although I found them likable (defense in this case), at times I started to wonder if they were acting more like a defense team or prosecutors themselves, seriously, especially during the closing arguments. Very different from AK's defense lawyers in Italy. Also, needless to say, completely different coverage of that case/defendant in our media than this case/defendant!

But the similarities between the two cases, the way the victim was locked in the room, the behavior of the defendants in the police station (AK's cartwheels and yoga / JA's headstands etc), the type of "evidence" , also the way AK also changed her story gradually and the way she described what she could remember as just a few flashes "my only memory is the sound of screaming, etc", so similar. Another similarity, in the AK case, the other friends and downstairs guys were never investigated, no forensics done downstairs or in anyone's vehicle etc even though the victim had allegedly been going down there to water the guys' pot plants for them during that holiday, and the 3rd alleged attacker, who I guess remains convicted, was a friend or customer of those guys downstairs, although he had also been hanging out with AK and RS that day allegedly, and I guess they were also using cannabis that day according to their stories so basically any or all of the 3 accused could have been interested in what MK had access to downstairs that weekend, additional potential motive element (incidentally, no evidence that MK was a user, she was just doing the downstairs guys a favor taking care of their plants at their request). Anyway, it seemed like there was more evidence against AK than in this case, but of course she was acquitted on appeal, I'm always a bit disgusted when I see her talking about herself as the victim on TV, throughout the whole trial she only talked about herself, not a single word about MK. I wish our media would have MK's family and lawyers on TV for a change to tell their side, just to be fair. All this my opinion only.

 

[seagull65]

which roommate had the rental car during those days and which one said he and his girlfriend had spent time during those days "cleaning his girlfriend's parent's house", (initials only), was it same roommate? Could his girlfriends' parents' house really have smelled as bad as the one he was in I wonder? (officers described the smell as overpowering outside the front door). Wow, every parent should have their kid date someone like that, huh, a boyfriend that would come clean the girlfriend's parent's house.

 

[MeeBee]

I am wondering if you watched the trial yourself very closely seagull?

First of all, no one really believes her "confession" either because it was clearly a falsified version of events. There are many physical indicators of this, including her having almost no injuries and the closet shelf which would have flipped had she tried to stand on it. The flashes are bull considering when her story was that someone else was weilding the weapon she could remember everything and despite being given limited information was basically able to describe the murder and the crime scene accurately. But when it comes to her committing the crime she's in "fog."

But even if she did confess to all of it and admit her "confession" was a lie, people would not be crazy to believe it because there is actually very strong forensic evidence linking her to the crime. Some of the strongest you'll see. She left a bloody handprint mixed with Travis blood. She left a hair. She left a freakin' camera that had snapped pictures of her earlier in the day with him then later on committing the crime. Then there's the turned off cell phone, the gas cans that she blatantly lied about, the trip of stupid that she thought everyone would buy. The receipts. The .25 caliber handgun that was used on Travis being coincidentally the exact same caliber as the gun that was stolen from her parents. They didn't convict her of first degree murder for nothing.

Jodi does have a violent past. There are many stories of her abusing animals. People have talked about her violent outbursts, like work colleagues and her parents. Even Jodi herself talks about kicking windows and walls and her "rage" in one of her journal entries or maybe it was the V-Day email to Travis.She also told her therapist that she kicked and hit her mom, squeezed a cat, told Flores she kicked a dog so hard it "ran away." She also has a history of just being unstable in general. She talks about suicide A LOT but has never actually even tried to kill herself.

The state is not required to provide a motive to get a murder conviction, but there was motive here. The state said it was because Travis was going to take another woman on a trip to Cancun. That was definitely apart of it. Another was the fact that she was going around telling people that Travis was the man she wanted to marry and that if she couldn't she didn't know what she'd do, all while Travis is telling her they should just be friends. And then there is the journal entries, where she talks about an object of her obsession and how it's tormenting her and how the only way to get rid of the torment is to "cut it off at it's source" and snuff out it's light. Something to that effect.

I have no idea how you can say there was no conclusive forensic evidence, though.

 

[dcsmyth1]

----"I was very surprised the jury came back with premeditated. My opinion only."
*********

As JM said in his closing argument, the premeditation statute does not require days, it does not require a plan, it only requires 'thinking'. Even if you choose to buy the gist of JA's story--that TA attacked her--by necessity there was quite a bit of time between the first stab wound and the throat slitting. There can be no doubt , despite whatever had happened prior, that at the moment she slashed his throat (probably in a 'sawing' motion) he was powerless to defend himself, and that she intended to kill him.

 

[Tuba]

When she came round to the truth after years of stubborn fantasy, she was out of our sight, with Nurmi & Geffner. I do believe they would have been sympathetic, not coercive, although I cannot prove that. My belief is based on observing both those men and listening to them. The really powerful, jarringly powerful confession was the one we DID witness. This was unforgettable testimony from the stand, elicited by photographs of what she had done. It was utterly convincing and so wrenching even Meryl Streep in her best moments could not have conveyed that abject truth.

 

[geevee]

Here's my basic problem with the 'confessions', she gave the false ninja one first, and quite detailed, down to what T's screams sounded like while he was being stabbed. In her second 'real' confession she is foggy and has no memory of him being stabbed. She could not make up details for the first event that she 'forgets' in the next version.

Just moo

 

[Tuba]

Of course, the confessions that convinced me were the "Yes" and "Yes" (I did it and I did all of that.)

 

[Myvice]

If I remember correctly, there were several people that gave DNA samples and one of them was with Jodi the day she gave hers.

For anyone questioning the premeditation, why do you think it was so important to Jodi to deny having the third gas tank? Having 2 looks very strange IMO, but she knew the third one was what was necessary to go through Arizona undetected. Otherwise why wouldn't she just admit she had 3?

The idea that someone would take gas cans on a trip because they were worried about running out of gas yet not go without a starbucks to make sure you have a phone charger also makes no sense to me. She made several stops on the way so I can't fathom that she wouldn't have bought a charger the minute she thought hers was lost.

We use our land line as our principle phone, ( I know...archaic, LOL) but we always have our cell phones in our cars for emergency use. JMO

 

[LambChop]

Two words.......she confessed.

 

[MeeBee]

I'd also like to point out she has an extensive history of stalking her ex boyfriends, in the exact same manner she is said to have stalked Travis, down to hacking his emails, moving across state lines after a break up to be with them, and threatening new girlfriends.

Also, yes false confessions do happen, but only in cases where the person is basically tortured, abused and in the end coerced into confessing because they see no other way out. There's a whole psychology behind it. The person will also usually come forward later and admit that it was a false confession and that they were coerced. That clearly did not happen here. Flores was very patient and delicate with her. The reason she was forced to "confess" was because the evidence was overwhelming and she was the only one who's DNA showed up at the crime scene. She was also the only one without a rock solid alibi, like McCartney and the roommates. For 18 hours, at the very moment Travis was being murdered Jodi dropped off the grid. No one else had this problem.

The third "confession" came because her story was absolutely ridiculous. Dr. Samuels all but admits that he and Nurmi came to Jodi and convinced her to change her story because the ninjas story was not going to help her. If there was anyone else there, Jodi would have rolled over on them a long time ago. Really, you think she'd take the death penalty lying down without outing her co murderers? No way. If there was anyone else there, she'd have pinned ALL on them a long time ago.

As for how Jodi could have inflicted the extent of the injuries that she did on Travis. She had tons of adrenaline and murderous rage pumping through her body. She is a very strong girl. And the ME testified that the chest stab, the one to his aorta, was probably the first wound. So she plunged it into his chest in a surprise attack causing the most fatal injury, besides the neck slash, where Travis was unable to defend himself while he was in a sitting position in a very small and confined space and he did not see it coming. It's really no mystery how she was able to do this. She ambushed him with a giant knife. By the time he was able to fight back and run, he was already half dead.

 

[MeeBee]

If I remember correctly, there were several people that gave DNA samples and one of them was with Jodi the day she gave hers.

For anyone questioning the premeditation, why do you think it was so important to Jodi to deny having the third gas tank? Having 2 looks very strange IMO, but she knew the third one was what was necessary to go through Arizona undetected. Otherwise why wouldn't she just admit she had 3?

The idea that someone would take gas cans on a trip because they were worried about running out of gas yet not go without a starbucks to make sure you have a phone charger also makes no sense to me. She made several stops on the way so I can't fathom that she wouldn't have bought a charger the minute she thought hers was lost.

We use our land line as our principle phone, ( I know...archaic, LOL) but we always have our cell phones in our cars for emergency use. JMO

Exactly. She ain't no dummy. Really, only one 5 gallon gas would be all you need if you break down anywhere. Two is overkill but she got those from Daryl for free. But the third one is inexplicable. Why go out of your way to buy a third 5 gallon gas can when you already have two gas cans that would be more than enough to get you to a gas station should you break down? She knows how bad that looks and how that goes right to the premeditation. So she denied, denied, denied. I also think there was just a level of rebellion in denying the third gas can. She just did not want to give Martinez an inch on anything at all, even innocuous matters, because that's just Jodi. She's a butt head. It was her narcissism that led her right into that. But that lie is what really hung her. There's no reason to lie about something, something so easily proven, if you have absolutely nothing to hide.

 

[seagull65]

I am wondering if you watched the trial yourself very closely seagull?

First of all, no one really believes her "confession" either because it was clearly a falsified version of events. There are many physical indicators of this, including her having almost no injuries and the closet shelf which would have flipped had she tried to stand on it....(snipped by me for space)......But even if she did confess to all of it and admit her "confession" was a lie, people would not be crazy to believe it because there is actually very strong forensic evidence linking her to the crime. Some of the strongest you'll see. She left a bloody handprint mixed with Travis blood. She left a hair. She left a freakin' camera that had snapped pictures of her earlier in the day with him then later on committing the crime. Then there's the turned off cell phone, the gas cans....... (snipped by me for space)
I have no idea how you can say there was no conclusive forensic evidence, though.

Sorry to abbreviate the quote above, people can click to go back to your original to read the whole thing. Clearly you agree with the prosecution's theory. I think the fact she posed for photos while there that day and that she left the photos/camera there would tend to be more exculpatory, as this would not fit in with a murder plan, i.e if going there with a plan to kill, who would let themselves be photographed, having committed a murder, who would leave the photos....etc. But of course does not necessarily mean that she wasn't, either. In my opinion the whole scene was very disorganized, if she was disoriented and very disorganized it is conceivable she might leave the photos, but this seems to fit more with a very un-premeditated crime and leaving in a state of panic or disorientation. Hand print: It was just a half palm-print, wasn't it? If the evidence of both her blood and his being in the print is true (as put forth in evidence) this would prove that she was there and was bleeding on a day when he was also, so most likely present during the murder. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean she's the perp. My only point regarding this blood evidence was that, unlike in the Italian trial that was mentioned, in this trial this print evidence went pretty much unchallenged. In the other trial, the defense ( for two of the defendants) challenged the collection methods on all the blood/DNA and they walked free. (And in that other case, the defendant had even apparently sent emails or texts in which she said the victim must die. That's why I said I always wish our media would have the victim's parents on to tell their side of the story, in that case.) JA's hair being in the bathroom in normal quantities would be nothing at all since she had often used that bathroom and shower and was documented as having been there even that day. Large quantities of it ripped out at the roots would suggest that she was engaged in some kind of attack in that bathroom (whether as victim or perp), whether the fight was between her and TA or another attacker. None of the evidence is a "smoking gun" that proves Jodi is the person who murdered Travis, but obviously doesn't rule it out either at all. As far as the finger pointing and characterizations by some of Travis's associates who didn't approve of JA, who puts any stock in any of that? Some of the strangest things that remain are how she had few if any injuries considering the violence of the scene, how he sustained so many stab wounds without taking the knife from her, etc. I have also questioned the story about her dog running away in previous posts (she claims she kicked the dog and that he then simply ran off and never came back which seems unusual.) Her story about how neglected the family dog was and how she was more or less punished for the dog's mess in the yard, not to mention how she herself was raised, painted a pretty bleak picture and could explain why a kid might kick a dog. (Let me point out that personally I can't stand any form of violence against animals or any living thing by the way.) JA seemed to have a lot of affection for Napoleon, however. She seemed to get very emotional any time N was discussed during the trial. Now I've posted my own long post, feel free to abbreviate if quoting me!! lol

Some folks were asking about who had access to the keys to TA's room etc, here's a link where one of the roommates addresses that and other questions, I found this interview useful. Rather than post the large youtube direct link here, here is the url, copy and post into your browser window:
youtube.com/watch?v=I_eeavBFS_M&noredirect=1" or look at youtube for the title : Nancy speaks to roommate who found Travis' body

 

[wasnt_me]

Just bumping this because I'm gonna need this thread soon and don't want it go get lost.

 

[pocketaccent]

I'd also like to point out she has an extensive history of stalking her ex boyfriends, in the exact same manner she is said to have stalked Travis, down to hacking his emails, moving across state lines after a break up to be with them, and threatening new girlfriends.

Also, yes false confessions do happen, but only in cases where the person is basically tortured, abused and in the end coerced into confessing because they see no other way out. There's a whole psychology behind it. The person will also usually come forward later and admit that it was a false confession and that they were coerced. That clearly did not happen here. Flores was very patient and delicate with her. The reason she was forced to "confess" was because the evidence was overwhelming and she was the only one who's DNA showed up at the crime scene. She was also the only one without a rock solid alibi, like McCartney and the roommates. For 18 hours, at the very moment Travis was being murdered Jodi dropped off the grid. No one else had this problem.

The third "confession" came because her story was absolutely ridiculous. Dr. Samuels all but admits that he and Nurmi came to Jodi and convinced her to change her story because the ninjas story was not going to help her. If there was anyone else there, Jodi would have rolled over on them a long time ago. Really, you think she'd take the death penalty lying down without outing her co murderers? No way. If there was anyone else there, she'd have pinned ALL on them a long time ago.
As for how Jodi could have inflicted the extent of the injuries that she did on Travis. She had tons of adrenaline and murderous rage pumping through her body. She is a very strong girl. And the ME testified that the chest stab, the one to his aorta, was probably the first wound. So she plunged it into his chest in a surprise attack causing the most fatal injury, besides the neck slash, where Travis was unable to defend himself while he was in a sitting position in a very small and confined space and he did not see it coming. It's really no mystery how she was able to do this. She ambushed him with a giant knife. By the time he was able to fight back and run, he was already half dead.

I do believe Jodi (99.99% sure) did the killing by herself. But since we have so many unanswered questions, I'm leaving open .01% that she had help. Why then didn't she pinned any of them a long time ago?
When the defense team concocted the final version, the ONLY way the self defense claim would work is if she was alone with Travis. If anyone was with her, the self defense claim surely won't work. Perhaps that prevented Jodi from involving anyone. If that is the case, Jodi must be fuming in jail right now.

 

[wasnt_me]

A two person story doesn't work for a that reason, true, and also because it doesn't explain what the 2nd person was doing all that time if she'd brought him with her. Or how he'd gotten back home. Well, I guess unless she sat there and killed time from 4am to 5pm when the second killer could meet her.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

I am wondering if you watched the trial yourself very closely seagull?

First of all, no one really believes her "confession" either because it was clearly a falsified version of events. There are many physical indicators of this, including her having almost no injuries and the closet shelf which would have flipped had she tried to stand on it. The flashes are bull considering when her story was that someone else was weilding the weapon she could remember everything and despite being given limited information was basically able to describe the murder and the crime scene accurately. But when it comes to her committing the crime she's in "fog."

But even if she did confess to all of it and admit her "confession" was a lie, people would not be crazy to believe it because there is actually very strong forensic evidence linking her to the crime. Some of the strongest you'll see. She left a bloody handprint mixed with Travis blood. She left a hair. She left a freakin' camera that had snapped pictures of her earlier in the day with him then later on committing the crime. Then there's the turned off cell phone, the gas cans that she blatantly lied about, the trip of stupid that she thought everyone would buy. The receipts. The .25 caliber handgun that was used on Travis being coincidentally the exact same caliber as the gun that was stolen from her parents. They didn't convict her of first degree murder for nothing.

Jodi does have a violent past. There are many stories of her abusing animals. People have talked about her violent outbursts, like work colleagues and her parents. Even Jodi herself talks about kicking windows and walls and her "rage" in one of her journal entries or maybe it was the V-Day email to Travis.She also told her therapist that she kicked and hit her mom, squeezed a cat, told Flores she kicked a dog so hard it "ran away." She also has a history of just being unstable in general. She talks about suicide A LOT but has never actually even tried to kill herself.

The state is not required to provide a motive to get a murder conviction, but there was motive here. The state said it was because Travis was going to take another woman on a trip to Cancun. That was definitely apart of it. Another was the fact that she was going around telling people that Travis was the man she wanted to marry and that if she couldn't she didn't know what she'd do, all while Travis is telling her they should just be friends. And then there is the journal entries, where she talks about an object of her obsession and how it's tormenting her and how the only way to get rid of the torment is to "cut it off at it's source" and snuff out it's light. Something to that effect.

I have no idea how you can say there was no conclusive forensic evidence, though.

Thank you. I hope this is as well-read and received, as it was thought out. You took a great deal of time and memory recall to explain this. It seems obvious to those of us heavily emotionally invested in the case, but for those who don't know the facts, this is an excellent explanation.

 

[LambChop]

Flores is an excellent investigator. We have seen him in action. If LE suspected, and they probably did leaving no stone unturned, everyone she knew and came in contact with on her trip was checked out as to where they were.

Jodi was with Travis a long time which prohibits someone sitting in an extremely hot car waiting for her to come out. Also I doubt she would have made it as far as the bedroom if she were with another person. Travis would have sent both of them on their way in short order and hopefully locked to door behind them.

She planned what she was going to do and obviously she is taking pride in being able to pull it off on her own. If only she hadn't made those few mistakes she could have gotten away with it. That is exactly how she looks at it. jmo

 

[Truth Detector]

it's interesting though how people will say that a suspect is clearly a compulsive liar, you can't believe a word they say, they have changed their story over and over, and their behavior has been seen to be bizarre, I.e. they were doing headstands at the police station, singing to themselves in front of other people, etc, yet when they are finally convinced to confess after being told repeatedly that evidence exists that proves they are the one who did it and that no one else could possibly have done it (even if the evidence isn't actually conclusive), and even with ample indicators that they are probably not a very stable person, everyone accepts their confession as the gospel truth. lol. I guess this is a long way of saying, false confessions do sometimes occur, it's a well-known phenomenon. Can we believe her confession any more than her other stories, and which one is more clearly supported by the evidence? Whether her confession was false or not I don't know, she told various stories and her confession was one of them. Even in her confession she could only come up with memories of firing a gun in self defense and hearing the sound of a knife hitting the floor (by then she'd given up the part of the story about two other people having been there, and by this time she'd heard elements of the crime scene described over and over and over.) The memories she described reminded me of the way people sometimes describe their memories after an incident where they were drugged, i.e. a few flashes. Or of the memories sometimes elicited thru hypnosis therapy (we all know about the potential for false memory development.) Now I'm not claiming she necessarily didn't do it or anything like that, though. For me it was about 50/50, not very conclusive forensic evidence linking her but the defense didn't challenge it, investigation too limited and focused solely on JA due to fingerpointing , no evidence of motive, no history of violent or criminal behavior, no interest in weapons or past history that would have prepared her to use a knife in this manner i.e. no hunting or knowledge/experience with guns/knives, question of could she have inflicted these injuries without him stopping her and without her being seriously injured, do injuries look like one attacker or two, fact of why would she have allowed herself to be photographed plus left the camera there, plus is her confession reliable, and I thought the case rested mostly on the confession. Yet, she did confess and her defense did put on the whole self-defense plus "snapped" PTSD defense, and that could have been true for all I know. I was very surprised the jury came back with premeditated. My opinion only.

BBM

People generally accept what others say unless there are reasons to doubt the claims.

Primary reasons to doubt include the source's track record of prevarication and the observer's knowledge to the contrary.

In the case of the convicted lying torture murderess, being a proven and even self-professing liar, everything she said which did not comport with known facts was suspect.

During the trial, it could be argued that her own testimony degraded her credibility to the point that she shifted the unofficial burden of truth-proof to herself.

In fact, everything that she says now which cannot be independently corroborated is also suspect.

True pathological liars will hold to the lies -- which to them are central to their pretend credibility -- and will fabricate or attempt to twist what they perceive as supporting data so as to convince others of the veracity of their alternate 'truths', the original lies which they believe are indispensable.

In the case of criminal defendants, it is usually only when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they ever abandon the lies, and then often only when their counsel finally succeeds in persuading them it is the only legally defensible way forward -- if the jury is to be won over, that is.

The best liars weave some truth in and around the lies. As practiced as she was, her lies were so incredible that she ultimately failed the 'capable liar' criterion.

When the lies are so patently and demonstrably false, and the downside consequences of holding to them so severe, the lie(s) will be abandoned and/or traded for others which attempt to 'deal with' or 'explain away' the facts.

Isn't this actually the case with Jodi Ann Arias, and doesn't it explain why case/trial observers with a modicum of common sense still recognize a liar, especially when contrasted with the obvious truth?

Just because observers do or do not believe someone's story does not mean that they believe nothing at all. Observers of this case/trail believed that the victim was murdered. And they believe that the overwhelming evidence pointed to only one probable perpetrator.

More importantly, even sympathetic jurors unanimously believed, beyond a single reasonable doubt, that the lying torture murderess committed especially cruel murder in the first degree.