The possibility of innocence ?

I had posted this on an old thread in current events. But as its not current anymore i think the post is dead, so i thought id move it here and start a new one.  Im mot good like some of you who post an entire thesis paper on a subjecr, but i wanted to just put some thoughts out there.

Jodi Arias murder case.


I hadn't heard of this case until the other day (yes i live under a rock at times) and now i find myself digging through info after info on it.

Pretty much everyone had her guilty before the trial, we have seen this done before. Saying that i can't help wondering the what if...

What if...

Everyone talks anout how bitter and cold she is on interviews... Could that be one of a couple of things?

1- she was stuck in shock mode? Shock can last a long time/ptsd. So it wasnt she wasnt emotionless but still in shock from what happened that night

2- she bottled up the emotions as a way of disconnecting..let's be honest we all do. I can seem very emotionless to emotional situations because that's how i cope.

Also what if scenerio.

She actually did defend herself...? Here is a scenerio.

Jodi took the gun from her grandparents house because she feared travis due to domestic violance. That night taking photos in the shower, travis becomes more enraged and does start coming at her, in which in a hysterical state does shoot him. After which goes into a panic and frenzy mode and just starts stabbing and stabbing crying hysterically until her attacker, and abuser is dead.

As for the multiple stories....is it safe to say that nobody knows how they would reareact when being tried for capital murder? could it ne she just gave up and told the cops what they wanted to hear?  At one point she actually says

"I should just tell you what you want to hear."
"No i want the truth"
"I didnt do it"
"Yes you did"

So the cop did eant to hear ehat he wanted, as when she (maybe) told the truth he basically said try again.

The gaps in the tapes, what was said in that time.


Just a thought....


As we all love conspiracies... what if she was covering for someone else.... discovered the body, put hand on wall after touching him...then knowing who it was tried to covered it up for them..why? Well maybe she had another boyfriend....and he was also obsessive and jealous that she always went runnung to him...so took him out...she knew and rushed over there but it was to late...the new guy knew her and knew where the gun was and  took it as a staged robbery.

Tgis could be backed up by the idea of multiple people being there (see link below)
 
interesting read

Maybe she was covering. She also told a cell mate there was a second person.

Over the yrars how many people have been imprisoned, been executed or locked up or who is still locked up when they are innocent...then the public feels bad....those crucifying her what if in 10years some of tgis unused evidence brings her innocence (of murder)

Again. My first attempt at putting somthing out there. Sorry if its all over the place

Good theory, and well thought out post!

I think the type and quantity of stab wounds are highly indicative of a personal grudge, usually from a romantic partner or close family member. I also think the quantity of evidence coupled with her unreliable testimony reinforces the jury's verdict, but there is of course always room for error.

I also think her acquisition of the firearm prior to the shooting shows intent, where she should have contacted police instead of waiting for something to happen and shooting him.

Even under a self defense claim, once she fired shots into him and dropped him to the ground, the threat is over. The attack is done, and your right to self defense ends when the threat ends. So by stabbing him (even if it was initially in self defense), she exceeds "reasonable and required force" by continuing to apply deadly force after the threat is over.

There is something called the deadly force triangle, which has three pillars that must remain in place to be considered justifiable force.

Ability: does the attacker have the ability to cause severe bodily harm or death? IE: are they armed? are they a martial artists? are they in a car?

Opportunity: does the attacker have the opportunity to carry out their attack? IE: are they close enough to harm me immediately, not at some point in the future

Intent: does the attacker have the intention of causing harm? IE: they are standing next to you with a firearm (satisfying ability/opportunity) but have they taken some overt action to demonstrate hostile intent?

If any pillar of the deadly force triad collapses, then your use (or continued use) of deadly force is probably not justifiable. For instance, if an attacker comes at you with a knife, you may draw your weapon (or knife, or car, or whatever else is handy) and shoot the attacker until they are no longer a threat (ie: they fall down, they surrender, they drop their weapon, etc). At this point, your use of lethal force is likely to be ruled judicious. If however you continue to shoot the attacker once the threat is over, any action occurring after that point is not judicious or reasonable use of lethal force, and you will likely be charged with murder or malicious wounding/assault.

a reply to: JBurns

Thank you it seems like its a dead topic but i apprciate yoir time and thoughts.

Ive been debating on writing to her. Ive written to previous death row inmates before, and although not on death row i have a want to reach out..