Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Facebook site "Why Jodi Arias is Innocent" -- correcting the "steps"

Because I failed to take the time to edit my article, Richard Speights has made untrue statement to imply that I am uneducated, stupid, and have a lack of medical knowledge.  His act of defamation is only based on my ability to write.  I feel the truth is the best way to argue a lie, so I present a recent article to prove my writing ability.  Please see my last article:  

 http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/2014/07/prevent-stolen-valor.html

The article will clearly show that I am educated and able to express an idea through the written.  Speights has placed links to my unedited articles on his website, the following article being one of them.



Why Jodi Arias is Innocent Facebook site gives a set of steps explaining why she is innocent ---   I am gonna break that down and show you all the mistakes in those claims and demonstrate how the full details of the evidence was purposely excluded in order to sway a person to a conclusion that is incorrect.

Step One: The pool of blood near toilet entrance    
The Claim: "If you think about it, this pool of blood could really only come from Travis' gunshot wound, it's close to the wall, and only the gunshot wound (which caused heavy bleeding through the nose) could produce a concentrated pool like this in a reasonable amount of time"    FALSE!!!!!!!!!!


key details left out of the claim - Water contamination and evidence of clean up at the scene.  Notice the bath mat?   That is where it was found.  The bottom of the bath mat was found to have come into contact with a large amount of blood.  Notice any blood surrounding that mat to account for that?   No...   this tells the person with common sense and willing to consider all facts in evidence that the area had been cleaned up and contaminated by water,  making the blood evidence on the floor unreliable.  Furthermore,  it was testified by the spatter expert that it there was no way to determine if the above blood pool was a result in gravity from a dripping source or the result of water mixing with blood and causing the heavier blood particles to collect in an area of lower elevation in the floor.

Had the blood spot been proven to be blood from a gravity source,  there is no way of telling nasal blood from another bleeding source.  If we take a close look and examine the size,   it is only about a 4 inch diameter circle.  The faster the heart beats the quicker it pushes the blood through the system and the faster a person bleeds.  Normally,  the heart pushes 75ml of blood with each beat.    The faster the heart rate,  the more blood moved.  To determine how much blood is moved in the body per minute, or the cardiac output,  one just takes the heart rate and multiples it by 75
  It's pretty evident that Travis's heart rate would be quite high at this point,  at least 135 per minute if not more.    That means in one minutes time his heart was moving 9750 ML of blood in his body, or about 41 cups.     Divide that by 60 to determine how much per second,  and it is 162.50 ML per second or just over 1/2 cup.   A 5 sec pause at the door would mean 812.5 ML or 3 cups of blood passed through the body with a portion leaking out of whatever open area there was.
That open area could be a cut on a hand hanging down to the side near the wall or coming from a chest wound as one was bent over using the wall to help steady them as they were trying to stand up.
To claim that one can tell where this pool of blood came from and state it like a fact is evidence of one's own confirmation bias and the claimant should not be trusted for accuracy.

Step 2: Juan's story is not consistent with the evidence  
The Claim:  "The three photos below show the relation between the blood pool in Step 1, and the sinks on the opposite side of the bathroom from the Bath and Shower. See also this video that shows the layout :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykvk0RkWxWk
According to Juan, Jodi attacked Travis in the shower with a knife, and then Travis went to the sinks, where there is blood spatter. But this fails to explain the pool of blood that confirms Jodi's story. So Juan's story is not correct."  FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




key details left out:  The simple fact of water contamination within the area was left out still remains.  One can see the bath mat as related to the proximity of the linen closet door marked "A".  Inside of that closet door was a box that showed water mixed with blood had been wicked up into it giving evidence of water contamination at the scene: 

If we use the theory that the claimant is making...   that just can't be blood on the box because there is no evidence of a blood trail leading to the box.  Such a claim would be ludicrous and the more logical and sensible thing is that water contaminated the scene and washed the blood into pools or during this contamination a clean up was made.    This makes the blood on the floor not reliable as evidence.  
 Step 3: Juan needed to PROVE that Jodi did not kill Travis in self-defense, and he needed to prove this BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ( see Jury Instructions, bottom of page 13,
Claim: ????  
Well,   yes and no.  Juan did not have to make any special attempts to disprove her story.  What he had to do is present a case that showed it was premeditation.  If the jury finds for the prosecution that the killing was a premeditated murder, then it automatically rules out self defense.      Whereas the defense is not mandated to prove self - defense,  they damn well better offer up evidence that is equal or better than that of the prosecution or else the evidence that the jury will use to deliberate weighs heavily on the prosecution side.  Jodi had no evidence of self defense beyond what she uttered.  .  When the jury is faced with two opposing arguments, they are going to weigh the evidence which is any factual evidence and testimony of the witnesses.   The jury then uses factors of credibility to decide how much weight to give the witnesses testimony. 
It was a stipulation that Jodi did lie about what happened twice before trial and there was further evidence of her lying on the stand.  Because of this the jury would give little weight to her testimony as evidence and may even decide to discredit it all together. Step 4. Why Dr Horn was wrong about the gunshot. 
Claim: "Dr Horn testified at trial that Travis would have been immediately incapacitated by the gunshot, on the basis that the bullet must have passed through Travis' brain. 
The basis for this was an X-ray that showed a fracture where the bullet apparently penetrated Travis' skull.
However there was a mystery : no damage was found to the brain, even though the brain was examined in detail. The autopsy report records:
o Good preservation of cerebral symmetry
o The dura mater and falx cerebri are intact
o Serial sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies
 "The truth has to be that the bullet did not fully penetrate Travis skull, instead it deflected off the second layer of bone that forms the sinus cavity, still fracturing the bone, but not penetrating it.
See http://herrspeightsventures.com/Innocence_Proof_of_Perjury.php for detailed information on the bullet track."    FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

key details left out (or not understood by this claimant) "
The basis for this was an X-ray that showed a fracture where the bullet apparently penetrated Travis' skull"  FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
  ---   the ME who did the autopsy measured the entry would in the forehead (POINT A).  He then took measurements of the resting area of the bullet (almost in line with the second to last tooth on the side of the face) (POINT C).    The skull was cut in half and the brain removed.  What was discovered was a large hole in the base of the skull near the front (POINT B).   Put a stick going from point A to B to C and one will pass through an area that contains the frontal lobe of the brain.   The hole in the base of the skull was photographed and placed into evidence. 
"However there was a mystery : no damage was found to the brain, even though the brain was examined in detail"  FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The brain was NOT examined in DETAIL --   the claimant has little understanding of medicine for him to say that.  This was a brain that decayed for 5 days.  The brain is a very soft organ and is prone to quicker decay than the rest of the body.   It would have been one of the liquid type states ranging from thin to pudding thick.   This does not allow for a detailed examination of the brain."
 Good preservation of cerebral symmetry"  PURPOSEFUL MISINTERPRETATION !!!!!!
-- All cerebral symmetry means is that the relative SIZE and shape of the brain is the same.  The brain sulci and gyri (folds)  are not identical on both sides.  We would see asymmetry in such situations as brain tumors in which the tumor side would appear larger and of a different shape
."o The dura mater and falx cerebri are intact"
 -- KEY FACTS LEFT OUT
this was not noticed by anyone until within the trial and described as a typo by the ME.  The bullet hole was in the base of the skull and resulted in the destruction of the entire cribriform plate.  The cristi galli is connected to the cribriform plate, thus if the cribriform plate is missing the crista galli is gone as well.   The falx cerebri is connected to the crista galli and if the crista galli is gone, the falx cerebri is no longer fully intact.   Thus the statement of it being a typo is supported by the fact the falx cerebri was not intact.



This picture gives you the idea of the cribriform plate. It is the area where the red arrows point.  What you are seeing is the base of the skull as if you where looking down into from the top of the head.

"
o Serial sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies"  PURPOSEFUL MISINTERPRETATION  --  Again,  the claimant has very poor medical knowledge.  Autolyzed means partially digested cells or broke down.   Grossly apparent means easily visualized.   This brain would be like a pile of thicker dry mud.  Stick a stick in in (bullet), pull it out,  and one can see the stick track (bullet pathway).  Start pouring water on the pile of mud  and the walls of the track sink into each other,  (autolyzed) combine, and no longer can be seen.  
"Deflected off sinus cavity/  http://herrspeightsventures.com/Innocence_Proof_of_Perjury.php --  there is so much wrong within the website it will be discussed on its very own page in the future.   But to address the "traveled in the sinuses" theory:  that has the bullet

Step 5: Why Amanda Webb was mistaken about the 3rd gas can. 

The claim: "Amanda Webb testified that she could not find a record that Jodi returned the 3rd gas can, meaning that Jodi lied about that, suggesting her testimony was untrue, she had something to hide and there was premeditation.
Some points:
o When somebody CANNOT find something, this is rather weak evidence. It smacks of some kind of mistake before we even consider the details. FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!   Proving that there is lack of a return is very strong evidence.  Amanda Webb went through how she did this.
o Why on earth would Jodi lie about how many gas cans she used? There is no proper reason, using three gas cans instead of two gas cans is not proof of premeditated murder. It makes no sense.  FALSE!!!!  -- in order to guarantee her trip through AZ without buying gas, she needed more than 23.5 G  --  the extra can got her this.
o Amanda Webb testified that she worked in the store at N. Main Street, and this was the store where Jodi bought the 3rd gas can, on the basis of the store number on the receipt, #2458. This was not true, on July 10, 2010, Walmart relocated from N. Davis to N. Main Street.
http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2010/07/05/community-of-salinas-welcomes-new-walmart
FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   purposeful misinformation -- Webb never said that the store was in the same physical location as where Jodi got her gas.  The REAL testimony that she gave was how long she worked for Walmart company,  the location and number of the store she currently worked at,  and the amount of time she currently worked at that store.

PLEASE REFER TO THE BLOG PAGE 'TIS RETURNED OR 'TIS NOT RETURNED'.  the Walmart evidence is discussed in detail in regards why this is an unfounded statement.  The strongest point is that Amanda Webb got the information of how many registers where open that day,  which ones they were,  and looked in those same registers.  Now,  if one was missing,  she would have spent time finding it because that would have taken quicker than looking through the records of each register open each day for a week.

Step 6: Weak arguments
Claim: I am not going to go through ALL of Juan's vague arguments. But here are a couple of them  -- if the claimant had evidence of weak arguments, it would have been provided. What was done instead was to pick out those factors that when standing alone offer little to no evidence of premeditation. And when in combination with the other factors are minor supporting evidence. When a case is being made against someone,  all potential actions that could be signs of the crime are included. "Jodi asked for her car to be changed from a Red one to a White one, and she told the car hire person she wasn't going far......But I'm afraid this is really not evidence at all, it's just taking a microscope to things and making something out of it."   key points left out - The car clerk testified that Jodi told him that she did not want the red car because red cars get noticed more by the police.   This indicates an action of not wanting to be noticed and hold minor importance of supporting a claim.    There was no price difference or charges for going out of the area,  thus Jodi had no reason to tell the car clerk a lie other than she did not want anyone to know she was traveling out of state.   It is the duty of the prosecution to provide supporting evidence no matter how small and let the jury decide if it was a sign of intent or not.  The defense has plenty of opportunity to offer evidence that the action is not as the prosecution states.

"
But whatever the reason, Jodi's trip was not in the least bit secret, numerous people knew about it, there were numerous financial and mobile phone records of it, etc. "   FALSE!!!!!!!!  PURPOSEFUL MISINFORMATION!!!   This is one of the actions listed under deceptive actions in the debate.  The claimant is purposely trying to mislead the evidence.   The trip to RYAN's was not a secret. She wanted everyone to know that for her alibi. However,  her real intentions of going to Travis's was a secret.  That is why ALL credit card transactions stop while in Pasadena.  For example,  she used her credit card at every gas station except for the one she alleged to have stopped at in Arizona.  She claims to have used cash at just those two.   I guess it's because imaginary Arizona gas stations do not take credit cards.   Also,  her phone was turned off prior to entering Az and turned back on just south of the NV border.  Now, it is unknown if this was a self serving purpose in order to tell Ryan a lie or leave the fake voice mail on Travis's phone or if she just did not realize she was still in AZ.  Nonetheless,  given the mounds of other signs of planning,  it is not enough to offer in doubt as to her actions.  
"Jodi lied in the sex tape "   this was a very weak supporting point that Martinez used.  It was used to show that she was a chronic liar.   The reason this is brought forth is an attempt to belittle the stronger arguments that show her guilt.
"There is more along these lines, Jodi changing her hair colour, all sorts of things, but it doesn't add up to anything.: key points left out - Jodi was blonde when she started the trip.  When she arrived at Ryans,  she was brunette and pictures taken at Travis's on June 4th show this..    The car rental clerk was not told that she was blonde,  however when he identified her from her brunette picture,  he stated "but she was blonde when she came to rent the car".     He remembered other details such as she had a male with her.  This means that Jodi dyed her hair somewhere between the car rental and arriving at Travis's.   Add dying one's hair,  renting an inconspicuous vehicle,  and removing a license plate while at a residence and it leaves little for a person to be identified with.  There was evidence that her plate was upside down while in W. Jordan the day after the killing indicating that it had been taken off somewhere.  She testified it was skate boarders at Star bucks but she originally told the officer who stopped her for it  that it was her friends playing a trick on her.

"There are many arguments to counter these suspicions, and the prosecution case, when viewed as a whole, simply does not make sense, when you step back.:   -- the counter arguments are based on what a person proven have lied twice about the situation pretrial and gave different version of her last claim of SD to the domestic violence specialist testified to.    The prosecution case as a whole,  the weak arguments supported by the strong,  directly points to someone planning a crime and steps to get away with it.

"
The gun theft: "  
claim: "A .25 handgun was stolen from Jodi's home about 7 days before Travis was killed. Ammunition for the gun was also stolen. The bullet recovered from Travis' left cheek was a .25, however it did not match the stolen ammunition. Again, this is a weak proof - gun thefts are common, and the mismatch of the ammunition suggests this gun was not the one that shot Travis." 
key points left out  The ammunition in the gun was not verified.  It was reported as to being hollow points by the gun owner.   A search warrant of Jodi's parents house seized .25 round rounds.   Jodi was the last one in the house the day it was robbed.  There were other guns visible and not taken and other more expensive items not touched.  The only things missing was the gun,  two speakers,  a DVD player, and 30$ that Jodi claimed was on her dresser.  Jodi's laptop was not touched but she claims it was in her room under the covers.   The robbery was noted to look suspicious.
Anyone can purchase ammo in the states of California.  All they need is an ID to prove that they are over 21 and it is like buying a pack of cigarettes.  There is no record kept.   .25 clips can be loaded with either hollow points or rounds.  This is not a claim she purchased ammo,  but an example of how more can be obtained, thus an unconfirmed report of what ammo was in the gun is a weak argument and not enough to instill reasonable doubt.
Step 7. The Camera and other scene evidence
The claim: "
(1) The Camera strap was found unused in it's wrapping. This refutes the indication Juan made in opening arguments that Jodi attacked Travis with the Camera strapped around her neck."  --  camera straps are universal and one can fit the other.   Jodi did not have to use Travis's strap to put the camera around her neck.  She could have used multiple things to hang the camera around her neck.

This is an example of the camera so it can be seen how easy it would be to tie something as a strap or even use one's own strap.  

it is not even necessary for her to have had a strap at all.  The claimant is under the impression that the prosecutor must know every detail of the crime for it to be M1.  That is just not true.  Other possibilities is that she dropped it and it got kicked down the hall.

The accidental camera picture of the shower ceiling.
Given the Camera did not have a strap, how can the accidental picture of the shower ceiling be accounted for? Would Jodi attack with a gun or a knife while holding the Camera in another hand? That is not plausible.    
key points left out -  Jodi claimed she was ambidextrous.   This camera is fairly small and can be operated with one hand while holding  something in the other without difficulty.


the actual camera from evidence. 
As for the ceiling picture -- Jodi testified that she was deleting pictures,  she dropped the camera, and Travis got mad.  The ceiling picture was eluded to as proof of that.  However,  in that particular camera,  one cannot take pictures in delete mode.  The ceiling picture could not have happened in delete mode.  A more plausible explanation is that as she held the camera in her one hand she had her finger perched over the button.  Because of the awkward position some action caused her finger to push in the button as she was moving her arm.  This could be a number of things including a gunshot going off for those that believe the gunshot was first.   

"The accidental picture 62 seconds later.
This picture is at the bedroom end of the hallway. How did the Camera get there if there was a fight going on? Why would Jodi or Travis pick the Camera up (assuming she dropped it) in the middle of a desperate fight."key points left out - The pictures down the hall indicate a the camera being in a position of being upside down.  This indicates a number of situations in which this could have occurred.  One is that the camera was kicked down the hall in the struggle  --  the area that it would have been resting is right along the area of the blood trail against the wall -- this supports someone running away and kicking a camera in their way. 
"(5) The extra blood pools in the hallway
These also need to be accounted for."    --  as just discussed.  these pools show a person bleeding and moving against the wall away from the bathroom towards the same area the camera was found.



"
(6) The blood evidence in the hallway
This suggests to me that Travis came down the hallway, but then later turned and went back towards the bathroom."  key points left out -- the only determinable gravity blood drip pattern evidence is on ONE side of the wall - indicating it was a one way upright trip down that hall.  Here are several pictures that display a gravity blood drip trail on one side and a blood trail r/t to her dragging him back to the shower on the other side:
this picture is from the bedroom looking towards the bathroom

this picture is from the bathroom looking towards the bedroom

Bathroom looking towards bedroom.
In this last picture,  it is clearly evident that the blood trail on one side is a gravity drip trail indicating that going DOWN the hall,  the victim was in a position to cause the blood to drip down via gravity.  ON the other side,  we can see that the victim was no longer in a position to cause blood to fall via gravity on the return to the bathroom.  In fact,  we can see smeared blood marks on the floor and wall which indicate the blood source was in constant contact with the floor as it was moving.  This indicates dragging.



"(7) The shallow back wounds
These suggest that Travis and Jodi were fighting face-to-face, with Jodi's left arm coming over Travis' shoulder, or around his side."  FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PURPOSEFUL MISINFORMATION - 
key points left out:  The autopsy measurements of the back wounds: "A cluster of 9 stab wounds all within a 6X5.5 inch area. all incisions penetrate soft tissue and impact upon ribs and  the lateral aspect of bone"  -- this indicates resistance -  a stab through the easy soft tissue,  hit the bony resistance, withdrawal and stab again.   Also,  if one examines the pattern of the stab wounds,  the do not fit "going over the shoulder OR around the side'

The factual autopsy photos demonstrate a clearer view of this.  However,  out of respect I will not post them.  They are easy enough found on the web.   


Step 8. Wrapping everything upThe claim:
There is a great deal more that can be said about Jodi's case, but what I want to stress here is that you must approach the evidence with an open mind, and the presumption of innocence.

Which case makes sense as a whole? Was the mission really secret? Why would Jodi lie about how many gas cans she used? You need to consider everything, which story ultimately makes sense.  -- yes,  the trip to Travis's house was indeed a secret.  Jodi stated throughout the testimony that she had no plans on visiting Travis on the start of her trip.  This statement was refuted by her own witness who,  when asked if she told him the gas cans were for Mesa,  reluctantly stated yes --  however,  he later recanted such a statement without explanation.  This gives evidence that it was something Jodi was counting on.

You cannot focus on certain aspects, or individual events that seem suspicious. You have to look at everything, everything has to have a reason. People like Jodi act violently only when they feel very threatened and desperate.  "People like Jodi"  --  The claimant has no personal relationship as to who Jodi was and is.  However,  her witness, her ex boyfriend does and he is in belief because of the evidence that she did it.   There are tapes provided but not in evidence that show her own mother asking Jodi if Jodi had anything to do with Travis's killing -- that states volumes.  

Juan cherry picked a load of things and made them sound suspicious, which they were to some extent, or Jodi would never have been charged with 1st degree murder. But suspicion is not proof. - Juan did not cherry pick -- he took those events that supported her planning and trying to hide a murder.

What we should do is to maintain the belief in innocence until there is proof otherwise, even when we cannot understand precisely what happened in the Hallway of Travis Alexander's home on June 4th, 2008. And,  after all evidence is provided and each side closes its case,  we should let that evidence determine the conclusion, not the opposite way around.  

That is the law, and that will allow you to understand that Jodi Arias is innocent.  the jurors followed all aspects of the law and used the trial evidence to determine guilt.  They did not base it on a loose and weak idea such as 'people like Jodi don't do this" 

I cannot convince you that Jodi is innocent, you can only do that for yourself by taking the time. Some people find it easier than others, it is not exactly a matter of intelligence, rather a matter of intuition, experience, wanting to understand and examining the two hypotheses, guilt and innocence calmly.
I strongly suggest that you review all evidence from the trial yourself and make a conclusion using that evidence   --   "intuition"  is not evidence.   




2 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.