Friday, June 20, 2014

Too much gas.....

Because I failed to take the time to edit my article which debunk his sinus theory, Richard Speights has made an 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 lack of editing.  However,  he implies I cannot write in the proper fashion.  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:

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.

Initial reason for gas cans was stated as for buying cheaper gas out of California
Purchased gas in California for the gas cans
Jury questioned this - Jodi testified it was wiser for safety to buy in California because she was "a woman, alone, at night, in an unfamiliar car driving an unfamiliar route" - (more on this in a future blog)
Receipts from other places indicated 10-12 gallons in the tank.
Receipts at Tesoro showing three separate gas  transactions 10.672,  19.65, 5.09 in three different transactions.
Two of the receipts for Tesoro indicated it was gas. The third receipt was just a credit card receipt.
Chelsea Young, IT from Tesoro, testified that the credit card receipt was for gas.  When a CC is used the transaction data is delivered to the home office and indicates the pump used via the payment.  This transaction was paid on gas pump number 2 on which only gas may be purchased.
Receipts at Pasadena showing three separate gas transaction 8.301, 9.594, 2.774  in three different transactions
All three transactions indicated gas.
State asked a hypothetical question if it could have been a partially filled can in Pasadena.
Daryl Brewer stated that the cans were empty when he gave them to Jodi
Daryl Brewer's testimony was inconsistent on the stand.  - He initially answered "Yes" three times to questions about Jodi informing him the cans were for a trip to Mesa but later stated that she told him that the cans were for a trip, not specifically Mesa.
Daryl Brewer was an ex-boyfriend but still friend of Jodi's
Walmart testimony to support it being a third gas can and not tank gas.
Defense claim it was a top off

The Jury considerations using the evidence at hand:

*****" The first and third transaction in each trio of receipts is gas tank filling."
 ----- Whereas it is always possible, it has to be REASONABLE to fit verdict criteria.  Why would she stop filling her tank if it was not empty only to come back on a third transaction to finish filling it by "topping off"?  There can be multiple reasons to do it such as the pump shutting off,  Jodi pre-determining her gas use, etc.  However,  it still would not make sense for someone to take the gas nozzle out of the tank,  hang it up,  start a new transaction to fill two cans,  hang it up, and then start a third transaction to  return to the area they started.  The time for topping off the tank would be during the initial time it was being filled.
Given the Walmart evidence from the trial,  putting gas in three gas cans at both the Pasadena Arco and  the Salt Lake City Tesoro is supported over it being put in the tank.

****The jury would then consider how reasonable would it be that one of the gas cans kept by Daryl could have had some gas in it.  Many people have grass in their yards.   Many people have gas lawn mowers.  It is not too unusual of a thing for a person with a gas lawn mower to have a partially filled gas tank.  The jury would have to consider Daryl's testimony and judge his credibility and note the change of his statement on the stand.

When weighing the evidence,  the jury would have to ask what is a more reasonable situation?
 Daryl had gas in one of those cans, lied about it, and Jodi filled a third can which existence is supported by other evidence.
 Jodi did not have that third can and stopped filling up her tank to fill up two cans to return to fill up her tank on two separate occasions?
In addition,  she purchased more gas than one tank and two 5-gallon cans could hold but could not explain why. (remember the jury cannot "invent"  testimony of a mysteriously purchased 4 can)
And that in one of those fill ups she placed more gas in her tank that could really fit.

The decision the jury makes must be beyond a REASONABLE doubt and not beyond all doubt. And the jury cannot guess at the reasons behind an act if the supporting evidence is not there.   Thus,  if there is not a reason supplied as to why she stopped filling her main tank,  started a new transaction to fill some cans, and then returned to fill her main tank they cannot make one up.
After considering all the trial evidence at hand and ONLY the trial evidence at hand,  there can be no other conclusion that beyond a reasonable doubt Jodi did not return that third gas can and had three gas cans.

So, what's so important about THREE and not TWO?   To drive from Pasadena to Mesa and back to the alibi route I-15 would be about 700 miles.   If someone were doing the math,  the trip could be taken with just 23G of gas if the car got 35MPG HWY.  But, to be on the safe side, one has to use the "combined MPG" which was 28 MPG, and this requires 25 Gallons to be safe.   The fuel efficiency of the car would require obtaining a third gas can in order to not have to stop while in Arizona.   Why avoid gas stations?   The majority of gas stations have security cameras that posed the risk of Jodi being video taped in Arizona.

There is a question as to why didn't she throwaway the receipt if the gas can was to be used for a nefarious reason. That is an unknown to me but plays no influence when considering if it was self-defense vs. murder.  There is just too much to support that she did NOT return the gas can that overpowers the question of why she didn't throwaway the receipt when considering murder vs. SD.   Jodi made a lot of mistakes in her plan to murder.  Thus,  she got caught.

Further considerations beyond the trial evidence.
It's unclear as to why the car was not entered into evidence in regards to those gas can claims.  Whether having the exact tank size would have been beneficial,  I just do not know.  Nonetheless,  supporters of Jodi have made the claim that the car not being in evidence is proof that the tank was larger because the only reason the prosecution would hold it back is because it hurt them.  The claim is a very weak argument because the same can be said for the defense -  had it been a larger gas tank to accept all that gas,  it would have been brought up in rebuttal to support her claims.  If this unknown smarter than the average bear can find the VIN and location of that rental car over a year after the trial ended,  then the defense could have located it if the prosecution refused to share.


Start with the licence plate number on the rental receipt: 6DGV099

add in one Car fox

and search a VIN
Find out that the car did indeed have a 13.5 G tank on it.  

The result = the car and two gas cans can only hold 23.5-gallons of gas.

Over 25-gallons of gas was purchased at Tesoro,  which would not fit  unless a third gas can was present.

 It's just too bad  the car's VIN and specs were not put in evidence at rebuttal for the jury to consider.   Nonetheless, even without those specs in evidence, there still was enough for the jury to conclude she had three gas cans in Pasadena using trial evidence and reasonable doubt standards.

Of course,  there will always be a few out there because of their own confirmation bias,  will insist that Jodi did not have a third gas can in Pasadena but bought one later in Mesquite.  Why can that idea be debunked?  Just look at the trial evidence in which Jodi states several times "I did not have three gas cans."
Trial excerpts
"I purchased it;  Star Bucks is in the same parking lot, I think I went there, and then I returned it after that."
Nurmi "So you returned that gas can that same day?"
JA - "Yes, right after StarBucks..........  I think they just handed me cash or something,  I might have gotten a receipt or something, I don't remember."
"The two, two gas cans I had on that trip I got from Daryl ... and then I bought the third gas can, and I returned it because I determined I didn't need it."
"I had a third can when I originally purchased on in Salinas, I returned it before leaving Salinas."
"First, I didn't have three gas cans,  I believe we were discussing a hypothetical IF I had three gas cans, and besides I only had three when I pulled out of Salinas, so there were never three on that trip."
"to answer the gas can question,  I went to Mesa with two gas cans."

Jodi was pretty intent on making sure it was known she did not have three gas cans.  She even was adamant about it in her post-verdict testimony when she was free to talk without objections.

Now,  some claim that the most logical reason for the Tesoro purchase is that she just purchased a fourth can after she returned the third can.  They say it was some time after Mesa.  This is not logical or reasonable to suggest.  It was Jodi who stated  that she did not have three gas cans PLUS she gave the reason for returning the gas can as based on finances.
She stated that the math didn't make sense to buy a gas can to save money on gas, so she returned it.   Some that support her even want to dispute her testimony as not being right in order to make her correct about returning that can... .  and that is just not logical in itself.

Proofread and edited July 26, 2014.


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