The Idiotic, Fantastical, and Ridiculous Fan Theories of "Jodi said."

Nearly three years have passed since Jodi Arias was found guilty of the June 4th, 2008 especially cruel murder of Travis Alexander.   The case was highly publicized and people across the world became familiar with it.   When the verdict came back to show the jury agreed Jodi was guilty of premeditated murder,  the majority of viewers thought it just.   It was only a small percentage of people who disagreed and many of them continue to take their disagreement to an extreme in order to hang on to their fantasy that Jodi Arias is innocent.   These are the fans of Jodi Ann Arias.

All Jodi fans are her supporters but not all her supporters are fans.   Her fans are the ones who turn a blind eye to the facts in evidence and interject their own speculation as "proof" of Jodi's innocence. They also create the fantastical, idiotic, and ridiculous theories to explain why, in their eyes, Jodi Arias is innocent. Included in these theories are suggestions of deep-seeded government conspiracies,  rumors of an elusive third party,  proposals that Jodi's intruder story was true,  and an insistence Jodi Arias had to be believed even when her story was contradicted by evidence, other witnesses, and  common sense.  And, at the heart of these theories lie the words "Jodi said."

EVIDENCE

"BUT JODI SAID........"

"Jodi said" she was innocent.  "Jodi said"  Mesa was not a planned part of her trip.  "Jodi said" Travis persistently begged her to come to Mesa.  "Jodi said"  Travis owned  a gun.   "Jodi said"  she turned off her cell phone because it was about to die.  "Jodi said"  she did not dye her hair during her trip.  "Jodi said" she only had two gas cans.  "Jodi said"  Travis beat her.  "Jodi said"  Travis almost killed her days before she left Mesa.  "Jodi said" Travis attacked her on June 4th, 2008 and she was left without any other alternative but to shoot him in the head, knife him 29 times, and slash his throat.  "Jodi said"  Travis was trying to kill her.  "Jodi said" she was forced to cut the throat of a profusely bleeding, mortally wounded man just before she ran from the home basically unscathed.  Despite the many things Jodi said,  she failed to provide any evidence to back up what she said.  According to her fans,  she didn't have to.


DEFENDANT'S REQUIREMENTS

One of the reasons Jodi's fans think Jodi didn't have to provide evidence in her favor is because according to the law, a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty."  This conditional instruction is to help prevent a jury from deciding a defendant is guilty only because she was charged with a crime.  The jury instructions in Jodi Arias' case clearly stated that indictment is not evidence of guilt and could not be considered as so.

Guilt can not be decided just because a person was accused;  it can only be decided if there is evidence to support that accusation.  In Jodi's case, there was plenty.   When a case begins,  the jury is not aware of any evidence against the defendant to support the charge.  Thus, they have no choice but to accept she is innocent.  But, this requirement to consider her innocent is conditional, and fans don't seem to understand that.  Acceptance of Jodi's innocence was  only mandatory until there was evidence presented to prove her guilt.   Once the prosecution presents such evidence,  the defendant is no longer innocent unless she presents evidence in her favor that discredits the prosecution's proof.

Arias fans also like to refer to the part of the jury instructions  that state the defendant isn't required to produce evidence of any kind.  Jodi may not have been required to present evidence of any kind but that doesn't mean the jury would be required to find her innocent if the only trial evidence presented was that of guilt. 

If Jodi decided to not produce evidence of any kind,  then the only evidence the jury could have considered is the evidence presented by the prosecution.   The prosecutor believed Jodi was guilty as charged so the only evidence he was going to present was that of guilt.  If Jodi didn't present any evidence to discredit the prosecution's evidence,  who would have?   


EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED

Some fans, such as "Mr. Gas Can Man",  believe it becomes the obligation of a jury to make up evidence in a defendant's favor should she fail to produce it or that she did produce failed.   Or, in other words,  they believe an unbiased jury is one that works in a defendant's favor.  But,  juries work neither for the benefit of the prosecution nor the defense.  Their duty is to get to the truth by considering only the evidence that has been produced in court because the opposing sides have had a chance to fully investigate it.  If the jury was to make up "evidence"  for Jodi,  then it would be a biased view because an equal investigation of that "evidence" did not occur.

One example of "evidence" fans like Mr. Gas Can Man thinks the jury was obligated to consider is an imaginary fourth gas can even though Jodi never raised the possibility in court.    According to Mr. Gas Can Man,  his imaginary fourth gas can "must" exist because it is the "only explanation" as to why Jodi's testimony did not match the evidence.  His statement reflects the bias and purposeful blindness of fans.    He neglected to consider the more obvious and reasonable explanation as to why Jodi's testimony did not match the evidence.  She lied.  But, in his view,  Jodi would not lie about anything that might help her case such as stating she returned a gas can or that she was not in Mesa at the time Travis was killed.

Jodi lying is an impossible thing for Mr. Gas Can Man to consider because he was already convinced she was innocent.  When what "Jodi said" did not fit the evidence and facts,  he bent the evidence and facts to maintain his fantasy of her innocence.  This, at times, has included his action of  changing Jodi's own testimony. For example,  according to him, Jodi's claim she returned the can due to financial and room reasons wasn't really what she meant when she stated so in her testimony.  It couldn't have been because it didn't fit with his fourth gas can theory.  He claimed she really meant she returned it because it was a kerosene can even though she said something else under oath. This is the extreme measures her fans go to to maintain their fantasy Jodi Arias is innocent.

The changing of facts to fit a preformed conclusion is called confirmation bias.  It is an extreme flaw in the ability to perform inductive reasoning.

Arguments and conclusions formed through the use of confirmation bias are considered weak, flawed, and not based on fact.  They often lead to untrue outcomes.  The risk of confirmation bias is greater when emotion is attached to the desired outcome.  If the jury did as Mr. Gas Can Man insisted  and made up facts, they would be showing they desired for Jodi Arias to be innocent.  They would be biased which would risk the chance of a false outcome.  While they are deciding a case, a jury can neither want the defendant to be innocent nor desire her to be guilty. The must remain unbiased and be open for any verdict no matter how pretty, likable, or pathetic and pitiful a defendant is.  If Jodi did not raise the issue of a fourth gas can at trial,  they could not make it up for her.   If a fourth gas can is not part of the trial evidence, it doesn't exist for the jury's consideration.

Mr. Gas Can Man has tried to bypass this in court requirement for evidence by insisting the jury "can't consider it doesn't exist if its non-existence was not brought up in court."  The statement is a flaw in his attempt to use "logic."  How can a jury get to the point of considering something might not exist if they don't know what it is in the first place?   They can't, the possibility of its existence must first be introduced.  And, how can this happen if it is not brought up in court?  It can't.     In the jury's world of evidence,  a "fourth gas can" is as foreign an object as a tardigrade or Koalemos are to some. These things must first be introduced and identified before their existence or non-existence can be discussed....  even if it's obvious certain Jodi fans worship the one.

The importance of bringing up evidence in court is so said piece of evidence can be fully vetted by the opposing council.   When it comes to the said piece of evidence,  each side is going to present it in a way that will only benefit their case.   By allowing each side an equal chance at showing the evidence in a positive or negative view, it allows the jury a better ability to decide what the truth about the piece of evidence is.   This can not be accomplished if the jury is making up a piece of evidence such as that imaginary fourth gas can.

If Jodi had presented the idea of a fourth gas can in court,  it would have allowed a further investigation so the truth about its existence could have been determined.   The State or the jurors could have asked questions such as:

1. You stated you returned the third gas can due to the fact it did not make financial sense, so why buy another?
2. You stated that you didn't have room in your car for it.  What changed over a day?
3. When are you saying you purchased this fourth gas can?
4. If it was before going to Mesa,  then it shows you could have still used three to hide your trip, right?
5. If it was after you left Mesa,  why was it important for you to purchase that fourth gas can right after you killed a guy when you already had two extra ones?
6. If your answer was to save money by buying non-California gas,  how can this be when the cost of the gas can was twice as much greater than the difference between 5 gallons of Utah/Nevada gas compared to 5 gallons of California gas?
7. If your answer was because you didn't want to get lost so you needed that third can,  then why didn't you need a third one when you alleged you filled the other two because your were heading towards Ryan's home?
8. Where are you saying you purchased this fourth gas can? 
9. Is it the Mesquite, Nevada stop shown on your credit card receipt?  Are you aware that, like Tesoro, we were able to show this was a gas pump receipt?
10. If not, why did you need to make a special stop for a fourth gas can after killing a man when you already had two extra ones?

The questions would have forced Jodi to provide an explanation and her testimony would have been evaluated for credibility.  For example, did her answers appear reasonable in light of other evidence, including Jodi's earlier testimony?   The likely answer would be no but it would be up to the jury to decide based upon a fully evaluated piece of evidence.   And that can not be obtained if the jury had made it up on their own.

The purpose of a trial and jury is to ensure that justice occurs, and this can only be done if opposing parties have an equal opportunity to present and challenge the evidence in the case.  If it is unfair for a jury to create their own evidence against a defendant, it is equally unfair for them to create evidence in her favor.   Justice includes guilty verdicts;  It considers the rights of victims of crimes, living and dead, even when fans like Mr. Gas Can man consider them not relevant.


"EVIDENCE" OF INNOCENCE?

The case presented by the prosecution made it necessary for Jodi Arias to present evidence in her favor if she desired a not guilty verdict.  Jodi attempted to present a case in her favor,  but the majority of it was founded on what "Jodi said."  She was not able to provide sufficient corroboration for her words. She tried by presenting witnesses,  but they did not have a significant enough impact to benefit her.  In fact, some of their statements served to hurt Jodi.  For example,  Brewer indicated that despite what Jodi said,  she did plan on going to Arizona prior to leaving for her trip.

The bulk of Jodi's defense was based upon what "Jodi said", and this spilled over into her expert witness' testimony.  Jodi's domestic violence expert, Alyce LaViolette,  repeated Jodi's stories of physical abuse as if they were fact even though there was not any evidence to corroborate her claims.  If fact, there was evidence she could have evaluated that contradicted Jodi's story. Had she, she may have not so easily repeated the stories as fact.   If  ALV looked at things such as texts, Jodi's manifesto,  her family letter,  and Dr. Karp's notes she would have noticed how often Jodi's details about her alleged abuse changed.

For example:

• The alleged abuse following a "come clean" conversation
• At trial:  Jodi said it occurred days before she left Mesa for good and Travis strangled her.
• IN the family letter:  Jodi wrote it occurred one month before she left and Travis banged his head on the wall;  he didn't strangle her.
• In her manifesto:  It occurred months before she left
• The alleged finger breaking issue:
• At trial:  Jodi said Travis was angry because she would not lend him money
• Evidence:  Shows Travis lent Jodi money in the morning of the day she alleged it happened
• Jodi's abuse claims:
• At trial:  Jodi said it was five incidents: grabbing her wrist, pushing her down in Oct, breaking her finger in Jan, slapping her face in March, and strangling her in late March/ April.
• Dr Karp's notes:  Jodi informed her of more than 5
• The family letter:  Jodi claimed there were just two incidences
• The manifesto:  Jodi claimed there were just two incidences

 The only way Jodi's fan's can "make her innocent" is to interject speculation and treat what "Jodi said" as fact.  Their theories are not based upon the evidence; they are based upon the words of a known liar.   They can not argue her defense without including what "Jodi said" and treating it as fact. According to some fans, like Mr. Gas Can Man,  the jury was obligated to do the same.  He's stated that the jury had to believe everything Jodi said unless the prosecutor showed she was lying.   His fruitless statement is another example as to the extreme lack of knowledge these fans have regarding the American justice system.

According to the jury instructions,  Jodi Arias' testimony was not to be treated any different than any other witness who testified.  She was not to get special treatment just because she was the defendant and "innocent until proven guilty."

Every witness, including Jodi's expert witness, had to be evaluated for credibility. 

When Jodi's testimony is evaluated,  it fails the tests for credibility on multiple levels.

1. Was Jodi able to hear or see the things she claimed to see? 
•  Yes, but this played little effect on raising her credibility.  The only other person that was there she killed.
2. What was the quality of Jodi's memory?
• Jodi claimed it was excellent but it depended on the question.  If the question served to help her, her memory was excellent.  When the question posed to work against her, she suddenly had memory issues. 
3. What was the witness' mannerism when testifying?
• it changed according to who asked the questions.  When her attorney did,  Jodi became the image she wanted the jury to accept:  A meek,  shy, embarrassed battered woman. When the prosecutor challenged her,  Jodi got bold, defensive,  and snarky.  She was not able to control her disdain at being challenged. 
•  Her demeanor under cross did not reflect that of a woman who was intimidated by men who were loud and "threatening."   This is extremely noticeable in side-by-side comparisons of Jodi's pedophilia testimony.   
4. Did Jodi have any motive to lie?
• An extreme one - her life and freedom were on the line.  
5. Was Jodi contradicted by any anything she said or wrote before trial? 
• Um... yes.
• Jodi before trial:  Travis didn't own a gun/ Jodi at trial:  It was Travis' gun
• Jodi before trial journal:  Nothing noteworthy happened/ Jodi at trial:  he beat her, just ignore that note 
• Jodi before trial text:  Travis loaned her money, thanks/  Jodi at trial:  Ignore that text, he beat her because she wouldn't lend him money that day.
• Jodi before trial:  End of Feb 2008, after he denies her sex, Jodi texts Travis "I want to F-you like a dirty little school girl."  May 2008,  Jodi initiates a sexual conversation by texting Travis that she is a "Little girl who needed immediate alleviation."  /  Jodi at trial:  claims she discovered the alleged pedophilia at the end of Jan 2008 but continued to have sex with him because sex with women made him feel normal.  
• Jodi before trial:  Stated her braids where hot, wore braids in a picture with ex-Bobby, wore braids in a picture she put on her Myspace profile after she moved to Yreka/  At trial:  stated she wore the braids because Travis like them, thus implying it was evidence of pedophilia.
6. Was Jodi contradicted by evidence or any other witness?
• Um... yes.
• Darryl, her witness, testified Jodi told him before leaving for her trip she was going to Arizona/  at trial,  Jodi denied she had plans to go to Arizona when she left.
• Credit card receipts show Jodi did not use an online Travel agency to rent an out-of-town car/  Jodi claimed she had to drive the 90 miles out of town because she used a online travel agency to get it.
• An officer stated Jodi told him "friends" turned her plate upside down/  Jodi testified it was "skaters." 
• Phone records and receipts show Jodi called Travis, filled up her car and the extra gas cans, called Ryan, and then shut off her phone until after she killed Travis./ Jodi testified  she filled up the extra gas cans because she was going to see Ryan,  called him to let him know she was on her way,  and then called Travis.  Travis convinced her to come and it was then she changed her mind and shut off the phone.
• The gas purchase in SLC shows Jodi had more gas than her car and two gas cans could carry/   Jodi testified she only had two cans because she took back the third.
• Pictures from May 15th show Jodi's hair was partially blonde.  A witness said it was blonde on June 2nd.  Pictures on June 3rd show it was completely brunette without any blonde./  Jodi testified that she did not dye her hair between June 2nd and June 3rd.
• Ryan testified Jodi said she lost her charger and had to buy a new one/  Jodi testified she lost her charger but found it many hours later under the passenger seat.
• The phone records and timeline do not match Jodi's description of what happened on the day she alleged to find out Travis was a pedophile.
7. Was Jodi's testimony reasonable in the light of other evidence?
• Um.... NO.
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi discovered Travis was a pedophile, wanted to help him, and then would use anything remotely related to a child to turn him on
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi would call Travis,  decide to visit him, fill up her extra gas cans, call Ryan, and then tell him she was still coming.
• It's not reasonable to believe  Jodi lied for two years to "spare Travis' family pain"  when she included in her letter implications that he was a lying, womanizing, cheater who was mentally unfit and beat on her on two occasions (OK, this was not part of the evidence the jury got to see but it should have been).
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi lied for two years to "edify" Travis when she implied during her TV interviews that Travis was a lying, womanizing, cheater who left bruises on her body.
• It's not reasonable to believe that Jodi would spend extra time and money for gas in case she got lost but not take the extra time to ensure she had a working cell phone by looking for her charger.  Remember, according to Jodi, it was only under the front seat of her little car.  If her story was true, she would have easily found it.
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi was the victim when she escaped basically unscathed and Travis had one gunshot,  29 knife wounds, and a slashed throat.
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi had to use two different weapons for self-defense.
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi was able to outrun Travis before he was severely injured but could not outrun a severely bleeding, dying man who had 29 knife wounds and a bullet in his head.
• It's not reasonable to believe Travis was determined to kill her but failed to inflict one identifiable wound on her when she was close enough to knife him 29 times and slash his throat.   Enraged men who continue to attack without regard to injury to themselves hit their mark; frightened men who are in fear for their lives run and deflect - often defensive wounds and multiple back wounds are the result of their actions.
• It's not reasonable to believe Jodi was in mortal fear when she failed to run at the many times Travis was not in motion:  When she "broke away" from him after she shot him (her version),  when she was stabbing him as he lie on the floor (the impact spatter on the low door frame),  when he paused at the sink, when she was standing over his bloody body,  or when he paused for any period of time to leave a collection of blood.

There were multiple contradictions in Jodi's testimony. In a post-trial interview, members of the jury indicated it was those multiple contradictions that made her not a credible witness.  According to the jury instructions,  they could decide to accept everything, part, or nothing a witness states based on her testimony as a whole.  Some fans like the Gas Can Man think it is not fair to the defendant to toss her entire testimony because parts of it are suspect.  However, if a defendant is willing to lie once under oath, what stops her from lying repeatedly? Especially when considering a defendant like Jodi who already lied twice to law enforcement about her involvement.

EVIDENCE OF GUILT

Fans are not able to discredit the strength of the prosecution's case against Jodi unless they interject their own speculations or treat Jodi's shoddy testimony as fact.   The prosecution's case was strong and Jodi failed to present the required evidence to show otherwise.

When the prosecutor rested his case, the evidence against Jodi, such as she described it, was damning in nature.   It was his burden to prove Jodi was guilty of the crime of premeditated first-degree murder and he did.  To meet this burden,  Juan Martinez had to show:

The majority of fans accept that it was proven Jodi killed Travis but say she did so in self-defense. Some claim that the prosecution did not meet his burden to show Jodi was guilty because he did not "disprove" her case of self-defense.   What these fans fail to realize is once he proves premeditation, self-defense is automatically eliminated.  Both can not exist at the same time.   The prosecution showed Jodi's intent was to go to Mesa to kill Travis and this eliminates the possibility she was defending herself.

Other fans such as the Gas Can Man insist that Jodi's lack of defense had nothing to do with his conclusion Jodi Arias is innocent.  He claims the "weakness" of the State's case was the foundation of his decision.   But,  unless he interjects his own evidence or speculation into the case,  there is not any reasoning behind such a conclusion.  And, if he interjects speculation, he is not making his determination off of the evidence in the case;  it is off his desire that she is innocent.

 It only takes a look at the evidence the prosecutor presented to understand why an assertion like Mr. Gas Can Man's is complete rubbish.  When Juan Martinez rested,  the jury only heard evidence that supported guilt:

• Jodi Arias was in Mesa at the time of the murder.
• Jodi Arias lied about being in Mesa at the time of the murder.
• When she learned about the evidence against her, Jodi Arias told a new lie.
• Jodi went on national TV to sincerely tell the story of the new lie - twice. 
• Jodi Arias had access to the same type of gun that shot Travis.  This gun disappeared from her home a week prior to the murder making it not possible for it to be tested.
• The gun used to shoot Travis was removed from the premises making it not possible for it to be tested. 
• Jodi Arias took many steps that would reduce or prevent her presence in Arizona from being detected
• rented a car 90 miles out of town
• refused a red car because it drew too much attention
• Jodi said on tape the neighbors knew her car
• The plate was removed from the car between rental and return
• Jodi told two different stories about how this happened:  Friends to the officer and skaters to Ryan.
• Testimony and pictures that showed Jodi changed her hair between the car rental and the killing.
• On the interrogation video, Jodi implied the neighbors would not be able to recognize her with dark hair - she was trying to convince the detective if neighbors said she was there, they would have been lying.
• Jodi turned her cell phone off just prior to reaching her alibi route.
• Jodi did not turn her cell phone back on until she had driven hours away from Travis' home.
• Jodi created a trail of receipts that could prove she did not go to Mesa.
• Jodi destroyed evidence at the scene - pictures and the bleached items.
• Jodi created evidence to cover up her actions - she sent an after-death email, text, and left a voice mail only hours after she killed him.
• She killed the victim with two different weapons.
• She killed the victim with extreme force yet only had a cut to her finger
• The cut to her finger was consistent with Jodi being the attacker.
• The cuts to Travis' hands were consistent with him being the victim.

How can such evidence be discredited before the defense responds without interjecting one's own speculation into it?  It can't.  Anyone who claims that it can lacks reasoning skills and an understanding of the American justice system.     How can such evidence be discredited via Jodi's testimony when that testimony includes so many contradictions?    It can't.  Anyone who claims it can is bias in nature and has chosen to ignore the multiple signs that show Jodi's testimony was not credible.  The only way to "make Jodi innocent" is to interject speculation or opinion and ignore Jodi's lack of credibility.   If fans disagree, then they are obligated to show how the State's case can be discredited without using speculation or relying on what "Jodi said." Or, in other words, follow the jury instructions and use the trial evidence.  They wont' because they can't.

"but he didn't prove Jodi killed Travis"

Some fans have insisted that the prosecutor did not prove any of the three requirements to support the charge of premeditated first-degree murder.  For example,  Harpy and Co insist the prosecutor failed to prove it was Jodi who caused Travis' death. According to these barmy fans, it didn't matter that Jodi admitted to being the one who did it.  They've asserted that the prosecutor was required to prove before  the trial began that Jodi killed Travis. These fan's statements show an extremely insane amount of  ignorance about American law.  The only thing the prosecutor had to "prove' before the trial is that there was probable cause to bring the case to trial.   And, he did.

The State of Arizona began gathering information to use against whomever killed Travis Alexander from the moment the 911 call was made.   It was in that call that Jodi Arias first became a person of interest when she was identified as someone who might want to harm him.  The investigative team did as they should when anyone is identified as a possible suspect in a murder case.  They investigated that person.  It is the result of the investigation that made Jodi the prime suspect.  

1. 911 tape: Jodi was identified as a stalker ex-girlfriend who might want to hurt Travis.
2. Jodi  denied she was in Mesa at the time Travis died. This denial was caught on tape.
3. Evidence showed Jodi was present at the time Travis was attacked
• Jodi's partial palm print on the wall in a mixture of her DNA and Travis' blood.   
• Her hair was found in a puddle of Travis' blood..
• The recovery of the internally time-stamped pictures showing Jodi's presence at Travis' home at the time Travis was attacked

This evidence was presented to the Grand Jury and an indictment was requested.  The purpose of the Grand Jury is not to determine guilt nor consider alternative theories for the evidence.  It is only to determine if there is enough evidence to bring forth charges against the accused.    An ex-girlfriend identified as a stalker who denies being present at the time of the killing  when the evidence shows otherwise is more than enough for an indictment.   On July 15th, Jodi Arias was arrested and charged with first degree murder.

The same evidence that went before the grand jury, including the picture of Jodi standing over Travis' bloody body, is what can be used to help prove Jodi killed Travis.   That evidence combined with all the other evidence and Jodi's lack of a defense is what proves it.  But, in the end,  the prosecution didn't need to prove Jodi killed Travis.   Long before her trial ever began,  Jodi Arias admitted she was the one who killed Travis Alexander.   When Jodi changed her defense in 2010 to a justification defense,  she, by default, admitted to killing Travis Alexander.   Per the use of the justification defense, Jodi admitted she did kill Travis but claimed her actions were justified.   Thus, the prosecution can turn to her admission to show that Jodi did kill Travis Alexander.

mighty morphin ninja intruders did it....

Some fans, including Harpy and Co,  have at some point suggested Jodi's claim of the two mysterious intruders was true.   This was in despite of the fact Jodi had publicly announced the intruder story was fake and asked all her supporters to believe her.  Jodi had first told the intruder story less than 24-hours after her arrest.  She had been presented with clear-cut evidence showing her presence in Mesa on June 4th and realized her "lack of opportunity" defense was destroyed beyond repair.   She admitted she was present but claimed it was two intruders who hurt Travis.  Jodi claimed her reason for lying was because she feared for her life.  According to Jodi,  the intruders were going to kill her but let her go after threatening to hurt her if she told.   The story was not reasonable for a number of reasons.

1. It is not reasonable to believe intruders would allow Jodi to escape after she promised not to tell on them especially since they allegedly already tried to kill her.
2. It's not reasonable that intruders would stay for an extended period of time (stabbing and post killing activities)  after Jodi ran from the home knowing it was possible she could call the cops immediately. 
3. It's not reasonable to believe Jodi was too afraid to tell about the intruders while she was under police protection but then went on two national prime time TV shows to tell about the intruders.
4. It's not reasonable that intruders would kill Travis with such brutality and then do nothing after Jodi went on national TV twice to tell on them.  

It took her two years but Jodi finally accepted the pure ridiculous nature of her lie.  She had two years in jail with little else to occupy her time but to create yet another version of the events for June 4th, 2008.  She created a story that she believed would work in her favor and she used the State's discovery evidence to form it.   But, her story fell short.  She was limited by the fact that the majority of the evidence she created before her arrest was to support her failed first attempt at a defense.  That evidence ended up working against her and once arrested, she lost control to undue the fake evidence she created.  She also had the disadvantage of limited resources to help her create a new version of events.  For example,  she wasn't able to insert abuse into her journals or use the computer to find out if Walmart had the capability of going back 5 years to verify a if a return really happened.

"The prosecution shoulda....."

Some fans are under the impression that if they don't know about it, the prosecution didn't investigate it.   Once such example comes straight from  Harpy and Co again.

 "Why didn't Juan Martinez use the IP address of the whore email to prove it was Jodi... CAW CAW"

The prosecution's duty was to prove Jodi was guilty.  It's very likely he did try to obtain the IP address from the email to see if it linked back to others Jodi sent.   But, it's also just as likely that if they tried it was a bust.   An IP addy only shows the location the email was sent from, not the computer or the user who sent it.  Thus, anyone who wanted to hide her identity could do so by:

1. going to a library and send the email using the communal computer.  Any IP addy would link back to the library and not her home.
2. going to a WiFi hot spot such as Starbucks and use her laptop to send the anonymous email while sucking down a Strawberry Frapp.   Any email sent would link back to the IP addy of the hot spot.
3. Be lazy and use a proxy server from the comfort of her bed because the proxy would disguise her home IP addy.  However, doing so might result in the need to later smash her hard drive to prevent the use of proxies from being discovered if the computer was inspected. 

"Then why did Martinez say that the email was proven to be from Jodi?  CAW CAW"

The problem with that statement is he did not present this to the jury as evidence.  Maybe if certain fans paid better attention to what the trial evidence was,  they would understand.  The accusation that Jodi sent the "whore" email was never made a part of the trial evidence for the jury to consider.

The whore email was first brought to the attention of the State when detective Flores interviewed Lisa Andrews.  She shared the email with him and said both she and Travis suspected Jodi sent it.   If Lisa's suspicions could be proven, the evidence would appear to be a gold mine for the prosecution.  But, in reality it was not.   The prosecution's duty was not only to obtain a conviction, but to obtain one that would stick.  If the judge permitted the "whore" email to be used,  it opened up an opportunity for an appeal at a later date.   The "whore" email was of such a nature that the COA might have considered it too prejudicial and granted Jodi an appeal.   Martinez had too much evidence of guilt to take such an unnecessary risk. And, it is why, as Martinez has stated, he decided to not call Lisa Andrews as a witness to testify about the email.  He also did not elicit testimony from Lisa during cross-examination to say the email existed and Jodi sent it. Harpy and Co's claim he said the email was from Jodi and did so to help convict her shows that they did not really pay attention to the trial evidence.

WHAT EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED?

Many fans think that there had to be a "smoking gun" or every piece of evidence had to singularly prove guilt.  They also  think circumstantial evidence can not be used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They are wrong on all accounts.

Criminals take steps to cover their tracks so a "smoking gun" piece of evidence is rarely uncovered in  a crime.  The justice system understands that criminals usually are trying to avoid conviction thus it only requires guilt to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt as a "smoking gun" piece of evidence would suggest.  Enforcing a standard of the "smoking gun" would create an imbalance of the justice system in favor of criminals, many crimes would go unpunished, and victimization would increase.

A prosecutor has to prove his charge beyond a reasonable doubt but the same standard does not apply to every single piece of evidence;  it is why circumstantial evidence is allowed.   Circumstantial evidence is evidence that by itself  has little meaning but when it is combined with other pieces it helps the jury to infer a fact.   For example,  the prosecutor did not need to prove it was Jodi who stole the gun for the jury to believe it was the one  she used  to shoot Travis.   He only needs to share the evidence that leads the jury to the conclusion:

1. Jodi stated before trial that Travis did not have a gun. 
2. Jodi had access to the same type weapon that was used to shoot Travis
3. The weapon came up missing from Jodi's home one week before Travis was shot making it not available for ballistics tests.
4. Jodi was the last one with access to the gun before it came up missing.
5. The person who took the gun was never caught.
6. Jodi shot Travis
7. Jodi took the gun she used to shoot him with her when she left making it not available for ballistics tests or identification. 
8. Jodi said Travis kept the gun in a holster;  no holster or other gun paraphernalia was recovered from Travis' home. 

A single factor does not show Jodi was the one who took the gun but when multiple pieces of evidence are considered as a whole, the inference that she did can be made.   Each single piece of evidence that leads to the inference is considered circumstantial, in that it depends upon the other evidence to reach the conclusion.  According to the jury instructions,  the law makes no determination between  circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. Both can be used to prove guilt.

REASONABLE DOUBT

The inability to tell the difference between what is reasonable doubt and any doubt is a primary reason Jodi's fans are not able to understand why the jury and the majority of trial watchers knew Jodi Arias was guilty.   Her fans believe that any  "possible" alternative explanation, no matter how unlikely or unreasonable,  means Jodi Arias is innocent.  They've tried to raise the criteria from reasonable doubt to all doubt.

There is not much in this world that is free from all doubt.  Alternative theories and possibilities can be dreamed up in many situations, including the acts of convicted murderers such as Charles Manson. Incredibly, there are Charlie Manson supporters who argue he was an innocent victim of  over-zealous law enforcement and media out on a witch hunt.....  Sound familiar?   But, just because it can be imagined does not mean it is true.  Jodi's fans don't seem to realize that.

In Jodi's case, there was not any reasonable doubt introduced by the defense to discredit the prosecution's case against her.  Jodi Arias spent 18 days on the stand and had a total of 37 days of defense to create reasonable doubt.  Despite being allotted more than four times longer to present her case, Jodi Arias was not able to create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.  Her third and final defense failed when faced with the damning evidence against her.

The story would have been far different if Jodi Arias succeeded with her initial plan for her defense.
Her goal was to make it appear that she was not in Mesa at the time of the murder.  If they could not place her there, it would have been difficult to obtain a conviction against her, let alone an indictment.   If Jodi's plan had went as she originally intended,  she would not have made the mistakes that caused her first defense to fail.  But, Jodi strayed from her original plan and it resulted in mistakes that destroyed her defense.  Why she strayed is a different topic for a future article.

If Jodi succeeded in her original plan,  she would have created enough reasonable doubt that if the case made it to trial,  a not guilty verdict would have occurred.  But, it's unlikely the case would have even passed the grand jury.   Without the incriminating evidence at the scene, the only evidence that could have been used against Jodi would have been:

1. A similar gun came missing from Jodi Arias' home during a robbery just one week before the shooting
2. Jodi took a trip at the time of the killing
3. She was missing for a number of hours but said she was sleeping - the last time she slept was around 20 hours earlier.
4. Her cell phone signal was lost in Pasadena.

Whereas they are suspicious,  these circumstances did not reach the level of probable cause that would have provided a warrant to allow the search of Jodi's home and finances. A large amount of the evidence used to convict Jodi was not obtained until after Jodi's arrest.  The arrest allowed investigators to obtain a search warrant of her home and access her financial record.  Without probable cause, the search warrants would not have been granted and things like the car rental would have been more difficult to discover unless the detectives went to the agency and flashed Jodi's picture.  But, Jodi Arias did not rent a car from one of the two agencies close by home, did she?  She drove 90 miles south of her home to obtain the rental from a location that was out of the way of her return trip home.

If the prosecution somehow managed to get the case to trial without finding the evidence of Jodi's presence at the scene,  she still had a chance to cause reasonable doubt.  He arrest would have resulted in the search warrant and items found.  But, it still would not have placed her at the scene.  Jodi created evidence that could have created reasonable doubt by corroborating her claim to not have been there:

1. The receipt trial corroborating her alibi route.  Jodi's receipt route kept her 100's of miles away from Mesa.
   
2.  Her journal that included her itinerary and it matched both her statement and the receipts.
3. The email, voicemail, and text she sent after his death could have been viewed to corroborate her claim that she was not there,  had no knowledge of what happened, and got lost on the way to Ryan.
4. Ryan's testimony that Jodi got lost and he was trying to help with directions matched her claim she got lost. 
5. Her romantic encounter with Ryan the next day was the behavior of someone who didn't know a dear friend was murdered. 
6. As were her "normal' actions following the killing.
7. As was her "shock" and "despair" when she "first" found out he was dead.
8. Her journal was filled with pages of despair and confusion as to what happened to Travis.
9. Her picture tribute to him
10. Her video tribute to him
11. The message she left at his memorial
12. All the things she wrote in her journal about how good a friend Travis was 

Jodi's initial defense had the possibility of causing reasonable doubt but her third and final attempt did not.   It was based on the words of a person who lied twice and testimony that was riddled with contradictions.  She failed to create reasonable doubt in the prosecutor's case.  But, he was successful in providing the  evidence which firmly convinced the jury of her guilt.

ROUND AND ROUND

When fans realize that they lack the evidence to support Jodi's claim of innocence, they begin to engage in circular arguments:

1. What proof is there of Jodi's innocence?
• "Innocent until proven guilty, she doesn't need to have proof.
2. Here is the proof the prosecution used to show she is guilty.  She needs proof of innocence in light of this evidence.
• "The prosecution's case was not right because of _________ (insert non-trial evidence, personal opinion,  and speculation)
3. That was not evidence in the trial. What trial evidence shows her innocence?
• "Jodi said"
4. Jodi did not have the credibility for the jury to believe her.  What evidence shows she is innocent?
• "Innocent until proven guilty, she doesn't need proof." 

Fans use circular arguments to deflect the fact they can not use the trial evidence to discredit the prosecution's case.  If they were able to honestly support their conclusion Jodi Arias is innocent,  they would not rely on circular arguments,  personal opinion, speculation, or the words of a known liar.   They would use the trial evidence to discredit the prosecution's case.  They can't.  Their belief Jodi Arias is innocent is born out of the many idiotic, fantastical and ridiculous theories formed from what "Jodi said."   These are the fans of Jodi Ann Arias.