Premeditation- Article III - The Cell Phone

When a perpetrator commits a crime,  they usually need to take multiple actions to cover it up.    And,  because they try to cover it up,  there rarely is a single "smoking gun" piece of evidence which shows guilt beyond all doubt.   For a piece of evidence to be beyond all doubt, any other explanation would be impossible.   There's not much which is impossible in this life,  and that's why guilt is determined by "beyond a reasonable doubt."

After a criminal covers her tracks,  often the only thing left to find is circumstantial evidence. Jodi's supporters seem to think like her. Perhaps that is why they believe that only direct evidence should have been used to convict her. And,  for many their definition of 'direct' evidence is evidence which proves the crime beyond all doubt.   If the only way to get justice were to eliminate all possible alternative explanations,  many criminals would get away with their crimes. Justice would never be served,  and victimization would go on unpunished. 

Because of all the 'possibilities'  associated with an action,  a defendant is always allotted a chance to explain why the actions which seem nefarious,  are not. The defendant does not have to provide proof of innocence.  It's well within her right to allow the jury only to hear the prosecution make the claim the actions were proof of a crime.  The defendant has the right to allow the jury to hear only that which shows she had the means, motive, and opportunity to do the crime.  However,  if the defendant stays quiet,  the only evidence the jury will hear and be able to weigh,  is that on the side of guilt.  The jury cannot make up "possibilities"  on Jodi's behalf.

Plenty of possibilities existed for the actions the prosecution claimed were signs Jodi planned to murder Travis:

The hair: she dyed it to prevent neighbors from recognizing her;  she dyed it for a new guy.

The car: she rented it to hide her presence at Travis' home;  she rented it because hers had problems.

A white car:   she wanted  to blend in at Travis' house;  she wanted  to blend in traffic in case she was speeding.

The cell phone:   she turned it off to avoid detection;  she turned it off because it was almost dead and she lost the charger.

Jodi had a fair chance to provide a reason those seemingly guilty actions were not as the prosecution claimed.  Only Jodi's testimony or other evidence introduced in the court can be used to determine if the State's  allegation was founded.  For example,  Jodi said she did not dye her hair during the trip.  Evidence produced in court showed her hair with blonde streaks and highlights on May 15th.  The rental car agent said her hair was blonde on June 2. And a photo on June 3rd showed Jodi as completely brunette without any blonde streaks and highlights.  That was the evidence.   Jodi never stated "I dyed it for a new guy." The rental agent did not say "She was a platinum blonde." That was not evidence produced in court.  She had the opportunity to say she dyed it on the way to impress Ryan, but she did not.   Instead,  she said, "I did not dye it on that trip."  It was her word against the evidence and the rental agent.   Credibility came into play.

  

When the case began,  Jodi Arias was presumed innocent.  However,  it did not mean each time she spoke,   the jury had to presume she was telling the truth.  Her testimony was considered 'evidence'  and was subject to the same evaluation for credibility as any other witness' testimony.

• Did Jodi have the ability to see or know the things she was stating?
• Yes
• What was the quality of the Jodi's memory
• poor except for when it served her 
• What was Jodi's manner when testifying?
• Meek, shameful, and mild with the defense.   Defiant and bold during the same type of questioning by the prosecution.
• She proved aggressiveness when challenged.
• If Jodi really felt the shame she feigned, it should have shown up during her questioning by the prosecution. A side by side comparison of her pedophile allegation showed two completely different mannerisms between the prosecution questioning and the defense.  The jury noticed.  
• Did Jodi have any motive to lie?
• Lying could have resulted in her life being spared and possible freedom.
• She already tried to lie twice to save her freedom
• Was Jodi contradicted by anything she wrote before the trial
• Her journal.
• Was Jodi contradicted by any other witness?
• Ryan Burns,  Ralph Columbo,  and even some of her own witness' statements
• ALV: Jodi told me she shot him in the closet
• Jodi: I shot him in the bathroom
• ALV:  Jodi told me she left the knife on the  stand by the bed.
• Jodi: I don't remember where the knife was.
• Was Jodi's testimony reasonable in the light of other evidence?
• No.  In some cases,  Jodi's testimony contradicted itself.
• Jodi claimed to be safety aware but didn't care about ensuring she had a working cell phone while driving alone, at night, in an unfamiliar car, and in an unknown area.

 PREMEDITATION

Jodi's first defense was a denial of being at Travis' house.   If she wasn't there, she couldn't have done it.   In order to reduce the risk of being identified at the scene,  Jodi changed her appearance, she changed her car,  and she removed the license plate.  However, there were other steps she needed to do to avoid detection.   In 2008, it was common knowledge cell phone signals could be tracked when the phone was on.   Even if she didn't make a call,  the cell phone signal could have been tracked.   It made it necessary for Jodi to turn off her cell phone.

Jodi's cell phone was turned off prior to Jodi reaching her alibi route of HWY 15.   In her first defense story, Jodi claimed  she left Pasadena and took HWY 15 North towards Utah.   In order to cover up for the time she was missing,  Jodi said she both got lost and slept along the way. If Jodi left her phone on,  it would have been very easy to show she was lying.  

Eventually,  Jodi had to change her defense story.  She  made mistakes at the crime scene which placed her there beyond all doubt.  Her DNA was found mixed with Travis' blood within a print of her hand left on the wall.   Jodi invented a new story.  She was there  but didn't plan on going.   She claimed her original intent was to take HWY 15 to go to Utah, but Travis talked her into coming to see him instead.  While she was there, masked intruders shot Travis and let her go.  Eventually,  Jodi would change her story a third time.

When Jodi changed her defense for a third time,  she continued to claim she didn't plan to go to Travis' when she set out on the trip.  Per Jodi's story,  while she was in Pasadena,  she started to think about the route she was taking to Utah.  It was HWY 15,  and she was not familiar with it.  Jodi decided to act against her previous plan to save money,  and fill her extra gas cans with the more expensive California gas.   Jodi said she wanted to err on the side of safety because she was "A woman alone, driving an unfamiliar car,  on an unfamiliar route."  She didn't want to get lost, run out of gas, and get stranded.  

In addition to buying the extra gas in Pasadena,  Jodi also turned off her cell phone.   Jodi claimed the phone was nearly out of battery power,  and she couldn't find the charger.  So she turned it off and continued to head towards the unfamiliar route in her unfamiliar car.

Jodi's testimony about her safety concerns and the gas is considered evidence.  However, that evidence was contradictory to her cell phone story.   It meant that one or both statements were not true.

In Jodi's testimony about the extra gas,  she claimed fear of getting lost and then stranded if she ran out of gas.   If Jodi were worried about getting lost,  she would not have proceeded along an unfamiliar route for a 9-hour trip at night without ensuring she had her charger with her.   Jodi recently got a new Helio phone to replace the one she claimed stolen.  The  Helio phones she would have ordered in 2008 came with a GPS.  Jodi's phone was not entered into evidence.  If it were, it would have served as another example for the jury to realize her story was not reasonable.   A person who has fear of getting lost uses their phone GPS to help them out.  A low phone signal and a lack of charger would not have ensured Jodi could have found her way.

Helio Ocean

Helio Heat

Helio Mysto

Helio  Fin

Per her story,  what Jodi was saying was "I am worried about safety,  and getting lost. Nonetheless,  I am not going to make sure the thing that could help me from getting lost would remain functional before I start along the route where I might get lost."

Possible? Yes.  Reasonable? No.

If Jodi were worried about getting lost or stranded,  she would have taken the time to look for her cell phone charger before starting on an unfamiliar route.  If the charger was lost and Jodi searched for it,  she would have found it.  Jodi was driving a compact car that she just rented the day before.   Per her statement,  her luggage was in the trunk.

"I took back the third gas can because there was not enough room in the trunk for three cans and my luggage."

How much clutter could there have been in such a little car she just rented that she could have missed the charger under the front seat?

(interior of a 2008 Ford Focus)

Due to the size of the car and the lack of clutter,  it would have taken Jodi only a few minutes of looking for the charger in order to find it.  And,  if Jodi could have found the charger in the midst of a dark desert,  she could have found the charger much easier on the lighted streets of Pasadena.  When considered as a whole,  Jodi's story is not at all reasonable to believe.

Jodi's version of the cell phone not only did not make sense, but it was also contradicted by another witness.  Ryan Burns stated when Jodi told him about her cell phone dying she said she purchased another charger at a gas station.   However,  in her story on the stand,  Jodi said she found it under the front passenger seat of her car

As a witness,  Ryan would have been measured on credibility just like Jodi was.

1. Did he have the ability to hear the things he testified to?
• Yes,  Jodi admitted to calling Ryan that night.
2. Quality of Ryan's memory?
• Ryan displayed no signs of a poor memory.  When he was first interviewed, it was only a few months after the conversation happened.
• Would it be something that Ryan would have remembered?
• Ryan was very worried about Jodi when she was so late.  One of the things that caused him concern was her phone going straight to voice mail.  The excuse Jodi provided him would have been something he was very likely to remember.
3. Did Ryan have any bias or motive to lie?
• Ryan was not Travis' friend;  he only met him once.
• Ryan was Jodi's friend and was very open about their mutual interest in each other.
• Ryan did not initially think Jodi had anything to do with the crime.
• There was no identifiable benefit for Ryan to lie
4. Was he contradicted by any other witness?
• Jodi contradicted him; Jodi also contradicted herself.
5. Did Ryan's story make sense?
• Yes.   His version fit the evidence and it made sense that after Jodi was missing for such a long time he would have wondered why.

Jodi's version of the cell phone story is not reasonable, and another witness contradicted it.  Even in the light of common sense,  her supporters still believe her story is true just because it is 'possible.'   They refuse to recognize how improbable and unreasonable it is.  Some of Jodi's supporters have tried to defend her cell phone story. They claim the fact the cell phone pinged an Arizona tower when she turned it back on was proof she didn't turn it off to hide her presence in the area.

Yes,  Jodi Arias' phone pinged an Arizona tower.   It pinged it from a location that was 275 miles away from Travis Alexander's house.  A location which could have been supported by her story,  "I drove 100 miles in the wrong direction,  thank you very much."  Jodi's goal was to avoid being detected in the area of Travis' home,  and 275 miles northwest of it isn't considered being "in the area."

At 11:48 pm on June 4th,  six hours after she killed him,  Jodi made a phone call that placed her location about 27 miles South of the Nevada border. The location was 60 miles away from her alibi route of Hwy 15.   The location worked with her story of getting lost.


When Jodi made her call,  it was six hours after Travis' death.  She had to be feeling the pressure to set up her alibi call before his body was discovered by his roommates.  Because of all the time which passed since she left Mesa,   Jodi would have known she was getting close to the Nevada border.  When she made her call,  she was in a remote area surrounded by desert. The signal should have hit the nearest town, which would have been Bolder City, NV.   However,  there were two issues that caused the  signal to hit a tower in Kingman,  AZ instead.   The closest Verizon Wireless tower was North of Bolder City in Vegas and a mountain range was between Jodi and that tower.  Per what Detective Flores told Jodi,  the mountain range caused her signal to deflect back to Kingman, AZ.

The phone call was made six hours after the last photograph at Travis' house.  It only takes 5 hours and 48 minutes to drive from Mesa to Las Vegas.   When Jodi made her call,  she thought she was close enough to Nevada to place her there with the call.  And, if not, her 'alibi' for the Arizona ping was right there in the call: "I drove 100 miles in the wrong direction, thank you very much."


The cell phone is just another piece of circumstantial evidence that when considered as a group, proves Jodi Arias was guilty of the premeditation murder of Travis Alexander.  Jodi had her chance to explain why the cell phone was not as the prosecution claimed,  and her explanation proved to not be reasonable.  Some Jodi supporters believe Jodi guilty of murder,  but feel she was overcharged with murder one.  The cell phone evidence shows they are wrong.  The evidence shows Jodi was lying about her reason for turning off the phone.  Her version is possible  but neither reasonable nor probable. Jodi supporters claim the cell phone evidence not important,  but that is far from fact. It shows Jodi was hiding her presence in Arizona from anyone who could use the signal to track it.  The only people who would do so would be law enforcement which means Jodi had an illegal act planned.   And,  since Travis ended up brutally murdered,  it's obvious what that act was.

For further evidence of premeditation,  see Article I- The Hair,  and Article II - The Rental Car and License Plate.

Jodi Arias will never go free:  The evidence is stacked against her.  Justice was served.

Arias and Her Minion

If  you are an Arias fan and supporter,  you don't want to read this.  If you are an Arias hater,  read on.

Arias is much worse of a person than some thought.  "Some" being myself included.  Arias instructed her minion to create a letter to make Travis Alexander look like a monster. The letter will not be posted here because it is filled with inflammatory lies.  Note,  I did not attach "allegedly"  to the fact the letter was initiated by Jodi.    It was such a horrible act that she did not even deserve the benefit of the word "allegedly."   Arias insults the true victims of child sexual abuse by making her false claims in order to serve her selfish desire to make Travis "pay" even more.  For every false claim made,  it reduces the chances a true victim will be believed. In her need for self-gratification,  Arias has shown her true colors.  Escaping responsibility for her actions was the only thing which mattered to her, and she would stoop to any level to do it.

Arias and her supporters seem to not understand that there is a huge difference between "possible"  and "probable."  There isn't much that isn't possible in this life; just because "possible"  exists,  doesn't make it fact.   For example, it's "possible"  that George Barwood,  Sandra Webber, Rob Roman,  and myself could be the same person using multiple profiles.  Is it probable?  No.   It's possible that the person posting comments as Richard Speights after a 7-month absence is really another Jodi loving blogger who was attempting to bait me.  Is it probable?   It's  a hell of a lot more probable than the chances the  letter was  written by Travis Alexander.


Because not many things fall within the realm of the impossible,  guilt is decided upon the definition of what is reasonable.  Hence,  determination of guilt is " beyond a reasonable doubt."   The same standards need to be used when determining the validity of the letter.  Just because "Jodi says so"  doesn't make it a fact.  Jodi said she wasn't there when Travis was killed.  Jodi said it was intruders who did it.  Jodi said after she pulled out of Salinas,  she only had two gas cans on her trip.  All those things Jodi said proved to be false. Jodi was dishonest and a liar long before she ever murdered Travis Alexander, and the admission came right out of her fingertips during the G-Chat and in the pages of her journal.

The letter Jodi instructed to be created can be determined to be false for a number of factors.  First,  the date does not fit the timeline.  In her blatant lie,  she implied she was shocked to the point of vomiting when she walked in on what she claimed to have seen.  She claimed the date was January 21st, 2008.   The letter is dated January 21, 2007.   Jodi's minion either made a mistake or Jodi instructed it to use the date of 07,  forgot,  and later changed her story to a version she thought might work better.   The question is,  why the hell would someone confessing to such a thing even date the letter?  It would be as if they were trying to make an "official" record to be used against them at a later time by someone they could not trust.   The perpetrator would not;  a person trying to frame another for a bad act would.


Secondly,  why would someone who wasn't sure if they could trust a person tell them they were guilty of the felony act of sexual abuse against a child?   Travis knew Jodi was a liar;  she lied to him several times,  and she continued to lie to him. Jodi stated that Travis had a hard time trusting her and wrote about it in her journal.  The letter Jodi instructed to be written implied a lack of trust as well:

If Travis could not trust Jodi,  why the hell would he had volunteered the information something far worse than what she claimed she saw happened?  If he were a pedophile,  he wouldn't.  It's not in the realm of reason.  The nature of a pedophile is to protect their secret at all costs. They do not volunteer information, especially that which could end them up in jail,  unless they are backed in a corner and have no way out.  Per the lie Jodi told,  she only caught him with a picture.

 If we are to believe Jodi's story that the letter was real,  which no one with common sense would, Travis would have had to be a complete fool.  He would have had to be  thinking "I know you don't know,  you've given me countless examples not to trust you, but let me tell you my deepest darkest secret anyways.  I did more than what you saw." And,  if Travis was such a fool,  how the hell could he have hidden the abuse Jodi claimed?  It's not in the realm of reason.  As JJ would say "If it doesn't make sense to your common sense,  it's usually not true."


The third reason the letter can be determined to be complete bullshit is the fact the letter was written in the first place and ended up with Jodi.  Per Jodi's elaborate tale,  Travis did not come into contact with her until later that night, and he explained everything in person.  So how did Jodi get the letter then?  Why would he risk giving it to her if they were face to face and he could tell her what he needed to explain without the risk of creating a permanent record?  Given the content,  why would he have left the letter on Jodi's door step where anyone could have read it?   Jodi had been bold enough to invade his privacy in the past; it meant the same thing might have happened with the roommate's invading Jodi's privacy. Writing the letter just does not make sense when Jodi was minutes away; it's most likely why she instructed her minion to date it 2007 in the first place.  If the letter were permitted into evidence,  the date would have come into question. Jodi would have only lied and claimed Travis made a mistake on the date.

The fifth reason the letter should not be believed is that it did not even match the lies Jodi told.  Jodi implied that Travis never touched a child;  to prevent it from happening  he made a 'deal' with her not to stay the night at anyone's house who had children.  The letter claimed he did hurt a child.  The letter also implied that Travis had "toys" which Jodi never saw,  and he got rid of them.  However,  in her lies on the stand, Jodi claimed she saw the toys one day, and they used them for sex.


 The fourth reason the letter can be determined to be the act of a hateful woman are the obvious signs of forgery.  It was a cut and paste document created by multiple sources.

"Frustrations"  is a combination of multiple words,  the "T" coming form a darker source.

The word "THE"  is smaller because it was cut from an entry in which Travis was writing smaller.

For the most part,  the period placement does not  appear to match Travis' usual habit of writing.    Travis placed his period almost immediately after the last word.  There was the occasional floating period, but for the most part it appeared almost immediately after.   One would have to use multiple documents to account for the amount of times it occurred in Jodi's fake letter.

Jodi had Travis' journal and instructed her minion to use it to create the letters. Shortly before Jodi left Mesa, Travis' journal came up missing. He eventually believed Jodi took it.  Jodi knew things about his personal life and time with Lisa Andrews that she should not have.  Jodi lied and stated it was a Michelle K who told her,  but Travis saw right through her lie.   The day after he called Jodi out for lying,  he wrote in his journal a passage which indicated he was suspicious Jodi stole his old one.

"I wouldn't be surprised if my journal were stolen and most my time with Lisa was in there."  

During the G-Chat fight, Travis finally confronted Jodi about his belief she took his journal.  The fact she knew things about his time with Lisa validated his suspicions.  Of course Jodi denied it;  she was a liar.   Jodi had his journal and instructed her minion to use pages from it to create the letters to help her escape responsibility and justice for her crime.

Jodi used his journal just like I used the copy of the family letter to create the following Jodi "confession"  note.  Now,  just imagine what I could have done if I had an original copy that was not smudged up.......

Should my copy of a "confession"  letter be believed?  I guess her supporters would say "no." But why not?  It's in her writing, after all....... 

Travis' written words from other sources were rearranged in order to give them a different meaning.  Mike LeBlanc has demonstrated how simple it is to rearrange something someone has written in order to change the context:

Jodi's original statement in a letter to Ryan:

Changing the context of it:

The fifth reason Jodi's letter should not be believed is the same reason my copy of Jodi's 'confession' should not be believed:  It is only a copy.   If the letter was real,  why the hell would Jodi make a copy,  keep it,  and allow the originals to be destroyed?   And,  it wasn't just one original destroyed,  Jodi claimed all her original letters were destroyed.  It's an unreasonable statement to believe.   If the letter were real,  keeping the original could have meant the difference between life and death for Jodi;  Or,  at least had granted her freedom one day.   The fact that Jodi was not even willing to state who she got the letter from is a big clue that they were not real.    If the letters were real,  telling the court who gave them to her could only have helped her.  If the letters were fake,  telling the court could have ended up landing her co-conspirator in jail.
Each time I look at the fake letter,  another sign it was a forgery pops out at me.   The last was the placement of the periods.   The fake letter has them placed too far apart.  Travis rarely did that.  In order to provide as many examples as is shown in the letter,  multiple different samples of his writings would have to be used.

The sixth reason the Jodi's letter can be determined to be fake: The spacing in between the words is not indicative of Travis' writing.  Apparently,  as noted in his writing,  Travis did not believe in placing a sufficient space between his words;   sometimes it appeared as if he was writing one long word which should have been four or five.

The space between words in Jodi's fake letter appear to be further apart than Travis' habit of writing.  Sometimes he placed larger spaces.  However, usually his words were crowded together:


A blow up of the letter really shows the difference when compared with a sample of Travis' writing.



Jodi's supporters will always choose to believe what they want to believe no matter how much it goes against common sense.    When they use the obvious fake letters to label Travis a pedophile,  they are just as guilty as she is in causing damage in the fight against child sexual abuse.   With every false claim presented,  it increases doubt when the real ones come out.  No child should ever have to go through facing doubt when they come out,  but it happens because of people like Jodi making her false claims.  Whoever helped her make those letters should take a look at themselves and realize what their actions say: "The real victims don't matter as long as the lie can help Jodi out." 

Premeditation - Article II The rental car and the plate.

Premeditation of a crime involves more than just one action;  it takes many to reduce the factors of means, motive, and opportunity.   For example,  Jodi dyed her hair in order to help to prevent a neighbor from saying "that platinum blonde women was at Travis' house on June 4th."   Instead,  they might say "I saw a brunette but she was wearing a hat and sunglasses,  so I couldn't get a good look at her face."    They might add,  "But she was driving the same car that platinum blonde women drove to his house every day."    Travis'  neighbors knew Jodi's car because it was at his house on almost a daily basis, and his driveway was in plain view of the street.

  Arias admitted  during her arrest interview  the neighbors would have recognized her car because of the frequency it was parked at Travis' home.  However,  she implied that it was not the only one.  She added that there were all kinds of different cars which would show up at his house.

Arias' statement gave some insight as to what she was thinking.  If she took her Infiniti to his house,  the neighbors could have recognized it and told any officer who came knocking at their door.   The presence of the Infiniti could have been the link which caused them to look more in depth at Arias as a suspect.  And,  Arias did not want that.  On the other hand,  a rental car would not draw that much attention because an unfamiliar car was a common experience.

Instead of renting a car,  Arias could have parked her car farther away.  However,  doing so still risked someone who knew her car driving by and recognizing it.  Additionally,  she would have had to give up the benefit of a quick getaway and risk getting spotted on the walk from the house to her car.  Renting an inconspicuous car was the best course of action for Arias to take.

On June 2nd, Jodi rented a car from a facility 90 miles south of her home.  The rental agent was interviewed.  Per his report, Arias called, and they discussed her needs.  She told him she wanted something dependable and requested the car be ready when she arrived.  When Jodi arrived,  the rental agent offered her a red car, and she declined.  He spent more than 15 minutes in a face-to-face discussion with Arias learning about her and discussing her needs. Arias' needs involved a car that was not "loud in color."   Arias ended up renting a white car,  one of the most common colors on the road in 2008.  The white car would have blended in nicely.

"In the U.S., white was the most popular car color for the last eight years, according to Axalta Coating Systems, a supplier of liquid and powder coatings" (2014 article on "Market Watch)

 In 2008,  a red car was not even in the top 5 of most popular cars found on the road.  If Arias rented a red car, she risked it standing out and attracting more attention to herself.  If the goal was to be inconspicuous,  a red car was not the way to go.  However,  a white car would have been the perfect choice.   A white car would not have drawn much attention at Travis' house because it was not an unusual occurrence.  And,  if she were spotted with the car,  the neighbors would have reported seeing  "A brunette woman driving a white car"  and not "That platinum blonde woman in the Infiniti was there again."  A "brunette in a white car" would not immediately cause a need to look further into Arias' life.

Changing her hair color and the type of car she drove reduced those immediate leads which might implicate Arias.  After all,  when she was in Arizona, she was  blonde and drove an Infiniti.  Arias was foolish in thinking  the cops would not have looked further based on those factors.  But,  it was her first crime, so she had little experience other than whatever she saw on TV or the internet.   Even after the steps she took to hide her presence, a link remained which could irrefutably show Arias was in Arizona:  The license plate on the rental car.

The license plate provided a direct link back to Arias.  It was necessary for Arias to remove the license plate before arriving at Travis' house.   However,  removing the license plate meant she had to put it back on, or risk getting pulled over for no plate.

Arias put the plate back on,  but she did so upside down.  On June 5th,  Arias was pulled over for the plate.  Ryan Burns was witness to the incident and helped Jodi put the plate back on the correct way.   If it was not for Ryan Burns witnessing the incident,  it's unlikely the upside down plate would have ever made it to evidence.  When Ryan was interviewed by the police in 2008,  he gave them the information which allowed the investigators to come into contact with the officer who pulled Arias over.

Officer Micheal Galieti was interviewed about the plate incident. He stated he noticed the rear license plate of Arias' car was mounted upside down so he pulled her over.  He remembered stopping Arias because she was the only person he ever pulled over for an upside down license plate.  Galieti stated when he asked Arias why the license plate was upside down  she responded "Oh,  my friend's must be playing a joke on me." The officer gave Arias a warning and instructed her to correct it.  The traffic stop was logged in the traffic report.

In her testimony,  Arias told a different story as to why the license plate was upside down.  She alleged that two days prior to the traffic stop,  she noted an unusual situation involving her plate being removed while at Star Bucks. Arias attributed the alleged Star Bucks incident as the reason her license plate was upside down.  If the Star Buck incident really happened,  Arias would have been aware of the situation when she was pulled over.  She would have had no reason to believe her friends did it if just two days earlier someone removed her front plate.  If Jodi were telling the truth about the reason her plate was upside down,  the details should have remained the same.

Jodi's testimony  was much different than the story officer Galieti stated Arias told him on June 5th.  In her testimony,  Jodi stated she pulled into Star Bucks on June 3rd and noticed some skater kids.  She went inside,  and there was a long wait.  She used the bathroom,  got her order,  and left.  When she was leaving, she noticed the skater kids walking away from the area where her car was, and they were laughing.  She didn't notice any damage. When she started to pull away,   something shiny sitting up on the curb caught her eye.  She got out,  discovered it was her front plate,  picked it up,  and tossed it back in her car.

Jodi's story is not reasonable for a few reasons.  If Star Bucks was so busy,  why didn't anyone notice the kids messing with the cars?  Unless she parked on the other side of the lot,  the only place Jodi could have parked where there was a curb in front of her car was along the side with the  shrubbery.  This area is in direct view of people coming in and out of Star Bucks.

Of all the cars in the parking lot which could be more easily vandalized without being caught,  why would trouble makers pick one in direct view of the Star Bucks door?  Doing so would have risked the chances they would get caught.  The area was quite busy, and there were other areas and lots which provided the opportunity to vandalize without the risk of getting caught.

And,  with all the other cars which they could have vandalized,  why would the trouble makers take the time to remove her front plate after screwing with the rear?  In order to remove the front plate,  the trouble makers would have had to squeeze in the area between the shrubs and the front of her car to get to the plate.   It would have been a lot easier to have a second victim then to turn both plates on the same car.

Arias' story of pulling out and noticing the shiny object in front of her is possible,  but not probable.  If Arias was pulling out of a parking spot,  reason says she was looking behind her.  The majority of those parking spots which fit her story require a person to turn after backing up.

If Arias turned,  the curb would no longer be in front of her and the headlights would not have made the license plate on the curbs shine and get her attention.

For Jodi's story to be true, multiple coincidences had to occur.   Jodi would have had to park in one of the parking spots which permitted her to back up into one of the aisles.  She would have had to decided to pull straight back even though it meant she was facing the wrong way to leave.  Her car had to be the one the skaters decided to target even though she just got there.   The skaters would have had to decide to ignore the fact all the people coming in and out of the Star Bucks door would see them when they picked their target.  Even though they already messed with her back plate which was easy to access, the skaters would have had to decide to mess with her hard to get to front plate as well.  Even though the Star Bucks was very busy,  the door gave a direct view of the cars, the people coming and going just didn't see the trouble making teens messing with Jodi's car. Even though the plate incident occurred two days before she was pulled over for her upside down plate,  Jodi failed to put two and two together until a couple of years later.  Or,  even though it was the only time in his entire career Galieti pulled over someone for an upside down plate,  he was mistaken as to the reason Jodi told him it was upside down.  She really said it was skaters.

While possible to happen,  Jodi's story is improbable.  It does not fit the realm of reasonable doubt.  A more reasonable story is Jodi removed the plate herself in order to remove any possible link which would show she was in Arizona.   The only thing supporting Jodi's version are the words coming out of her mouth.  And,  given the amount of times Jodi lied,  she needed more then her credibility to support her story.  In fact,  Jodi was a self-described liar before she murdered Travis Alexander. She admitted to it during the G-chat.
"I may be a whore, I may be a liar...."

A More Probable Theory

The more likely scenario supports the claim of premeditation.

Jodi removed the plates prior to getting to Travis' house.   It was just one of many things she did to hide her presence in Arizona.  When she put the plates back on,  it was under the veil of darkness and she made a mistake.  She put it on upside down and did not realize it until she was pulled over in Utah.  Jodi had to quickly think up an excuse and used the "my friends played a joke on me."  She did not use the "skaters did it two days ago"  because the skater incident never happened.




Jodi and some of her supporters are confused as to the meaning of reasonable doubt.  They seem to believe that possible is equivalent to probable.  The factor remains that it is only Jodi's words which support her improbable story about the plate.  And,  the plate,  the rental car,  and the hair color change evidence will always exist and be used to demonstrate guilt.  If she were ever given another trial,  the fact would remain that the only thing which supports Jodi's version of the car, plate, and her hair,  are Jodi's words.

"I may be a whore, I may be a liar...."  -- Jodi Arias

Premeditation: Article I- the Hair color.

On 3/6/15,  the Arias sentencing phase ended with a hung jury.  The final decision was 11 for the DP and one hold out for life.  Per the interview with the other jurors,  the hold out believed Jodi's mental status was a mitigating factor.  Per the other jurors,  the hold out stated "But she is not normal"  when they discussed their reasons to put her to death despite her BPD diagnoses.  If the other jurors' statements are true,  it means two entire juries failed to believe Jodi's story of a physical abuse related self-defense claim.  Arias needed the jurors to believe physical abuse existed in order for her to have reacted with such brutality and lethal force against her 'friend'  of 19 months.  She failed.

 In the end, Arias did not win.   In her attempt to paint Travis as a physical abuser who was also a pedophile Arias failed miserably.   Two entire juries did not believe her;  the majority of trial watchers saw right through her lies.  Common sense and reason won out over the manipulation of a murderer.

Despite her failure, some of Jodi's supporters are clinging to the hope that Arias will be granted an appeal, there will be a new trial, and Arias will eventually gain her freedom.    The evidence of premeditation will always remain,  and it will always convict.  Evidence of premeditation is not one factor;  it is a combination of many.

One factor of premeditation the State presented was evidence Arias dyed her hair during the June trip.  Jodi claimed she did not dye her hair during the trip, and many of her supporters believed her.  However, it is not what the evidence suggests.   Pictures paint a 1000 words.


3-10--2008  Jodi went to Roswell.   Jodi was platinum blonde and had been for many years.

3-11-2008 Jodi still had her bleached blonde hair in Oklahoma.

 3-16-08 STILL PLATINUM BLONDE

3-18-2008  Journal "I am at the briefing now...  we got back from our road trip late Sunday night (3-16-2008),  actually Monday morning about 2 am. On the way back we stopped and saw Canyon de Chelly National Monument"

Jodi's testimony: "I dyed my hair on  3-20-08. I never went back to blonde --- this first time it didn't take very well,  so I did it one more time.  It was sort of like a dirty brown - like a medium brown.  It was not what I was going for,  I wanted it darker" 


Jodi described the color of her hair before the second process as "medium brown."  However,  some people might describe it as a shade of  "auburn blonde."

Jodi as an "auburn blonde"

5-10-2008  

5-15-2008  Jodi 

. 

Jodi had bleached her hair for many years.   Color fades on dyed hair.  This is especially true for bleached hair, and extra steps are needed to make the color last longer.    Permanent hair dye fades within 4-6 weeks; the time is sooner for bleached hair.  If Jodi dyed her hair to a "dirty brown/ medium brown"  on March 20th,  then by June 2nd it would have been much lighter as noted in the above picture.

Jodi rented a car on June 2nd.  The car rental agent was provided a photo line-up of several dark-haired women:

He picked Jodi out of the line-up but added "she was blonde."  He did not say "platinum blonde"  or "auburn blonde."   He only said blonde,  which Jodi's hair could be considered to be after the dark dye faded away.

Some of Jodi's supporters have suggested that the car rental agent was mistaken and had only remembered her driver's license.  However,  the car rental agent spent a lot more time in a face-to-face conversation with Jodi than he did when he looked at her driver's license.The rental car agent had an at least 15-minute long face-to-face interaction with Arias.  His normal practice was to speak with his customers and get to know a little about them.  During their face-to-face time, he asked her about herself and where she was going. He tried to match her with a car, offered a red car,  and she refused.

Jodi's hair color in her driver's license was very similar to her hair color in May,  2008:

 The rental agent spent less than a minute looking at Arias' driver's license. He spent at least 15 minutes looking at her face and found her to be pleasant and friendly.  Which image is more likely to be remembered a couple of months later?  Is it a brunette Arias during a 15 minute + face-to-face interaction who was friendly, pleasant, and refused a red car or the blank stare of a brief look at a still picture?

In June,  photos show Arias' hair color was the same color as her brother's hair.  The photos she took on June 3rd do not show any areas of lighter hair streaks.  However,  a black and white photo she took on May 25th does.  The evidence supports that as of May 25th,  Jodi had not yet dyed her hair for the second time.  If she did,  her black and white hair color should have matched her brother's hair color, and the lighter streaks would have been absent.

When she was asked what color her hair was when she left Pasadena in the evening of June 3rd,  Jodi alleged it was "auburn brown."


KN - What color was your hair when you left Pasadena?
Jodi "Kind of like an auburn brown I would say."
The photographic evidence shows when Jodi left Pasadena her hair was dark brown, about the same color of her brother's hair in the May 25th black and white photo.   Jodi took three pictures of herself on June 3rd, 2008. 

Arias dyed her hair sometime after the May 25th photograph was taken.  The evidence gathered from the rental car agent's statement about Jodi being blonde supports she dyed it between June 2nd and June 3rd.   Several hours are unaccounted for between the documented time of her car rental and the next documented stop as noted in the receipt evidence. It provided enough time for Jodi to have dyed her hair back to brown after leaving the car rental agent.   Jodi also spent the night at Matt's house which provided another opportunity for her to dye her hair.   She had plenty of time and opportunity to dye her hair prior to the June 3rd pictures.

THE  TIME LINE OF HAIR COLOR  

When Jodi dyed her hair the second time,  she was not dying hair bleached free of color.  She was dying hair that already contained some dye to provide undertones.  However,  the color still would have faded some after a few weeks.  The result would have been a less rich brown:

 Jodi Arias claimed, "I didn't stop to dye it along the way."    Bull-hockie!  Jodi dyed her hair twice.  The first was prior to the April 08 pictures that show her as the "dirty brown/ medium brown"  color she didn't like.  The second time she dyed her hair it was much darker without the blonde  highlights as noted in the 6-03-08 photographs.  The highlights can be detected in the May 25th, 2008 black and white picture.  They would not be there if she had dyed her hair from auburn blonde to brunette.   There is no mistaking her as a blonde in the 6-03-08 picture and the rental agent spent a lot more time talking to her face-to-face then the time it took to verify her identity with her driver's license.  Other than Jodi's statement,  all the evidence supports she dyed her hair during the trip.

During her initial arrest interview with Detective Flores,  Jodi brought up the subject of her hair color.   Flores implied that Jodi was spotted in AZ by neighbors.  Jodi vehemently stated she was not there.  In order to convince Flores,  she made the statement the neighbors only knew her as a platinum blonde and implied they would not have recognized her as a brunette.  Jodi's statement provided some insight to the detectives as to the steps she had taken to hide her presence in AZ.  It demonstrated Jodi gave the situation some thought about how to avoid being detected indicating an act of premeditation.

Jodi's changing her hair color is only a portion of the evidence that supported she premeditated the murder of Travis Alexander.  On it's own,  it has little effect but when combined with the other steps she took it paints a picture of someone who was trying to operate under the radar and hide her presence in Arizona.