Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(If you can't see the print, click on the image to make it bigger.)
…
It's a boot print. This was done in WET blood, so the detectives couldn't have accidentally contaminated the crime scene by walking in it, the blood would have been dried by then. I couldn't get a forensic report.
Juan already stated Jodi wore socks, and the photograph shows a bare foot.
Zach Billings also stated that he did the laundry on Sat.June 7, then when asked again he changed it to Wed June 4.
In a follow-up interview he then stated he wasn’t positive, but he thought he'd done the laundry on Tues. June 3 morning… but went on to say the clothing found in the washing machine was either TA’s or Enrique’s because TA “would never wash his whites with colors”.
Zach Billing's rented a car the day Travis was killed. When questioned he said his car was broken.
He knows a lot more than he’s letting on.
trinity1111,
Between other things today, during a break, I utilized the info provided above to search for more info about Zach Billings.
I feel like for the first time I kind of understand the relationship between Travis and his renters, of which Zach Billings was one and Enrique another having been in the house about 2 weeks. Everybody did their own thing. It's not like they shared meals or did things together that roommates often do.
I read some of the posts for those who believe Arias is innocent (the website where I my general search of "Zach Billings" + Arias.) I was glad the police report was accessible from that website. I don't understand some of various remarks that Arias is innocent when she admitted she killed him. I have problems with certain posts on that page as words from the official Detective's reported were cherry picked with key words being left out. In no way are you or others accountable for what some posted on that site. I'm simply reporting the contradictions I saw when reading the police report vs. comments from some who posted.
When I read the Det.'s report It was much shorter than I thought only 20 pages or so. But, to be fair, he does summarize that forensic evidence and other reports are summarized by other officers and references them.
After reading what I did, I have questions about Zach Billings as well. First, does anyone know approximately hold old he was at the time of T.A.'s death or today? The same question for Enrique, although I wouldn't have as many questions for him vs. Billings. It appears that Billings at least was quite a bit younger than Travis. It doesn't matter in many ways, but it does in others given life experiences and knowing how to deal with certain situations.
Given certain statements in the report, it seems like Billings in particular watched a lot of movies or hung out in his bedroom with his girlfriend, or was at her house a lot of his time. Maybe there was an odor they were trying to avoid. I find it kind of odd that Enrique too seemed to spend his time in the house also in his bedroom with his girlfriend, although she was the one who was in the kitchen and found T.A.'s jewelry, and was feeding his dog.
The question I didn't see posted was what if the Defense did talk to Billings and Enrique and their answers didn't exactly help Arias?
I'll agree, I think it is possible Billings knows more than he reported. What if his answers to the defense attorneys were Arias still had the gun and threatened to do the same thing to him if he didn't remain quiet or somehow help her clean up etc.? There is some reason the defense hasn't called him to testify.
As Martinez said in his opening statement, "This isn't a case of whodunit, the killer is sitting right here in this courtroom." Jodi has confessed and already said she did it alone. As slippery as she is, if someone were in it with her she would have thrown them under the bus long ago to save her own skin.
The only question left is, was this premeditated ? To me it clearly was well planned and executed by Jodi. Some of the elements of the preplaning were:
1) The 25 caliber pistol gets conveniently stolen from her home a week before the murder.
2) She has a perfectly good car, but rents one "to use locally" but she puts a zillion miles on it.
3) They wanted to give her a red car, but she thought that might be easily remembered, so she asked for a more plain color.
4) The gas cans. Who takes 15 gallons of gas in the trunk of a car to go on a trip ? She didn't want to be seen on any video cameras if she stopped for gas anywhere near his home.
5) She took the time to drag him into the shower after she butchered him and attempted to clean up any trace of her being there.
6) She had the presence of mind to take the gun and toss it "in the desert" somewhere. She knew if it were found it would be identified as the same one that was "stolen" from her home.
7) She emails and calls Travis a little while after killing him to say "Sorry I couldn't come to see you, and hope you are ok, haven't heard from you for a while" to further distance herself from the act.
Nope, this one was preplanned and she might have gotten away with it if she hadn't left a few clues laying around the house, like the pictures and palm prints. If they didn't confront her with those she would still be saying she never left California. Jodi is a smart, cold blooded killer and as sick as they come. For someone who was so in love with Travis, she discusses his death just like she is talking about the weather...........she has no emotions whatsoever. She got what she wanted, if she couldn't have him she made sure no one else would either.
As for the question of how could a small girl overpower a larger man, if you give me a gun and a knife I can guarantee you I will be able to take down any unarmed naked man who is trapped in a 3 x 3 shower stall. Those weapons are great equalizers.
Don
About that last part of your post. HLN had a producer with almost same size and weight as Jodi pull a doll that had approx. Travis size and weight and without even a wet floor with fresh blood she was able to pull it off.
HNL is for entertainment value only, not forensic science.
That simulation of the female producer pulling the doll was highly flawed. First off the doll was 10 pounds lighter than Travis's actual weight.
If the floor was so slippery, then Jodi's bare feet(as per the photo) would have significantly less traction then the producer wearing rubber sole shoes.
Most important, as per the coroners report, there was no abrasions or tissue damage to the underside of Travis's body. Why is that significant?? Because it means someone would have HAD TO LIFT Travis's body completely over a 2 inch shower door guard.
Notice HLN had only a piece of tape marking where the shower entry lay. The producer did not lift the doll at all, she dragged it into the stall.
So, I guess your point is that she had to have some help ? No way. Like I said earlier, if she had an accomplice she would have ratted them out a long time ago. I have known some VERY strong girls in my life who were skinnier than Jodi. The human body can do amazing things when the adrenaline is flowing.
4) The gas cans. Who takes 15 gallons of gas in the trunk of a car to go on a trip ? She didn't want to be seen on any video cameras if she stopped for gas anywhere near his home.
I do. I've traveled parts of Utah and there are some long, desolate roads there. Especially if you're traveling at night or on Sunday in many areas, there could be hundreds of miles between gas stations.
5) She took the time to drag him into the shower after she butchered him and attempted to clean up any trace of her being there. There was evidence that she tried to clean up, but she did a terrible job. Her handprint in his blood was still on the wall, among other things.
Nope, this one was preplanned and she might have gotten away with it if she hadn't left a few clues laying around the house, like the pictures and palm prints.
She's a smart woman, and a photographer. She should have known those pictures she deleted could be recovered from the camera.
She sure left a lot of evidence and a lot of holes and gaps if this was preplanned.
So, I guess your point is that she had to have some help ? No way. Like I said earlier, if she had an accomplice she would have ratted them out a long time ago. I have known some VERY strong girls in my life who were skinnier than Jodi. The human body can do amazing things when the adrenaline is flowing.
With all the blood running down his back I don't think there was much damage done to his back since the bloody back was protecting him and he had at least 9 stab wounds that most likely were blooding from the back stabbing.
On top of that, Jodi had socks on and we don't know if they were having that anti-slip on it or not. After she put him in the shower he was washed off ...at least that was my understanding.
True. And one of the funniest parts to me about the psychological aspects, that NO ONE has mentioned, is Samuels used and continues to use the wrong version of the
DSM-IVR. Do you use the DSM-IVR in Australia or a newer version or a different classification system?
MSR
Unfortunately you didn't format your responses so that I could look at what I'm answering and I really don't have time to go back and forth over pages right now but I will address a few points from memory.
First to the question above, Samuels isn't using the wrong version of the DSM. He is using the DSM-IV which is the latest full revision of the DSM. The new one is actually coming out this year but it does not come into clinical use until it is released. I think what you are referring to is the DSM-IV-TR which is a text revision of the DSM-IV. That means that some of the language in the definitions has been revised for clarification but essentially it is the same as the DSM-IV. It is perfectly acceptable to use the fourth DSM and he had an abridged version of the text revised one so he was pretty much covered. Again, this is another irrelevant point that Martinez has harped on to make an appearance of incompetence when all he showed yet again was that he has no idea about the field of psychology. This is simple information that anyone could find out if they really wanted to know the truth rather than try to discredit someone. Yes, we do use it in Australia and I am pretty sure it is standard all around the world. There is some criticism of the DSM though because psychology does not work in neat tidy little packages and categories. There is a lot of individual differences and overlap between disorders that aren't really accounted for in the DSM.
If you refer to the description of the nervous system it states that the dura mater is intact. The dura mater is a thick membrane, actually the outermost of three, that encases the brain. A bullet could not go into the brain and leave the dura mater intact, it's like saying you fired a bullet through an orange but left its skin undamaged. Unless you have magic bullets, it's not going to happen. The brain did show decomposition which rendered it soft but it was sturdy enough to take multiple sections and determine that there were no visible signs of trauma. The ME said that a bullet to the brain causes massive trauma, if that is true then there is no evidence of it in the autopsy. The dura mater would have had trauma and the brain would have at least some evidence of it. It certainly wouldn't have shown symmetry (both hemispheres looked the same) as the autopsy states because the bullet would have only gone through the right frontal lobe if it had hit the brain.
The trajectory of the bullet goes from just above the right brow down to the left cheek. Yes it would have damaged the skull which accounts for the small amount of bleeding within the skull, but most of the bleeding would have been outside the head and into the sinus which would have almost certainly been damaged.
I'm happy to stand corrected on all of that but that is my understanding of the report. I do know something of the brain after studying it for four years. Those studies included biopsychology which deals with the physical aspects of the brain only, structure and chemistry and so forth. I don't however know that much about autopsy terminology and intact may not mean what I think it does. I take it to mean it is whole and in place, undamaged. It could very well mean that it was just where it should be and not refer to any holes through it at all. Other places in the autopsy tend to list any damage to organs though, describing the general health of it before the trauma and what has happened to it. I am just assuming that the same would apply in the description of the dura mater as well.
After all that I can't remember anything else that you said .
One thing I do remember you saying is that Martinez might be holding back his knowledge of psychology until later testimony or his closing argument? If that is the case and he does know more than he is letting on then he his being deliberately deceptive in trying to make a few small errors (that change nothing in the overall assessment) into some big act of fraud on the psychologists part. If he knows what the raw data means and how he is wrong then he is being underhanded and trying to mislead the jury. If he has no knowledge of it, he should not be commenting on it anyway. Certainly he should not be attacking the psychologist in the manner that he was, yelling at him and slamming papers around like he was a talking to a naughty child. That display was disgraceful and I don't care how much anyone here loves him and thinks he is some kind of god. I really don't like his style at all and I would not be surprised if he has turned some of the jurors off just with this attitude.
I have already stated where I think the psychologist was actually wrong. What the legalities are in regard to questioning his methods I don't know, obviously. I would assume if he can take possession of papers that the doctor is not required to give him and make judgements about their veracity based on knowledge he clearly does not possess, then surely he can ask him if an alternative test could have been used or why a certain line of inquiry wasn't taken. All I know is that the attorney was barking up the wrong tree and the unfortunate thing is that most of his audience would be as clueless as he is and actually believe that he had a good argument. I don't care so much about what that does to the case, if they throw out the psychologist's testimony then I would be happy anyway because I don't think it reflects an honest assessment. What bothers me is the way that psychometric testing is being portrayed to the general public, it makes my blood boil because I know the truth of what goes into creating and using these tests and I hate to see it being disparaged in this way.
I won't be around much this week, I have loads of work to do (on advanced psychological research methods and statistics coincidentally) so I may not be able get back to this thread for a while.
Unfortunately you didn't format your responses so that I could look at what I'm answering and I really don't have time to go back and forth over pages right now but I will address a few points from memory.
First to the question above, Samuels isn't using the wrong version of the DSM. He is using the DSM-IV which is the latest full revision of the DSM. The new one is actually coming out this year but it does not come into clinical use until it is released. I think what you are referring to is the DSM-IV-TR which is a text revision of the DSM-IV. That means that some of the language in the definitions has been revised for clarification but essentially it is the same as the DSM-IV. It is perfectly acceptable to use the fourth DSM and he had an abridged version of the text revised one so he was pretty much covered. It's acceptable by whose rules, Lady Ice?
There is a reason DSM-IV-TR was published. When you complete school would you be seen as using the most accurate information to date if you opted for DSM IVR (your r key must not be working as you keep forgetting to include it in the DSM -IVR). I'm positive you know the differences between DSM - III, DSM- IV and DSM-IVR, given your training. Again, this is another irrelevant point that Martinez has harped on to make an appearance of incompetence when all he showed yet again was that he has no idea about the field of psychology. This is simple information that anyone could find out if they really wanted to know the truth rather than try to discredit someone. Yes, we do use it in Australia and I am pretty sure it is standard all around the world. There is some criticism of the DSM though because psychology does not work in neat tidy little packages and categories. There is a lot of individual differences and overlap between disorders that aren't really accounted for in the DSM. DSM or DSM - IVR?
You can look at the autopsy here...
Redacted Travis Alexander Autopsy Report Thanks! I couldn't find the link but have really limited time right now. Will check it potentially tomorrow when I can go over it.
If you refer to the description of the nervous system it states that the dura mater is intact. The dura mater is a thick membrane, actually the outermost of three, that encases the brain. A bullet could not go into the brain and leave the dura mater intact, it's like saying you fired a bullet through an orange but left its skin undamaged. Unless you have magic bullets, it's not going to happen. The brain did show decomposition which rendered it soft but it was sturdy enough to take multiple sections and determine that there were no visible signs of trauma. The ME said that a bullet to the brain causes massive trauma, if that is true then there is no evidence of it in the autopsy in the trial? Can you give me that reference please? What I heard/saw was it usually would do that; however, he had such minimal brain trauma due to bleeding out first. . The dura mater would have had trauma and the brain would have at least some evidence of it. It certainly wouldn't have shown symmetry (both hemispheres looked the same) as the autopsy states because the bullet would have only gone through the right frontal lobe if it had hit the brain.
The trajectory of the bullet goes from just above the right brow down to the left cheek. Yes it would have damaged the skull which accounts for the small amount of bleeding within the skull, but most of the bleeding would have been outside the head and into the sinus which would have almost certainly been damaged.
I'm happy to stand corrected on all of that but that is my understanding of the report. I do know something of the brain after studying it for four years. Those studies included biopsychology which deals with the physical aspects of the brain only, structure and chemistry and so forth. I don't however know that much about autopsy terminology and intact may not mean what I think it does. I take it to mean it is whole and in place, undamaged. It could very well mean that it was just where it should be and not refer to any holes through it at all. Other places in the autopsy tend to list any damage to organs though, describing the general health of it before the trauma and what has happened to it. I am just assuming that the same would apply in the description of the dura mater as well.
After all that I can't remember anything else that you said . But you could look again as I did with your post
One thing I do remember you saying is that Martinez might be holding back his knowledge of psychology until later testimony or his closing argument? If that is the case and he does know more than he is letting on then he his being deliberately deceptive in trying to make a few small errors (that change nothing in the overall assessment) into some big act of fraud on the psychologists part. If he knows what the raw data means and how he is wrong then he is being underhanded and trying to mislead the jury. If he has no knowledge of it, he should not be commenting on it anyway. Certainly he should not be attacking the psychologist in the manner that he was, yelling at him and slamming papers around like he was a talking to a naughty child. That display was disgraceful and I don't care how much anyone here loves him and thinks he is some kind of god. I really don't like his style at all and I would not be surprised if he has turned some of the jurors off just with this attitude. I think this is where you may not understand what Martinez has to do in a U.S. court. There may be a true difference between our nations on this one. No one has to like him, he just has to do his job and he's convicted around 300 people.
I have already stated where I think the psychologist was actually wrong. What the legalities are in regard to questioning his methods I don't know, obviously. I would assume if he can take possession of papers that the doctor is not required to give him and make judgements about their veracity based on knowledge he clearly does not possess, then surely he can ask him if an alternative test could have been used or why a certain line of inquiry wasn't taken. All I know is that the attorney was barking up the wrong tree and the unfortunate thing is that most of his audience would be as clueless as he is and actually believe that he had a good argument. I don't care so much about what that does to the case, if they throw out the psychologist's testimony then I would be happy anyway because I don't think it reflects an honest assessment. What bothers me is the way that psychometric testing is being portrayed to the general public, it makes my blood boil because I know the truth of what goes into creating and using these tests and I hate to see it being disparaged in this way.
I won't be around much this week, I have loads of work to do (on advanced psychological research methods and statistics coincidentally) so I may not be able get back to this thread for a while.
I think we are all busy.
Thanks again for the report. I look forward to looking at it when I have time. And maybe it doesn't matter in Australia, but in the U.S. there is a huge difference between DSM - IV and DSM- IVR. Samuels is using DSM-IVR as his source of info.
She sure left a lot of evidence and a lot of holes and gaps if this was preplanned.
Hi LillyLillyLilly,
It's nice to know someone else has traveled UT roads. Perhaps if you saw my question to Lady Ice 2 days ago when I asked her if she had driven the roads in NV, AZ and UT (which she didn't answer), then she may have rethought some of her remarks. I certainly would be clueless how much fuel would be required in Australia.
Depending on whether you believe Arias can't remember, maybe she forgot on the spot how to clean up and all the holes and gaps you mention. I'm sure "the perfect murder" has happened somewhere (Maybe Drew Peterson?), but usually criminals who plan murders and aren't hired hit men do leave things behind. I don't know that those who are obsessed enough to kill so no one else can have their love interest think so clearly after killing that person. I agree she didn't do a thorough job cleaning.
What I really don't know and hope someone with experience can answer is the probability of recovering ANY pics from the camera in the washer. I can only speak from my experience and I can state with absolute certainty one should NEVER wash flash drives as they are ruined in the washer. I thought the same was true with with the data cards in cameras too, but I don't know. Maybe different media cards do different things in water.
The way I read it (which could be very wrong), is the Mesa PD was surprised they could recover what they did from the camera and not all pics could be recovered. And after reading Det. Flores' report, Arias kept calling HIM to find out what evidence they had.
MtnStatesResident You may have answered your own question, if you are correct (in your quoted statement below) as to why the Dr. didn't do the testing prior to testing for PTSD
""Can a psychopath fake an assessment?" and the answer, if the psychologist was honest, would have to be a big "YES". An honest psychologist would have subjected her to a psychopathy checklist and a personality test before even bothering with PTSD or any other anxiety disorder given the nature of the crime. The most salient, if not the defining feature of psychopathy is the ability to lie and manipulate, assessment procedures are useless against them because they just use the information they glean from the process to be more convincing liars".
My guess is since the Dr. was hired by the defense to prove that Jodi has PTSD...That was the goal of his testing. The first thing they taught us in Research Methods and Statistical Analysis is to know who hired the researcher....Statistics can and often do lie. So, if the goal was to document PTSD, the Dr. did his job.
The Prosecutor is not the type man to get my vote in his demeanor....I haven't liked his questioning style at all, and said so very early in this thread. I think questioning in such a blatant hostile manner turns jurors off and can lose you the case. Things may not be as they seem, but this Pros. sullies the testimony that might win him the case.....and makes folks feel sorry for Jodi. He will not get his verdict. Just my opinions.
Very interesting thread overall IMO
Last edited by JanND; 03-25-2013 at 06:46 AM..
Reason: added text
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you use the DSM-IVR in Australia or a newer version or a different classification system? 
. 
