Summary of the reasonable doubt thread
So far, as of 4/11/24, we are still at Day One of the trial at the 34:58 time mark and we have 82 reasonable doubt points.
Day One of the trial is at :
During Day One of court, is it reasonable to doubt the state’s case since
(1) The state itself was not sure whether the death of Travis was planned and so charged Jodi with felony murder ( opening the possibility of self defense as a viable option ) at the 2:00 mark.
(2) The state itself opened the possibility that Travis died while trying to stop Jodi from fleeing due to the 2nd (alternative) indictment at the 3:00 mark
(3) The state itself opened the possibility that Jodi did not directly cause the death of Travis when
the state introduced another individual into the case (according to the alternative indictment ), meaning,
if the state was so sure that jodi caused travis death, why talk about anybody else, right people ? at the 3:20 mark
(4) If premeditation is so obvious, the prosecutor would have opened his statement to the jury , with the word “premeditation” or a similar word , so again people,
in the very opening statement by the state, it shows yet again another reasonable doubt as to the state’s case against Jodi at the 3:50 mark,
(5) The prosecutor says he is sure who killed Travis and yet in the indictment he says somebody else might have killed Travis, giving rise to reasonable doubt on how Travis actually died, again, giving us the option of self-defense at the 3:55 mark.
(6) Right at the opening statements, the prosecutor was either misleading the jury or was not being serious about the case when the prosecutor said that Travis died as a reward for being a good man at the 4:30 mark.
(7) The prosecutor clearly stated that Travis was pursuing Jodi (at the 5:35 mark) to the point when on 6/4/08 Travis was wanting sex from Jodi even though he was going to go on a trip with Mimi in a few days.
So where is the motive to kill ? in the light of the fact that
Travis himself implied on 5/26/08 that Jodi only wanted him for sex which in turn creates reasonable doubt since why would Jodi want to kill Travis who was willing to have sex with her even when he was going on a trip with Mimi plus
Travis clearly stated on 5/26/08 that he was addicted to Jodi which in turn creates further reasonable doubt that Jodi would want Travis dead when she only wanted sex from Travis as implied by Travis on 5/26/08.
Cases are about reasonable doubt and point 7 above points that out very clearly.
((8)) Could the defense team have convinced the jury to reasonably doubt that Jodi was the one enticing Travis into sex on 6/4/08 ? in the light of
the opening statement when the prosecutor clearly said (at the 8:20 mark) that
Travis was having a sexual relationship with Jodi and the prosecutor in his opening statement said nothing about Jodi enticing Travis into a sexual relationship.
So once again people, where is the motive to kill when even the prosecutor in his opening statement inadvertently implied that
Jodi was not enticing Travis into a sexual relationship but by implication
indicated that Travis wanted a sexual relationship with Jodi and since
Travis wanted a sexual relationship with Jodi on 6/4/08 even when he was going to be with Mimi in a few days, so where is the motive to kill in light of the following :
Travis clearly implied on 5/26/08 that Jodi only wanted him for sex
2. Travis clearly stated on 5/26/08 that he was addicted to Jodi.
3. Why kill Travis when Jodi only wanted him for sex ? to probably help him with his issues.
(9) At the 8:30 mark , you can hear the prosecutor giving the reasonable doubt needed regarding Jodi planning the death of Travis on 6/4/08 due to
the prosecutor himself implying that travis did not want Jodi telling anybody about her having sex with Travis on 6/4/08 ( due to Travis’ reputation of maintaining his virginal mormon status ) and
that is one of the many reasons, why Jodi did not call 911 on 6/4/08.
(10) At the 9:00 mark , the prosecutor again creates reasonable doubt which the defense team failed to point out.
Since the state implied that Jodi had a history of out of control behavior or violence, why was the opening statement more about insecurity and nothing about aggression ? when
the prosecutor clearly stated Jodi was a snoop, a very non-aggressive act which shows insecurity which has nothing to do with aggression which in turn
creates reasonable doubt that Jodi planned the killing of Travis on 6/4/08.
(11) At the 8:45 mark, again, the defense let Jodi down by not pointing out the following :
the prosecutor contributes to reasonable doubt when he clearly implied in his opening statements that Jodi showed no aggression, violence or rage for five months of her relationship with Travis and
the question is, how is that possible if the state at the same time implied that Jodi had a history out of control behavior, aggression and violence all her life, so again, contributing to reasonable doubt that Jodi planned the killing of Travis.
(12) So since the prosecutor clearly stated in his opening statements (at the 10:00 mark) that
Jodi broke up with Travis without any rage, aggression or violence preceding the breakup or after the breakup, can we reasonably doubt
the state’s position that Jodi had a history of violence or aggression or rage in the light of all her previous breakups in which there was no rage, aggression or violence ?
and by implication, can we reasonably doubt that Jodi planned the killing of Travis ?
(13) At the 9:00 mark, the prosecutor’s opening statement regarding Jodi being a “snoop” clearly did not indicate a history of Jodi demanding anything of her past boyfriends which in turn
did not show a history of aggression, violence or rage against her past boyfriends which again shows reasonable doubt as to Jodi’s plan to kill Travis when snooping denotes fear and not aggression or rage or violence.
(14) At the 9:00 mark again, the prosecutor creates reasonable doubt as to Jodi planning a killing of Travis since when was the last time a killer was a snoop before becoming a killer, anybody ? snooping, again, denotes insecurity, fear and shyness rather than aggression, violence or rage and
killers do not start of as snoops and progress to aggression, violence or rage unless Jodi showed a pattern of snooping before an act of rage, violence or aggression in her past life.
(15) At the 9:40 mark on day one ( link above ) the prosecutor once again in his opening statement creates reasonable doubt that
Jodi planned the killing of Travis when he clearly said that
Jodi’s reaction to what she saw on Travis’ phone resulted in a mild reaction and in the prosecutor’s own words, Jodi “ did not like “ what she saw instead of
flying into a rage or an act of aggression or violence and so,
what happened to the prosecutor implying throughout the trial that Jodi had a history of violence, rage and aggression ? anybody ?
(16) at the 10:00 mark, the prosecutor clearly implies that
he believes Jodi (regarding the breakup date with Travis) with no corroborating evidence which leads us to reasonably doubt that
when the prosecutor implies that Jodi is lying in other parts of the trial, he might not be basing it on fact since
in his opening statement, the prosecutor is implying that Jodi is believable without corroborating evidence.
(17) At the 10:15 mark , again creates reasonable doubt, when the prosecutor changes his mind about the definition of the “end of a relationship”, when he said
a breakup means moving back to Yreka, and so,
does it raise reasonable doubt when he implied in court that Jodi was still obsessed with Travis after she moved back to Yreka ?
(18) At the 12:30 mark, the prosecutor again creates reasonable doubt since he implied throughout the trial that Jodi had a history of aggression, violence and rage and so
one would expect rage, violence or aggression either preceding or during the move back to Yreka when Jodi knew the relationship with Travis was over, right people ? but
the prosecutor did not report even one incident of rage, violence or aggression by Jodi preceding or during the move back to Yreka.
(19) At the 12:55 mark, the prosecutor again creates reasonable doubt about Jodi’s history of aggression, violence and rage when the prosecutor clearly indicated Jodi’s good character when she did the following even though Jodi knew the relationship with Travis was over and she had to move back to Yreka :
(1) not asking Travis for the money to rent the U-Haul in exchange for sex.
(2) Trustworthy, since Travis trusts her to pay him back for the BMW
(3) hardworking, since she loads up the U-Haul all by herself without depending on Travis to do it for her .
( 20) At the 12:50 mark, again, the prosecutor in his opening statement clearly presented a reasonable doubt regarding Jodi’s history of aggression, violence and rage when
Jodi knew the relationship with Travis was over and
she had to move over a 1000 miles to Yreka and yet
not once in the week she was staying with Travis before the move, not once was there an incident of rage, violence or aggression.
(22) At the 13:50 mark, can we again reasonably doubt that Jodi had a history of aggression, violence or rage when
the prosecutor did not point out any incident of rage, aggression or violence when
Jodi did not show any out of control behavior when she was not at fault when
her BMW’s transmission was destroyed either due to Travis not telling her how to tow the BMW or the U-Haul company not properly towing her car or giving her the instructions on how a car should be towed
(23) At the 13:55 mark, again we see reasonable doubt when
the prosecutor implied during the trial that Jodi had a history of rage, aggression or violence when
the best time to show out of control or selfish behavior is to tell Travis that she was not going to pay for the BMW since
the transmission was destroyed and it was not her fault it was destroyed and
she could have easily blamed Travis or the U-Haul company for the destruction of the transmission but
instead of showing out of control behavior, the prosecutor stated that Jodi was willing to keep making payments to Travis for the destroyed BMW.
(24) At the 14:15 mark, is there reasonable doubt that Travis was very afraid of Jodi ? as stated by the prosecutor when
Travis was still talking to Jodi when Jodi was over a 1000 miles from Travis and
in the light of the fact that Travis was romantically interested in Mimi Hall and Lisa Andrews
(25) at the 15:00 mark, is there reasonable doubt that Jodi was still interested in Travis when she moved over a 1000 miles from Travis in light of the fact that Travis
he was extremely interested in Mimi Hall who was right there in the same city Travis was in ?
(26) At the 16:00 mark, we see two reasonable doubts in point 26, 26(a) Jodi’s intense sexual attraction to Travis and 26(b)Travis' intense fear of Jodi.
Is there reasonable doubt that Travis was very afraid of Jodi according to the prosecutor (26b) and yet
Travis kept in touch with Jodi even though she was over a 1000 miles away and even when
Travis invited Marie Hall to join him on his Cancun trip and even after Marie Hall rejected him as a boyfriend ?
which showed Travis’ extreme attraction to Marie Hall which Jodi knew about and that
is the main reason she moved over a 1000 miles away since
she told the detective she did not want to interfere in Travis’ attraction to Marie Hall (26a).
(27) at the 17:00 mark: is there reasonable doubt that Travis did not invite Jodi on 6/4/08 when
he clearly told Jodi he was addicted to her (5/26/08), when
he clearly told Jodi that she was his whore and she will do as he pleases and when
Travis showed his persistence when
he invited Marie Hall to Cancun even after
she rejected him as a boyfriend and even after
she was dating somebody else ?
(28) at the 17:30 mark: is it reasonable to doubt that Jodi wanted to go to Cancun when
the Cancun trip was just two months away but
she chose to move over a 1000 miles away instead of
staying close to Travis for only two months in order to persuade him to take her to Cancun
(29) at the 18:45 mark: the prosecutor said
Travis' dog was jumping up and down and excited to see Marie Hall, implying that
the dog was not hurt and yet
in court the prosecutor wanted to admit into evidence that Jodi was cruel to animals when
she squeezed her cat at one time for scratching her.
So is there reasonable doubt that Jodi was cruel to animals when she, according to the prosecutor was
raging on 6/4/08 and yet did not hurt Travis' dog, Napoleon ?
(30) When the prosecutor said (at the 20:30 mark) that
Jodi knew the access code to Travis’ garage, is it reasonable to doubt that Travis was extremely afraid of Jodi
( as stated by the prosecutor ) when
Travis did not change the access code to his garage when Jodi moved ?
(31) At the 21:00 mark :
is it reasonable to doubt the state’s case about planning when
the prosecutor accused jodi of altering the scene since
true alteration would include cleaning up all the dna and
getting rid of the body since
the car was already conveniently located in the garage and
since Jodi was able to drag the body back to the shower and
over a 6 inch riser without the help of the bed’s comforter, wouldnt it be easier to
roll the body into the comforter,
drag the body to the car and
dump the car in the nearest lake,
get a cab/uber ride back to finish the clean up of the dna and
since none of that happened,
is there reasonable doubt that anything was planned as indicated by the state ?
(32) At the 22:00 mark, do we have reasonable doubt against the state's case ?
We know that Jodi spent over 14 hours at Travis’ home when at anytime she could have been spotted by either
housemates,
visitors,
people calling the house and Travis mentioning that Jodi was over visiting and so
is it reasonable to doubt the state’s case that Jodi planned a killing when housemates were around according to the prosecutor ?
(33) At the 24:30 mark :
When the prosecutor clearly implied that Jodi was the killer,
is it reasonable to assume that
highly prejudicial language against Jodi before deliberations by
the jury could influence the jury in a negative way when
the court, including the judge, the prosecutor, the prosecution and
defense witnesses and even the defense team referred to the scene as
the crime scene or
referred to a crime being committed or
Jodi as the
assailant or
the perpetrator or
murderer, or
killer or
a killing had occurred.
highly prejudicial language should not be used in court and that
the defense team should have made sure in pre-trial conferences that the word “victim” should not be used to describe Travis since
if Travis was the victim, the logical conclusion would be that
the prosecutor is saying that Jodi was the victimizer or the person who rendered Travis to being the victim.
(36) At the 25:05 time mark:
Is it reasonable to doubt that Jodi planned the killing in the light of the fact that
she tried using a cup to clean up all her DNA from the scene ?
If she actually planned a killing, she would have taken her time to
get rid of all her DNA with a bucket of soapy water after having
got rid of the body and the car in the nearest lake but
we know none of that happened and so there exists reasonable doubt she planned anything.
(37) At the 25:15 time mark:
Since the prosecutor keeps repeating that Jodi altered the scene, indicating a plan,
is it reasonable to doubt that Jodi planned the death of Travis when
she used a cup to clean up her DNA from the scene instead of
taking her time with a bucket of soapy water after having got rid of the body and car in the nearest lake ?
(38) At the 25:15 time mark:
Is there reasonable doubt that the defense team did their best in pre-trial conferences that highly prejudicial language would not be allowed in court since
we know that the prosecutor used the word “killing” without qualification, meaning,
the prosecutor did not say “as a result of an alleged self defense claim” and so
we know the prosecutor was trying to influence the jury subjectively before deliberations without objections from the pitiful defense.
(39) At the 25:20 time mark:
Is there reasonable doubt that Jodi planned Travis’ death when
she tried cleaning up her dna from the scene by just
using a cup ? and
did not have any other elaborate way of cleaning up the scene after
getting rid of the body and the car in the nearest lake which did not happen.
(40) At the 26:25 time mark, the prosecutor is implying that
(42) At the 26:40 time mark:
Is there reasonable doubt that Jodi planned the death of Travis when it's obvious that Jodi was in a state of panic (which indicates no plan)
when she was able to pour water around boxes in the closet but
not able to pour water in and around the sink when water was readily available from the sink faucets ?
Did the defense team again let Jodi down by not pointing out to the jury her state of panic which could have been the result of her promise to Travis when
she promised to preserve Travis' reputation as virginal Mormon by saying she was never there and thus
giving the impression to the public that Travis was not breaking serious church laws on 6/4/08 ?
(43) At the 27:00 time mark from Day One:
the alteration of the scene, example, trying to hide blood with a transparent weighing scale, indicates a state of panic, rather than a state of planning.
Jodi’s state of panic (which the defense team did not care to explore)
could have more to do with Jodi’s promise to Travis that she was never there in order make the Mormon leadership think that Travis was not breaking serious church laws on 6/4/08 and so preserving his reputation as a virginal Mormon
Why did the defense team not prepare Jodi for trial, knowing that the prosecutor was going to talk about the alteration of the scene ?
And did Travis make Jodi promise that she is not going to tell anybody that he was breaking serious church laws on 6/4/08 and so
Is it reasonable to doubt the state’s case when
the prosecutor implied that Jodi planned the death of Travis by altering the scene with a towel and yet
the prosecutor was not able to explain Jodi’s state of mind that clearly pointed to a state of panic rather than
a state of planning when
Jodi used a cup instead of a bucket of soapy water to clean up DNA and
Jodi used water around boxes in the closet but did not clean the bloody sink when water was readily available at the sink and
Jodi used a transparent weighing scale to cover blood that could be easily seen through the transparent weighing scale and
Jodi used a towel but did not use the towel to clean the bloody sink that had available water
(48) At the 27:50 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
If the defense team did their job and brought in the right expert, could the expert have created reasonable doubt from the statements of the prosecutor, even though
the prosecutor knew his statements were not evidence but his repetition of scene alteration by an entity called "they" was intended to influence the jury and so
could the expert have used those statements to create reasonable doubt at least in one jury member ? and so
with the right expert
is there reasonable doubt that Jodi planned the death of Travis when
the prosecutor keeps repeating that “they” altered the scene, implying that
(54) At the 29:20 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
Is it reasonable to doubt the prosecutor's implication that torture was involved ?
The prosecutor stated “ it took some time “, meaning,
Jodi allegedly took time to
allegedly mount a violent attack on Travis and
by saying “ it took some time” the prosecutor was
implying that torture could have been involved, clearly directed at influencing the jury with that loaded phrase, to which,
the defense, as usual did not rebut with the right expert to show that adrenaline played a crucial role ( in not creating torture ) since
Travis was able to stand at the sink and not try to exit to call 911 downstairs and
how can it be torture since
the entire incident took about 45 seconds,
from the time of the accidental gun shot to the throat slash ?
(55) At the 29:25 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
Is it reasonable to doubt the prosecutor’s case when the prosecutor implied that
there was an alleged overkill situation when
the prosecutor stated that Travis was allegedly killed 3 ways ? and could reasonable doubt be present, especially if
the defense team had brought in the right expert to explain why an overkill is not possible due to
(a) All mortal wounds were inflicted within a 45 second time period and can an overkill be done in 45 seconds ? when
about 11 seconds (3 shallow stabs per second) of the 45 seconds was actually spent defending against Travis’ ferocious attack on Jodi ?
3 mortal wounds in about 11 seconds does not seem like an overkill (we will detail the wounds sequencing as Dr Horn testifies at the right timeline).
(b) Almost all the stabs except for two were about an inch in depth, meaning, no overkill present since
Travis was moving fast during those 11 seconds and if
Travis was moving fast, and we know he was moving fast not to exit (since most of the stabs were to the front of the body ) and
if Travis was not trying to exit as shown by his stab wounds in front, what was he doing during those 11 seconds ?
He was attacking Jodi since his blood was everywhere, including the toilet room and the weighing scale area, which again indicates the absence of an overkill situation.
(c) We know Travis spent some time at the sink during the 34 seconds (out of the 45 seconds ) when he was not attacking Jodi and
if it was an overkill, why would he be standing at the sink or
how could he be standing in the first place if it was an overkill ?
and according to the implication by Dr Horn, it was possible for Jodi to have helped Travis to the sink during those 34 seconds, again suggesting
the lack of an overkill situation and
(d) We know it was not an overkill since
nothing was happening during the 34 seconds of the 45 seconds because
an overkill would mean wounds being inflicted during those 34 seconds, right ? but
nothing was happening during those 34 seconds
and since
the above scenario was not explained by an expert, is it another issue for appeal at the ninth circuit due to
ineffective assistance of counsel ?
(56) At the 29:28 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
Is it reasonable to doubt that the jury was unbiased when
the prosecutor stated that Travis received the first mortal wound, a stab to the chest even though
he probably knew the impossibility of how that kind of wound could have taken place and
yet he told the jury on how that wound could have been inflicted, probably knowing that
the jury was already corrupted by the media bias even before the trial had begun and so
the prosecutor could practically “sell” even the most improbable scenario to the jury which goes to show
how ineffective the defense was in not challenging even the most improbable of scenarios,
an appeal issue at the ninth circuit
(57) And at the 29:45 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
We have several reasonable doubts within this point ( reasonable doubt 57)
We have come to the point in the trial where
it is obvious the prosecutor is not interested in the truth but rather
interested only in winning by leaving out
facts that raise reasonable doubt involving the entire scenario he was trying to paint for the jury and
probably knowing how corrupt the jury was ( corrupted by the media bias years before the trial started ) ,
the prosecutor probably knew that he could “sell” anything to the jury.
So what were the reasonable doubts before and during this timeline ?
that the prosecutor failed to address (before and during ) this timeline when
the prosecutor stated that Travis could stand and walk after getting the alleged mortal stab wound to the chest.
List of reasonable doubts before and after
the alleged mortal wound to the chest , not addressed by the defense team indicating
ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit:
(a) Travis was not staring at Jodi before the alleged stab even though
the last photo of Travis alive, showed him staring at Jodi and
Travis would have known whether an attack was coming
(b ) Travis arms and legs were not in the way even though
the last photo of Travis showed his arm and leg in the way of a stab.
(c). Shower stall was not in the way of creating a deep enough stab even though
a deep stab cannot be achieved with the shower stall in the way.
( d.) Jodi was not kneeling just before the stab even though
the last live photo showed a kneeling Jodi with the obvious question and that is,
if she was going to mount an attack, why kneel ?
( e ) Photo of the ceiling was not an accident even though
a reasonable person would think it was accidental and a sudden turn of events ( since
Travis did imply on 5/26/08 that Jodi did not deserve to be alive )
(f.) Travis was trying to get out of the bathroom to call 911 downstairs even though
the evidence showed him in the
toilet room,
in the weighing scale area and
at the sink, indicating, Travis was not trying to exit and possibly on the offensive against Jodi.
(g) Travis was trying to get out of the bathroom to call 911 downstairs even though
most of the wounds were in his front, indicating,
he was not trying to exit but rather on the offensive against Jodi.
(h) Jodi (who weighed 120 pounds) prevented Travis from leaving the bathroom even though
Travis was around 200 pounds and into
weight lifting,
boxing,
intense cycling,
wrestling,
relentless workouts and
MMA ( mixed martial arts ).
(i) Travis was helpless and could not leave the bathroom in
those 62 seconds (when he was apparently alive ) even though
the prosecutor clearly stated
Travis could stand and walk and
even when walking slowly for 62 seconds, it would have been more than enough to
reach the office downstairs to call 911 ( since
slow walking covers a distance of 4 feet per second for a total of 240 feet in 60 seconds )
(58) At the 29:50 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
When the prosecutor implied that Travis spent 62 seconds trying to allegedly grab the knife from Jodi,
is there reasonable doubt that Travis wanted to get out of the bathroom to call 911 downstairs
(during those 62 seconds ) when
the prosecutor stated that Travis could stand and walk after the alleged mortal stab to the chest ?
And the reason Travis did not try to go downstairs to call 911 could have been explained by an expert
( which the defense failed to call ) who could have explained Travis’ state of mind on 5/26/08 when
Travis implied that
Jodi did not deserve to be alive and
that rage building up in Travis could explain why Travis did not try to get out of the bathroom to call 911 since
we believe the right expert would have testified that Travis stayed to take revenge on Jodi as per the implication of the statement on 5/26/08 when
Travis implied that Jodi did not deserve to be alive.
(60) At the 30:05 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
Is it reasonable to doubt the state’s case that the throat slash did not have to happen since
Jodi allegedly knew the throat slash was not necessary but as
part of an alleged plan to kill Travis.
Is it also reasonable to doubt the state’s case when
the prosecutor might have implied ( later in the trial ) that
Jodi was behind Travis when the throat slash happened.
So what points could have created reasonable doubt in at least one juror regarding the state’s case against Jodi if the right expert was brought in by the defense ?:
(a) Travis’ rage on 5/26/08 while Jodi was the one calming down a raging Travis.
(b) Travis implied on 5/26/08 that Jodi did not deserve to be alive while Jodi was trying to calm down Travis by saying he was the “light to the world”.
(c) With the right expert ( not brought in by the defense ) could the expert have created reasonable doubt in at least one juror that
it was jodi and not Travis who was raging on 5/26/08 and
it was jodi and not Travis plotting on 5/26/08 and
Travis was the one on 5/26/08 who implied that Jodi did not deserve to be alive while
Jodi was the one calming down a raging Travis by saying he was “the light to the world”.
(d) If Jodi was behind Travis, the autopsy photo and report would have shown a cut straight in or a
cut angled towards the base of the neck and.
in order to conform to the autopsy photo or report, Jodi would have had to twist her hand upwards towards Travis’ jaw and
the question is why twist the hand upwards ? when a cut straight in or angled . more logical or easier cut.
(e) Would the expert ( if brought in by the defense ) have stated that
in order for the throat slash to conform to the autopsy report and photos ( according to the discussion in this thread ) Jodi would have had to either face Travis or Jodi was below Travis.
(f) Would the expert ( if brought in by the defense ) have stated that
the throat slash happened at the 59th second during the 62 seconds ( from the time of the accidental photo of the ceiling ( indicating a sudden turn of events ) to the photo of travis bleeding from the neck on the floor )
(g) Would the expert (if brought in by the defense ) have agreed with the prosecutor when
the prosecutor implied that Travis was not interested in escaping but rather
according to the prosecutor, Travis fought Jodi during those 59 seconds, time he could have used to escape through the exit.
(h) Would the expert ( if brought in by the defense ) have explained that
if Travis was trying to escape in those 59 seconds, all of Travis’ blood would be towards the exit instead of
his blood being everywhere including the toilet area, the weighing scale area, the sink area, meaning,
Travis was actually trying to get Jodi instead of using those 59 seconds to escape through the exit.
(i) Would the expert ( if brought in by the defense ) have explained that
Travis had ample time to get to his office downstairs to call 911 since
in 59 seconds, walking slowly, Travis could have covered a distance of about 4 feet per second and
in 59 seconds, Travis could have a covered a distance of 236 feet in those 59 seconds, enough distance to get to about 5 houses down the road.
(j) Would the expert ( if brought in by the defense ) have explained why Travis chose to use those 59 seconds to stay and fight Jodi instead of escaping ?
(k) Would the expert (if brought in by the defense ) have explained that
the reason Travis chose to stay and fight Jodi instead of
escaping was due to Travis plotting against Jodi on 5/26/08 when Travis implied that Jodi did not deserve to be alive
(61) At the 30:34 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
Is there reasonable doubt (when the prosecutor implies during this timeline) that
Jodi allegedly planned to use the gun, after having used the knife even though
Jodi herself told the detective what a hypothetical plan would look like, meaning,
Jodi had full knowledge of what she would have done if she actually planned a killing and that is
(a) The use of gloves
(b) The use of a gun and no mention of using a knife
(c) Shooting with the gun repeatedly
But what do we see at the scene ? no stippling and no contact wound and so
do we know of a situation when the person is dead and the use of the gun is over 30 inches away and not right near the head ?
So there is reasonable doubt that Jodi allegedly planned to use the gun after having used the knife, meaning,
if there was an alleged plan, the alleged plan would have involved
(a) The use of gloves
(b) The use of a gun and not a knife
(c) Shooting repeatedly
and an expert would have testified to the above in order to
convince at least one juror that there is reasonable doubt of any plan for the fact that
the hypothetical plan revealed by Jodi to the detective was not carried out and because
the defense did not bring in an expert to testify to the above, again shows
ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit.
(62) At the 30:45 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
We have the following revealed at the above timeline:
(a) The prosecutor clearly stated that
both the throat slash and the gunshot were rapidly fatal, meaning, Travis would have died within seconds.
(b) At the same time, the prosecutor implied that
Travis was still alive when the gunshot happened since
the prosecutor did clearly state, the gunshot was fatal, meaning,
Travis died seconds after the gunshot which means Travis was alive before the gunshot.
(c) If the throat slash was fatal and the gunshot ( according to the prosecutor ) was also fatal,
logic will tell us that
if Travis was going to die seconds after the throat slash but
still alive before the gunshot ( according to the implication by the prosecutor ) then
the gun must have been within reach of Jodi but
according to the prosecutor, Jodi chose the knife over the gun.
(d) Why did Jodi use the knife over the gun ?
would the right expert ( if brought in by the defense team ) have convinced at least one juror that
the reason Jodi chose the knife over the gun was because
Jodi was not thinking straight, probably because
Travis was still attacking her due to
the implication on 5/26/08 when
Travis implied that Jodi did not deserve to be alive.
(e) Could the right expert ( if brought in by the defense ) have convinced at least one juror that
there was no plan to kill Travis and
there existed reasonable doubt that
there was a plan to kill Travis due to
Jodi choosing the knife over the gun, indicating
a state of panic and not a state of planning a killing.
(63) At the 30:47 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
Is there reasonable doubt that Jodi purposely wanted Travis to die when
according to the prosecutor, Jodi slashed travis’ throat and then used the gun on Travis even though the throat slash was rapidly fatal ?
Why is there reasonable doubt that Jodi purposely wanted Travis to die ?
(a) Jodi had full knowledge of what a plan to kill would look like as she revealed her hypothetical plan to the detective which was:
1. The use of gloves.
2. The use of a gun but no knife
3. Repeatedly shooting
(b) none of the hypothetical elements of an alleged plan were present on 6/4/08.
(c) The use of the knife first and then the gun (within easy reach as implied by the prosecutor ) suggests a state of panic and not a state of planning.
(d) The probability of revenge on Jodi by Travis on 5/26/08 (when Travis implied that Jodi did not deserve to be alive) could have been the reason Travis attacked Jodi on 6/4/08.
Why did the defense team not bring in an expert to explore all four elements outlined above in order to
create reasonable doubt in at least one juror which suggests ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit.
(64) At the 31:00 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
At this timeline when the prosecutor stated that Travis fought,
is it reasonable to doubt the state’s case that Travis fought in trying to defend himself ?
Was Travis fighting to defend himself or fighting to end Jodi’s life ?
What are the indications that Travis was fighting to end Jodi’s life ?
Could the defense have brought in an expert to explain the bathroom scene ?
What would the defense expert have stated in court ?
The following are possible indications pointing to Travis fighting Jodi to end her life (note that
the following scenarios take both the state’s case against Jodi and Jodi’s testimony on the stand into consideration in order to
give a picture that conforms to the autopsy report ) :
(a) Travis implying on 5/26/08 that Jodi did not deserve to be alive
(b) Travis telling Jodi FKYB after being accidentally shot.
(c)Travis forming a left handed fist, wildly swinging at Jodi as indicated by the cut on the outside of Travis’ left hand as per the autopsy report.
(d) 11 cuts (that were not stabs) show that Jodi was not trying to kill Travis but
was probably in a state of panic, trying to stop Travis from attacking her.
(e) 11 cuts ( that were not stabs) were oriented in different directions and
since they were just cuts, Jodi could have made those cuts in about 3-4 seconds ( about 3 cuts per second ) and
in 3-4 seconds Travis would have been moving in different directions in order to attack Jodi.
(f) 16 shallow stabs ( the deepest was 1 ¾ inch ) shows again that
Jodi was not trying to kill Travis but
trying to stop him from attacking her.
(g) 16 shallow stabs also show a sense of urgency especially when
about 9 of them were oriented in the same direction ( on Travis’ back ) when
Travis was scrambling to get the gun from the slippery floor (after having knocked it out of Jodi's hand ) and
Jodi had no choice but to get the knife since
she did not know whether she had time to escape down the hallway before being shot.
(h) 16 shallow stabs ( except for about 9 ) were oriented in different directions showing that
in about 5 seconds ( 3 shallow stabs per second ) Travis was moving fast in different directions in attacking Jodi.
(i) Of all the stabs, only one was deep ( 3 ½ inches deep) possibly happening at the same time or
a second after the gun clicked/jammed in Travis’ right hand while
Jodi got lucky in a stab ( in a state of utter terror ) that went 3 ½ inches deep into Travis’ chest, cutting the vein near the heart.
(j) Dr Horn stated that somebody might have held Travis at the sink and this possibly happened during the time that
Jodi felt sorry for Travis after he had stopped attacking her and was on all fours, bleeding out.
Jodi might have urged Travis to go with her to the hospital since
she probably thought calling 911 would be too late but
Travis lingered at the sink ( probably contemplating a revenge on Jodi ) before he spotted the knife down the hallway,
thrown there by Jodi when Travis had stopped attacking Jodi after 9 seconds and after 27 wounds ( about 3 wounds per second).
.(k) While Travis lingered at the sink in order to contemplate his revenge on Jodi, he spotted the knife down the hallway and
due to his hubris and
not wanting a girl to win whom he considered to be his whore,
Travis lunged for the knife not realizing he was weaker than Jodi (at this point ) and
Jodi being one second quicker got the knife first and finding herself below Travis, slashed upwards.
The last wound was the throat slash that was 1 ½ inches deep and even though it was a shallow cut and not a stab,
the vein and artery in the throat are very close to the surface and easily cut especially with a sharp knife.
(l) Since Travis’ blood was everywhere:
in the toilet room,
the weighing scale area and
all the way down the hallway and
all of it was spilled in about 9 seconds ( 27 wounds at the rate of about 3 wounds per second ) it took Travis 9 seconds to attack Jodi and
he failed at killing Jodi (probably due to out of control anger and irrational thoughts after the gunshot) and
when Travis failed to kill Jodi and was bleeding out,
Jodi felt sorry for Travis, at which time, she wanted to take him to the hospital since
she probably thought calling 911 would be too late.
(m) If Travis was not trying to kill Jodi, you would see all the blood in one direction towards the exit in order to call 911 and
almost all knife wounds would be on his back if he was escaping down the hallway to call 911.
Travis had at least 45 seconds to walk down to his office to call 911 but
instead of using those 45 seconds to go downstairs to call 911 ( after the accidental shot ) Travis chose to remain in the bathroom to attack Jodi instead.
((n)) The last significant wound which is neither a stab nor a cut but
a contusion appears on the right side of Travis’ right knee which conforms to Jodi’s testimony when she stated
Travis lunged like a linebacker towards her (possibly slipping on the wet floor ) and
Travis possibly turned towards his left after realizing that the gun went off accidentally and
in the process of trying to avoid the shot, Travis turned towards the left and
bruised the right side of his right knee ( as per the autopsy report ) as he fell to the floor while grabbing jodi and
the gun being knocked out of Jodi’s hand and so
since the defense did not bring in the right expert to explore all points indicated above in order to
create reasonable doubt in at least one jury member that
Travis fought Jodi to save his life, we once again have
ineffective assistance of counsel , an appeal issue at the ninth circuit.
And so far we have:
11 shallow cuts ( not stabs including the 1 ½ inch deep throat slash )
16 shallow stabs
1 deep 3 ½ inch stab.
Summary of wounds so far:
(a) 1/4 inch cut (not a stab ) to the area above the left forehead.
(b) 2 inch cut (not a stab ) running at a 45 degree angle (to the base of the horizontal hairline )
in the lower left quadrant of the back of the head.
(c) 2 inch cut ( not a stab) running almost at a 90 degree angle to the cut in (a) above but
located in the top right quadrant of the back of the head.
(d) 1 ¼ inch shallow stab (right below the right ear).
(e) ¼ inch shallow stab on the right side of the neck, right above
the jaw line.
(f) 1 inch horizontal shallow stab located at the back of the neck on the left side about two inches below
the hairline.
(g) 1 ¼ inch shallow stab at a 45 degree angle to the base of the neck and located in front of the neck and
in the lower left quadrant.
(h) 1 ½ inch deep cut ( not a stab ) and 6 inches long across the throat.
(i) 1 inch shallow horizontal stab located in the upper paramidline (about 4 inches below the neckline ),
in the middle of the chest and at a 90 degree angle to the imaginary vertical line (that divides the body in half)...
(j) 1 ½ inch slanted deep stab with a approximate depth of 3 ½ inches penetrating a vein
( superior vena cava ) near the base of the heart and
the position of the stab is at a 45 degree angle to the imaginary vertical line (that divides the body in half) with
the top edge of the stab in the middle of the chest and
the bottom of the edge pointing in the direction of the right elbow…
(k) 2 inch horizontal cut ( not a stab ) right below the right nipple, ending about three inches away from
the stab to the vein…
(l) 1 ¾ inch slanted shallow stab at a 45 degree angle to the imaginary vertical line
( that divides the body in half ) that does not penetrate the abdominal cavity and
the shallow stab is located in the upper abdomen,
with a lower edge pointing towards the left forearm and
the upper edge making the 45 degree angle with the imaginary vertical line…
(m) 2 very shallow and parallel cuts ( not stabs ) measuring up to 1 ¾ inches in length located in
the front right shoulder slanted with the upper edge of both cuts pointing towards the
right side of the neck…
((n)) 1 inch shallow stab at the base of the back of the neck making a 75 degree angle with
the imaginary vertical line ( that divides the body in half ) with the top edge higher than
the lower edge that makes the 75 degree angle described above.
(o) 9 shallow stabs ranging from ¾ inches to 1 ½ inches all oriented in the same direction towards the
right shoulder, at a 45 degree angle to the imaginary vertical line ( that divides the body in half ) except for
one that has an upper edge pointing towards the left shoulder and
a lower edge almost touching the imaginary line mentioned above …
(p) one 1/4 inch nick along the side of Travis’ right thumb…
(q) 1 ½ inch cut (not stab) below Travis’ left thumb…
(r) 1 ¾ inch cut ( not stab ) in between the left thumb and left index finger…
(s) 1 inch cut ( not stab ) to the outside of the left thumb.
(65) At the 31:38 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
At this timeline, the prosecutor uses the word “presumably" when describing Travis fighting for his life, and
would the prosecutor have used the word “presumably” if he was certain that
Travis was actually fighting for his life ? and so
with the right expert ( if called in by the defense ) what indicators would the expert have pointed out to the jury and at least convinced one jury member that
Travis might have been trying to end Jodi’s life instead of fighting for his life and
could the following have been the indicators ?
Travis might have stayed to fight jodi instead of trying to exit to call 911 downstairs.
Travis had a full 62 seconds to get downstairs to call 911 if we go by the prosecutor's version of the stab coming first and
the fact that Travis stayed under both scenarios and not tried to get help downstairs by calling 911, shows that
Travis might have stayed to fight Jodi in order to end her life instead of
trying to go downstairs to call 911.
the fact that there were wounds on the front of Travis’ body shows that he might have stayed to fight or even end jodi’s life.
and because the above were not pointed out by the defense (by calling in the right expert),
do we again by ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit ?
(66) At the 31:45 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
This summary (reasonable doubt 66) assumes the findings of a hypnotherapist if
the defense brought in the right hypnotherapist to help Jodi with her memory problems including
"the fog" she found herself in after Travis said FKYB.
and the fact that the defense did not bring in the right expert to prepare Jodi for trial, once again
shows ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit.
Could the hypnotherapist have created reasonable doubt in at least one juror that
travis was extremely afraid of Jodi (according to the prosecutor in the course of the trial ) by
pointing out to at least one juror that Travis was not afraid of Jodi when
Travis was willing to go to the sink instead of trying to exit to call 911 and if so,
during this timeline, the prosecutor could not explain why Travis would be going to the sink instead of
trying to exit and calling 911 if Travis was truly afraid of Jodi unless
Travis was not afraid of Jodi as implied by Dr Horn when he used the word " unless" which means,
there was a possibility that somebody might have held Travis at the sink and so
could the hypnotherapist have suggested to at least one juror that
the person holding Travis at the sink as implied by Dr Horn (when he used the word "unless" ) and
that person
could have been Jodi and according to the hypnotherapist, Jodi might have urged Travis to go with
her to the hospital since
Jodi might have thought (according to the hypnotherapist ) that
calling 911 would be too late ? and so, we have again,
ineffective assistance of counsel in not calling in the right expert to explain the movement to the sink by
Travis and the possibility that
Jodi might have helped Travis to the sink in conforming to Dr Horn's implication that
somebody might have held Travis at the sink which in turn would have given reasonable doubt to
at least one juror that
Travis was extremely afraid of Jodi and so
ineffective assistance of counsel in not bringing in the right expert (who would have helped Jodi with
her memory problems and "the fog" she found herself in after Travis said FKYB) and so
in not preparing Jodi for trial, we have ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit.
(67) At the 32:00 time mark, on Day One of the trial, the prosecutor says Travis was able to stand up inside the shower and then go over to the sink.
Is there reasonable doubt that Travis was stabbed in the shower ? when the following happened:
The impossibility of a stab near the base of the heart with the following obstacles in the way
1(a) Travis’ arms were in the way
1(b) Travis’ legs were in the way.
1(c) The shower stall wall in the way of the momentum needed for a deep stab.
1(d) Travis staring at Jodi and probably knowing an alleged attack was coming.
2. The prosecutor implying that Jodi had a camera in her hand while the alleged stab was taking place since
the accidental photo of the ceiling was taken after the alleged stab.
3. Travis walking to the sink shows that he was not in fear of showing his back to Jodi
(68) At the 32:05 time mark, on Day One of the trial,
is there reasonable doubt that Travis was stabbed in the shower when the prosecutor implied that
Jodi had both the knife and camera in her hand while Travis was standing at the sink and
why would Travis stand at the sink showing his back towards Jodi if he was extremely afraid of Jodi (according to the prosecutor) and
why would Jodi still hold onto the camera (due to the accidental photo of the ceiling ) after having allegedly stabbed Travis when she could have easily put down the camera before the alleged stabbing of Travis ?
(69) At the 32:25 time mark on day one of the trial:
Is there reasonable doubt that Travis first went to the sink before fighting Jodi ( as implied by the prosecutor ) when
Dr Horn stated on the stand that somebody might have helped Travis stand at the sink ? and if
Jodi did help Travis to the sink, how could she be planning the death of Travis ? and
why would Travis go to the sink unless he felt that Jodi was not a threat to him ?
Is there reasonable doubt when the prosecutor implied that Travis was afraid of Jodi and yet
Travis was able to stand at the sink with his back towards Jodi and yet
Travis stayed to fight Jodi instead of exiting the bathroom to call 911, which gives us reason to believe that
Travis was not afraid of Jodi and its reasonable to believe that he wanted the knife from Jodi in order to use it against her
( 71) At the 32:30 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
Is there reasonable doubt that Travis got stabbed in the shower, tried grabbing the knife from Jodi and then walked over to the sink ? as per what the prosecutor is trying to say to the jury ?
In light of the following:
(a) The alleged stab in the shower which was practically impossible as per the points raised in this thread.
(b) Use of the knife would have resulted in the camera taking a photo of the ceiling from the floor instead of 3 or 4 feet off the floor which indicates an attempt to catch a falling camera and why would Jodi want to catch a falling camera if her plan was to use the knife against Travis ?
(c) Travis did not try to exit and instead went to the sink, showing his back to Jodi, indicating that Travis did not think Jodi was a danger as confirmed by Dr Horn who stated that somebody might have helped Travis to the sink, which points to
no planning since an alleged plan would have resulted in Travis trying to exit to call 911 if he thought that Jodi was in attack mode.
(72) At the 32:32 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
Is there reasonable doubt that the wounds on Travis’ hands were defensive wounds ?
In light of the following facts derived from the autopsy report:
(a) The wounds were cuts and not stabs indicating a defense against an attack from Travis since stabs would indicate an attack by Jodi.
(b) Except for a ¼ inch nick, there were no cuts on the right hand indicating that Travis might have had the gun in his right hand as Jodi was pushing his right hand upwards to prevent being shot.
(c) A cut on the outside of the left hand could indicate Travis forming a fist in order to punch Jodi or worse.
Since it took almost 62 seconds for the throat slash to happen and the prosecutor stated Travis was extremely afraid of Jodi, why did Travis not use the 62 seconds to get downstairs to call 911 ?
Is there reasonable doubt that Jodi was attacking Travis in those 62 seconds or was she defending herself in those 62 seconds in the light of what Travis implied on 5/26/08 when Travis implied that Jodi did not deserve to be alive ?
(75) At the 32:50 time mark, on Day One of the trial.
As alleged by the prosecutor, Jodi followed Travis around for 62 seconds after the first alleged stab.
Is there reasonable doubt that Jodi was attacking Travis by following Travis around in those 62 seconds or
according to the blood evidence, is it possible that Travis chose to stay in the bathroom during those 62 seconds and chose to attack Jodi ? since
his blood was in the toilet room,
the weighing scale area and
the sink and not all towards the exit in order to call 911 downstairs.
(76) At the 32:59 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
When the prosecutor made his opening statements and throughout his opening and through the 32:59 timeline he used the word “they”.
It is obvious the prosecutor used the word “ they “ because the prosecutor himself was not sure about the state of mind of Jodi, especially after
Travis said FKYB and use of the word “they” could explain Jodi’s altered state of mind, in other words, the prosecutor seems to give reasonable doubt that Jodi was the attacker and “they” being Jodi was not herself after Travis said FKYB
The defense could have pointed out the word “they” to the jury but the defense did not.
The defense could have stated to the jury that the prosecutor himself was not sure whether Jodi was herself or “somebody else” due to her altered state of mind and hence the word “they” that the prosecutor kept repeating in his opening statement.
So once again we have reasonable doubt that Jodi was the attacker since Jodi became “somebody else” in trying to defend herself after Travis said FKYB and
this was not pointed out to the jury by the defense, indicating ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit
(77) At the 33:11 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
According to the prosecutor Jodi used the gun after choosing the knife.
If Jodi’s intention was to use the gun, why not use it in the first place instead of the knife ? to which the prosecutor had no explanation since trying to explain it would have revealed no plans to kill Travis but instead a moment of passion (after Travis said FKYB) since Jodi had no choice but to defend herself (without a plan).
The prosecutor’s allegation that Jodi shot an already dead Travis due to rage has a great degree of reasonable doubt since the state’s own psychologist testified that Jodi scored much lower than the general population on anger, hostility, aggression, violence or rage and
if Jodi was actually raging on 6/4/08, she would have let the camera fall to the floor instead of
trying to catch it as indicated by the accidental photo taken 3 or 4 feet off the floor and so we have another reasonable doubt that Jodi was raging on 6/4/08.
If Jodi’s intention was to drag the body eventually to the shower in order to clean up any of her DNA on the body, then why create a further mess by allegedly shooting an already dead Travis at the sink instead of using the gun when the body was already dragged into the shower ? and so another reasonable doubt that Travis' death was planned.
Comparing both the prosecutor’s allegations of a plan and Jodi’s hypothetical plan that was revealed to the detective, we can see that Jodi’s hypothetical plan has a greater degree of logic.
Jodi told the detective that if she was planning the death of Travis, she would have used gloves and
repeatedly shot Travis in the shower in order to create the least mess and the ability to clean up the body in the shower.
Jodi's knowledge of a hypothetical plan which was not carried out on 6/4/08, should have given the jury reasonable doubt of an actual plan to kill Travis which the defense did not present to the jury and in turn clearly shows ineffective assistance of counsel, an appeal issue at the ninth circuit.
(78) At the 33:35 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
At the above timeline, the prosecutor stated that Jodi stuck the gun into Travis’ temple and shot him.
Two points the prosecutor misled the jury on and those two points by the prosecutor were disputed by Dr Horn and the autopsy photos
The temple is located on the side of the head behind the eye between the forehead and the ear but Travis was accidentally shot on the forehead and not the temple.
Travis was not accidentally shot closer than about 3 feet according to Dr Horn the medical examiner who testified that the gun discharged at a distance of three feet or more since discharging the gun closer would have produced stippling at the gunshot wound area.
The prosecutor probably knew that misleading the jury regarding the gunshot would be fine since the jury was already tainted as evidenced by the biased jury questions before deliberations.
We again have ineffective assistance of counsel when the defense did not challenge the prosecutor about misleading the jury when the prosecutor stated that Jodi allegedly shot the already dead Travis by pressing the gun to the temple of the dead Travis.
Also, the defense did not bring the detective’s interrogation of Jodi into evidence which if brought into evidence, would have clearly shown that Jodi had knowledge of a hypothetical plan (wearing gloves and shooting Travis repeatedly in the shower) but since the plan was never carried out, it should have created reasonable doubt within at least one juror that Jodi planned the death of Travis.
(79) At the 33:45 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
In the above timeline, the prosecutor says that Travis was probably dead when he was allegedly shot by Jodi.
The prosecutor himself is not sure whether Travis was dead or not, even after Travis’ throat was slashed.
If the prosecutor is not sure about whether Travis was dead or not after having his throat slashed, how could the prosecutor be sure about Jodi not accidentally shooting Travis ?
The above question was not posed to the jury by the defense, which again shows us ineffective assistance of counsel.
(80) At the 34:47 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
The word “crime” was used by the prosecutor during the above timeline and throughout the trial but
it is not the word “crime” but what the prosecutor was trying to convey to the jury and that it was the alleged crime of premeditation to which
we have ineffective assistance of counsel when the defense hardly emphasized to the jury that it was not a crime of premeditation but rather a crime of accidentally shooting Travis when he attacked Jodi.
(81) At the 34:50 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
In this timeline, the prosecutor used the word “kill” in implying that Jodi planned the death of Travis and yet the defense also used the same word in asking whether Jodi killed Travis instead of
asking Jodi whether Travis attacked her, which again shows ineffective assistance of counsel when the defense could have easily avoided using the word “kill” and instead concentrated on Travis attacking Jodi.
A competent defense attorney would have asked Jodi whether Travis attacked her instead of asking whether she killed Travis and thus creating reasonable doubt with at least one juror that Jodi planned to kill Travis.
(82) At the 34:58 time mark, on Day One of the trial:
In the above timeline, the prosecutor mentions the camera as being part of the plan to allegedly kill Travis and the camera as being part of an alleged plan was hardly addressed by the defense.
Why did the defense not ask the simple question ? : if Jodi was planning the death of Travis, why did she not use her own camera to lure Travis into the shower stall ? and by not asking this question, the defense again showed ineffective assistance of counsel in addition to not asking the other simple questions, for example:
Why spend 15 hours in Travis' home ?
Why use the knife when the gun was at hand ?
Why put the camera in the washing machine when it could have easily be taken away from the house ?
The above questions could have created reasonable doubts in at least one juror that Travis’ death was planned.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2980791382165767/permalink/3426803744231193/
No comments:
Post a Comment