Jodi Arias – another argument for innocence

In an earlier article, I noted the lack of a reasonable, sufficient motive, and outlined the internal contradictions in the prosecution’s circumstantial case for premeditated murder, and evidence that shows there was no premeditation. For example, Jodi called Ryan Burns and told him to expect her at a time when she was supposedly going to be murdering Travis Alexander.

In addition, the evidence shows that Juan Martinez’ gunshot last theory is incorrect. Interestingly, most trial observers, even those who still believe Jodi to be guilty, agree – Juan’s theory was wrong.

But let’s see if it’s possible to “mend” Juan’s broken theory. Let’s suppose the gunshot was first.

What I would call the “Elephant in the room” is a large pool of blood outside the linen cupboard. This pool of blood hardly seemed to be discussed at all during the trial.


I claim this pool, in conjunction with another pool of blood some distance away on the bedroom carpet, is reason to strongly doubt that Jodi was intent on murder.


For these pools of blood to form, Travis must have been stationary at the location of each pool for some considerable period of time. But if Jodi is attempting to murder him, this is inexplicable. Travis, who is injured by the gunshot ( and who also apparently stood at the sink with his back exposed after bleeding near the entrance to the toilet ), must be alive, as he later moves to the other location where there is a pool of blood. Apparently he is not under attack from Jodi at this moment, so why does he lie here motionless, rather than try to escape?

It seems to me that the only reasonable explanation is that Travis knows that Jodi has no intention of attacking him, after he has been accidentally shot, as Jodi testified.

In my opinion, these distinct pools of blood are not compatible with murder. Similar considerations apply to Travis standing at the sink, apparently unconcerned by the need to escape or to face his alleged attacker.

Note: it’s my belief that Travis died just outside the linen cupboard, and not on the carpet, given the trail of blood we can see away from the pool of blood on the carpet. But whichever way around it was, the same argument applies.

Trial Index


4 thoughts on “Jodi Arias – another argument for innocence”

    1. The slashed throat was not “from one ear to the other” (albeit it was a deep cut).. But you don’t address the argument given here. And which pool are you referring to?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s