Did Jodi Arias slash victim's tires before killing him?, Jodi Arias trial update, April 29, 2013: ABC News reported that the jury never saw the police complaint regarding Travis Alexander's slashed tires. This interesting update reveals that there is certainly evidence being disregarded that could be further used to convict the accused murderess. But does this evidence point to any premeditation on Jodi's part?
In February of 2008, approximately four months before his murder, Travis Alexander placed a call to Mesa authorities regarding criminal damage done to his vehicle. His tires were reportedly slashed, but he did not share the name of who he might think was responsible at the time. Throughout the course of this case Jodi Arias has been referred to as a stalker, so is it possible that she is the one who slashed his tires? The accusation has certainly been brought up before. This HLN report indicates that Travis believed it was Jodi who slashed his tires.
If Jodi slashed Travis's tires four months before killing him, would this mean her "self defense" claims are completely false? Public opinion already appears to rest on the concept that she's lying about the abuse, so it isn't known whether or not this information would even be useful in the trial. Do you think the jury should have had the option to decide for themselves if this was relevant?
In February of 2008, approximately four months before his murder, Travis Alexander placed a call to Mesa authorities regarding criminal damage done to his vehicle. His tires were reportedly slashed, but he did not share the name of who he might think was responsible at the time. Throughout the course of this case Jodi Arias has been referred to as a stalker, so is it possible that she is the one who slashed his tires? The accusation has certainly been brought up before. This HLN report indicates that Travis believed it was Jodi who slashed his tires.
If Jodi slashed Travis's tires four months before killing him, would this mean her "self defense" claims are completely false? Public opinion already appears to rest on the concept that she's lying about the abuse, so it isn't known whether or not this information would even be useful in the trial. Do you think the jury should have had the option to decide for themselves if this was relevant?
No comments:
Post a Comment