1523 users online (307 members and 1216 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1676
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    518
    Was Travis in a toxic relationship with POS? Yes, according to Nurmi and Willmott since Travis abused POS, had sex with her, and shoved her in the closet. I don't agree with them.

    JM described Travis as a man who was manipulated, stalked, abused, and terrorized (Watch his cross of ALV), just couldn't get away from POS, then was murdered by POS.
    I believe and agree with JM. 100 percent.

    Travis was not in a toxic relationship. He was in an abusive relationship (by ALV continuum, in a terroristic relationship).

    Keep in mind Travis was a flirt through and through. And he didn't know how to be properly loved, therefore didn't know how to commit to any who truly loved him. This describes his relationship with Deanna and Lisa.
    No! he was never in a toxic relationship with anyone. He was in a terrorist relationship with POS.

    Hope4More, Sorry for being a MIA for so long. In process of selling my home, buying a new home and more.....
    My admiration of your intellect and appreciation of your posts are mammoth.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    480
    I think Arias is evil and dangerous. Even in prison, I think she is dangerous. Yet I hope she is going nowhere, will be fully punished. Do I feel intense dislike for Arias - hate her behaviour in court and what she has done to Travis, his family and friends? Yes. I see no need to call her names based on her gender. Nor do I see the need to paint Travis as a saint or a sinner.

    As for having no interest in Arias - I find her unusual. Not in a good way. Perhaps we can learn from observing the monstrous behaviour, self-indulgent lies and delusions. Studying a psychopath - live - in court - for so long was an opportunity for those interested in psychology. For me, Juan Martinez was the fascinating study. Watching him do his job under intense global scrutiny was interesting. Discussing the psychology interests me. Dismissing evidence to come up with far-fetched scenarios isn't what I enjoy most on Websleuthers. It was the brilliance of many of the contributors which attracted me during the first trial. The analysing of evidence, finding new details. All refreshingly different.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    7,614
    Quote Originally Posted by TrialWatcher View Post
    I think Arias is evil and dangerous. Even in prison, I think she is dangerous. Yet I hope she is going nowhere, will be fully punished. Do I feel intense dislike for Arias - hate her behaviour in court and what she has done to Travis, his family and friends? Yes. I see no need to call her names based on her gender. Nor do I see the need to paint Travis as a saint or a sinner.

    As for having no interest in Arias - I find her unusual. Not in a good way. Perhaps we can learn from observing the monstrous behaviour, self-indulgent lies and delusions. Studying a psychopath - live - in court - for so long was an opportunity for those interested in psychology. For me, Juan Martinez was the fascinating study. Watching him do his job under intense global scrutiny was interesting. Discussing the psychology interests me. Dismissing evidence to come up with far-fetched scenarios isn't what I enjoy most on Websleuthers. It was the brilliance of many of the contributors which attracted me during the first trial. The analysing of evidence, finding new details. All refreshingly different.
    Seeing a psychopath on the stand for 19 days was absolutely fascinating. As well as agile minded Martinez chasing her down her wordy trails and ultimately using those words of hers to trap her.

    Martinez truly tried three cases at once, winning all three. A domestic violence case. A pedophelia case. A murder case.
    He wouldn't let Jodi's accusations stand and in fact disproved them in the middle of winning a first degree murder conviction.

    Corpus Christi, Texas

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by pocketaccent View Post
    Was Travis in a toxic relationship with POS? Yes, according to Nurmi and Willmott since Travis abused POS, had sex with her, and shoved her in the closet. I don't agree with them.

    JM described Travis as a man who was manipulated, stalked, abused, and terrorized (Watch his cross of ALV), just couldn't get away from POS, then was murdered by POS.
    I believe and agree with JM. 100 percent.

    Travis was not in a toxic relationship. He was in an abusive relationship (by ALV continuum, in a terroristic relationship).

    Keep in mind Travis was a flirt through and through. And he didn't know how to be properly loved, therefore didn't know how to commit to any who truly loved him. This describes his relationship with Deanna and Lisa.
    No! he was never in a toxic relationship with anyone. He was in a terrorist relationship with POS.

    Hope4More, Sorry for being a MIA for so long. In process of selling my home, buying a new home and more.....
    My admiration of your intellect and appreciation of your posts are mammoth.


    Jumping off from your post...I think what bothers me about the term "toxic" in this instance is that I interpret it as implying co-equal responsibility for the dynamics of their "relationship," for lack of a better term, and that I reject.

    IMO, TA wouldn't have been immune from being victimized by the sociopathic POS even if he had no more than an average passel of emotional uncertainties, self-doubts, and the inner turmoil that can result from being young (yes, 30 is young) and trying to observe religious strictures that forbid what for most young adults is perfectly natural and desirable.

    The playing field between psychopathic predator and prey simply isn't level.

    I do believe that the emotional wounds Travis seemed to have made him more vulnerable to her manipulations and less able to banish her, even when his friends were advising him to do that. IMO, I think it's obvious she targeted him precisely because of those vulnerabilities.

    If she was just a plain vanilla abusive nasty manipulative person, then yes, I would call what they had a "toxic" or co-dependent " relationship. Sociopath and prey- not.

    Am I understanding how that term is meant?
    Last edited by Hope4More; 05-11-2016 at 04:11 PM.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    7,614
    To me Travis was in a relationship with a toxic person, Jodi Arias

    I'm talking about true toxicity — the kind that infects, metastasizes, and takes over your life. Here are a few classic signs of toxic people.

    Toxic people try to control you. Strange as it might sound, people who aren’t in control of their own lives tend to want to control yours. The toxic look for ways to control others, either through overt methods or subtle manipulation.

    Toxic people disregard your boundaries. If you’re always telling someone to stop behaving a certain way and they only continue, that person is probably toxic. Respecting the boundaries of others comes naturally to well adjusted adults. The toxic person thrives on violating them.

    Toxic people take without giving. Give and take is the lifeblood of true friendship. Sometimes you need a hand, and sometimes your friend does, but in the end it more or less evens out. Not with the toxic person — they’re often there to take what they can get from you, as long as you’re willing to give it.

    Toxic people are always “right.” They’re going to find ways to be right even when they’re not. They rarely (if ever) admit when they’ve messed up, miscalculated or misspoken.

    Toxic people aren’t honest. I’m not talking about natural exaggerations, face-saving or white lies here. I’m talking about blatant and repeated patterns of dishonesty.

    Toxic people love to be victims. The toxic revel in being a victim of the world. They seek to find ways to feel oppressed, put down and marginalized in ways they clearly are not. This might take the form of excuses, rationalizations, or out-and-out blaming.

    Toxic people don’t take responsibility. Part of the victim mentality comes from a desire to avoid responsibility. When the world is perpetually against them, their choices and actions can’t possibly be responsible for the quality of their life — it’s “just the way things are.”

    Severe borderlines, narcissists, sociopaths are toxic people. If you are tangled up with a toxic person you're in a toxic relationship, friendship, etc.

    Corpus Christi, Texas

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by TexMex View Post
    To me Travis was in a relationship with a toxic person, Jodi Arias

    I'm talking about true toxicity — the kind that infects, metastasizes, and takes over your life. Here are a few classic signs of toxic people.

    Toxic people try to control you. Strange as it might sound, people who aren’t in control of their own lives tend to want to control yours. The toxic look for ways to control others, either through overt methods or subtle manipulation.

    Toxic people disregard your boundaries. If you’re always telling someone to stop behaving a certain and they only continue, that person is probably toxic. Respecting the boundaries of others comes naturally to well adjusted adults. The toxic person thrives on violating them.

    Toxic people take without giving. Give and take is the lifeblood of true friendship. Sometimes you need a hand, and sometimes your friend does, but in the end it more or less evens out. Not with the toxic person — they’re often there to take what they can get from you, as long as you’re willing to give it.

    Toxic people are always “right.” They’re going to find ways to be right even when they’re not. They rarely (if ever) admit when they’ve messed up, miscalculated or misspoken.

    Toxic people aren’t honest. I’m not talking about natural exaggerations, face-saving or white lies here. I’m talking about blatant and repeated patterns of dishonesty.

    Toxic people love to be victims. The toxic revel in being a victim of the world. They seek to find ways to feel oppressed, put down and marginalized in ways they clearly are not. This might take the form of excuses, rationalizations, or out-and-out blaming.

    Toxic people don’t take responsibility. Part of the victim mentality comes from a desire to avoid responsibility. When the world is perpetually against them, their choices and actions can’t possibly be responsible for the quality of their life — it’s “just the way things are.”

    Severe borderlines, narcissists, sociopaths are toxic people. If you are tangled up with a toxic person you're in a toxic relationship, friendship, etc.

    Thanks for the explanation of how you use the word.

    What you list seems generic enough to describe a plain vanilla abuser more than sociopaths and BPD's, but I'm no expert.....

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Jumping off from your post...I think what bothers me about the term "toxic" in this instance is that I interpret it as implying co-equal responsibility for the dynamics of their "relationship," for lack of a better term, and that I reject.

    IMO, TA wouldn't have been immune from being victimized by the sociopathic POS even if he had no more than an average passel of emotional uncertainties, self-doubts, and the inner turmoil that can result from being young (yes, 30 is young) and trying to observe religious strictures that forbid what for most young adults is perfectly natural and desirable.

    The playing field between psychopathic predator and prey simply isn't level.

    I do believe that the emotional wounds Travis seemed to have made him more vulnerable to her manipulations and less able to banish her, even when his friends were advising him to do that. IMO, I think it's obvious she targeted him precisely because of those vulnerabilities.

    If she was just a plain vanilla abusive nasty manipulative person, then yes, I would call what they had a "toxic" or co-dependent " relationship. Sociopath and prey- not.

    Am I understanding how that term is meant?
    BBM
    "I think what bothers me about the term "toxic" in this instance is that I interpret it as implying co-equal responsibility for the dynamics of their "relationship," for lack of a better term, and that I reject." - That interpretation is exactly what I meant when I used the word 'toxic relationship' and I reject also.

    Nurmi described their relationship was toxic. The sex, lies, and dirty little secrets concoted mostly by Travis Alexander created the toxic relationship between the two. Some seem to partly agree with him. Nothing could be further from the truth IMO.

    I see Travis only as a victim of a cold-blooded sociopathic predator. I will always defend his character and his actions on June 4th. He was a delightful guy in so many ways. There was NOTHING more he could have done to prevent what POS did to him.

    But you knew this already.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    7,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Thanks for the explanation of how you use the word.

    What you list seems generic enough to describe a plain vanilla abuser more than sociopaths and BPD's, but I'm no expert.....
    It describes both. But in this case it describes Jodi. As we heard she's been diagnosed as BPD
    IMO

    Corpus Christi, Texas

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Land of Ago
    Posts
    15,628
    I just finished watching JM's closing for PP2 and truly don't understand the criticism some leveled, he clung, as he should have, to the mitigators and disproving them one by one, I think he did a fine job of it. Nurmi on the other hand, no amount of novel-writing atonement can cure the untruthful ugliness of his. Not to mention the long-windedness.

  10. #55
    Tex Mex and Steve (et al)


    I don’t believe Travis felt guilty, so I don’t believe he was vulnerable to having guilt be exploited by the POS on the 4th. I also don’t think what was said on May 26th is irrelevant simply because no matter what was said or thought or intended, she ended up in his house and apparently in his bed on June 4.

    I have no doubt at all that she would have killed him that day no matter what he did or did not do.

    Plucking those next to last lines about “addiction” from a 2 hour exchange in which, for the entire duration up to the last few minutes, quite the opposite sentiments and realizations were expressed, explicitedly and repeatedly, is IMO not only to take those comments out of context, but to entirely miss why he said what he did AT THAT POINT.

    Related. Here’s an alternative scenario to fear (or guilt) (or sex) being what opened the door for her on June 4, taking the full chat into account.

    Fonseco’s testimony was dishonest and abhorrent, but I do agree with her on one point. I think self-loathing is part of what fueled TA’s rage on May 26. Whatever the POS told him that prompted his email to her, it related at least in part to their sexual activity, and according to the PP2 foreman, she either had already told TA she was going to her bishop to come clean about sex, or she did so at this time and his email was sent in response.

    It’s not necessary to believe Travis would feel threatened by her going to her bishop to understand the rage he might have felt that the POS was posturing as a better Mormon than he, and the self-hatred he might feel about failing HIMSELF spiritually.

    The Gchat put in a different context.

    Just ten days before their Gmail confrontation, Mimi told Travis she was only interested in being friends with him. By all accounts, Travis plunged into a serious enough depression immediately afterwards that his friends were concerned for his well-being, even for his safety. Travis told multiple friends he believed he “wanted to kill himself,” and that he had f—ked up his life, perhaps irretrievably.

    He wasn’t referring to “losing” Mimi. IMO, he was in part coming face to face with what he believed to be the consequences of his own behavior, including not expelling the POS from his life, for all the reasons why he did not.

    Three days after Mimi denied him, on May 18, Travis wrote his “Why I want to Marry a Golddigger” blog. Excerpts relevant to the point I promise I’m in the process of making:



    “I want someone to love me for the Gold that is with in me and is willing to dig with me to extract it. I heard someone once say, “Speak to the king within the man and within the man the king will appear.”


    “Now obviously for this to work whether we are married or single we need to work hard every day to make the most of ourselves. It means that I must strive to spend my time laboring to be worthy of such a woman. Not only to be a man of ability but to the have the ability to see the women of ability.”

    “I believe like attracts like which means we tend to gravitate to those like us.”

    “I think all of us myself included spend much more time trying to find the right one, when we should be trying to become the right one. If you desire someone that is physically fit, the best way to accomplish that is to be physically fit yourself.

    If you want someone to be spiritually sound, the good news is there are plenty of them out there. However because they are spiritually sound they are only looking for people who are spiritually sound.”

    A good exercise to do is to take those lists we used to make in our adolescence of what we wanted in a spouse and update them and then rate ourselves 1-10 on how we are doing in those categories ourselves. It is an eye opener.

    I realized the reason I wasn’t married wasn’t because the type of person I was looking for doesn’t exist but that the type of person I wanted wouldn’t be interested in me."


    "I have noticed that some remain frustrated at their spouse for various character flaws that they have. What they usually don’t understand is those same character flaws are in them too. In fact that is usually at least partially what attracted them to each other.

    If we want things to change in our relationship, we can not do it by taking a way the agency of another. We can only change things by changing ourselves.

    …….Only by working on ourselves can we guarantee results, because then if nothing else we have bettered all our relationships because we bring a better us to the table.

    Then by so doing we liberate others to do the same, we provide an example to others to follow suit."
    -----------------------------------------

    A day later, on May 19, Travis texted Taylor: “I physically can’t take it. I can’t sleep anymore. I need to get to the bottom of it with Lisa, “ and on May 24 that he had “made a mistake but I learned from it.”

    Also on May 24, to another friend, he texted: “I have to get all of this off my chest, regardless of how she takes it. I’ll feel a little better; (my need to do this) is “just unquenchable.”

    He sent like texts to other friends over those days, May 19-24, and wrote in his journal of the need to come clean with Lisa.

    On May 21, Travis began trying to reach Lisa by phone to initiate that come clean conversation with her.

    And on the same day, May 21, he sent the following texts to MariaM who he was almost certain was the POS:

    “ I would have been your friend regardless. The dishonesty just makes things worse in the long run and is harmful to others. I hope whatever made you act as you did, the Gospel will help you out of it.

    I knew almost from the beginning that you were being dishonest, and I think you know that. I was hoping you would come clean and then I could help you, but no luck. Anyway, I wish you the best and hold no grudges.

    I forgive you, whoever you are, but you need to come clean. I need to know who you really are. Please just come clean and tell me the truth. All of it, not just part. You’ll feel better.”


    Fast forward to the May 26 chat. In proper order, thematically, Travis first essentially challenges as a lie the POS’s stated need to go to her bishop. He moves on to calling her out as a liar more generally, and demands that she tell him the truth, including that she is not sorry. It is the POS who continually diverts the texting back to sex, not Travis, including by calling herself a whore, and it is she who first applies the label “addicted” to Travis, then to herself, an assertion Travis does not agree to, or even reply to at the time.

    Throughout, Travis’s focus is on her lies, and getting her to admit to them. She succeeds in diverting him several times into talking about sex, but in short order Travis goes right back to trying to force her to admit to her lies. He loses it several times, he returns after each outburst to insisting that she admit to her lies. She doesn’t.


    Travis changes course in the last few minutes of the chat. It’s then he says he’s addicted. He isn’t referring to sex, he’s referring to what he says he knows will be his inevitable forgiving of her transgressions. In these minutes, all his demands are reduced to one: “JUST TELL ME YOU ARE NOT SORRY.”

    She replies, “everything you said when you were playing the tough Travis is true,” but that it’s complicated to explain. Travis tells her to “say it with details, and be specific.”

    It’s at that point he tells her to call him, saying: “I don’t want bull shiz that neither of us believes, just call me and tell me, “I want to hear it because I feel it will be the first pure truth you’ve ever told me.”

    She says it will be difficult, and when TA asks why she replies-because sometimes the truth sucks.

    He tells her it (telling the truth) should feel liberating, then asks, right? Right? Right? Right? And tells her again he doesn’t want bull shiz.

    The chat ends there, followed by a 2-3 minute phone call, that was in turn immediately followed up by her email to him titled: “Two things- I did not slash your tires and I did not steal your journals.”

    He was asking her to come clean. He may or may not have expected she actually would. If he did imagine she was on the verge of telling him that first “pure truth,” he likely was all the more furious when instead she finally said what she had wanted to say since May 22 (IMO, the sex tape).


    The POS didn’t come clean with Travis on May 26, but two days later, May 28, Travis did with Lisa. He texted afterwards to friends how good it felt to unburden himself, how liberating, that he felt “happy as a lark.”

    He felt good about himself. He no longer felt depressed. He was jauntily flirting with Brooke and looking forward to the future. His belief in himself had been restored, and his belief in the power of “coming clean” had been reinforced.

    And just possibly, had the POS been paying attention on May 26 as I suspect she was, a more confident and relieved Travis may well have had handed her the key she needed to manipulate him just enough on June 1 that when she ambushed him on June 4, however distrustful he was of her that day, it wasn’t nearly enough.

    It’s a theory, anyway.
    Last edited by Hope4More; 05-11-2016 at 07:32 PM.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Tex Mex and Steve (et al)


    I don’t believe Travis felt guilty, so I don’t believe he was vulnerable to having guilt be exploited by the POS on the 4th. I also don’t think what was said on May 26th is irrelevant simply because no matter what was said or thought or intended, she ended up in his house and apparently in his bed on June 4.

    I have no doubt at all that she would have killed him that day no matter what he did or did not do.

    Plucking those next to last lines about “addiction” from a 2 hour exchange in which, for the entire duration up to the last few minutes, quite the opposite sentiments and realizations were expressed, explicitedly and repeatedly, is IMO not only to take those comments out of context, but to entirely miss why he said what he did AT THAT POINT.

    Related. Here’s an alternative scenario to fear (or guilt) (or sex) being what opened the door for her on June 4, taking the full chat into account.

    Fonseco’s testimony was dishonest and abhorrent, but I do agree with her on one point. I think self-loathing is part of what fueled TA’s rage on May 26. Whatever the POS told him that prompted his email to her, it related at least in part to their sexual activity, and according to the PP2 foreman, she either had already told TA she was going to her bishop to come clean about sex, or she did so at this time and his email was sent in response.

    It’s not necessary to believe Travis would feel threatened by her going to her bishop to understand the rage he might have felt that the POS was posturing as a better Mormon than he, and the self-hatred he might feel about failing HIMSELF spiritually.

    The Gchat put in a different context.

    Just ten days before their Gmail confrontation, Mimi told Travis she was only interested in being friends with him. By all accounts, Travis plunged into a serious enough depression immediately afterwards that his friends were concerned for his well-being, even for his safety. Travis told multiple friends he believed he “wanted to kill himself,” and that he had f—ked up his life, perhaps irretrievably.

    He wasn’t referring to “losing” Mimi. IMO, he was in part coming face to face with what he believed to be the consequences of his own behavior, including not expelling the POS from his life, for all the reasons why he did not.

    Three days after Mimi denied him, on May 18, Travis wrote his “Why I want to Marry a Golddigger” blog. Excerpts relevant to the point I promise I’m in the process of making:



    “I want someone to love me for the Gold that is with in me and is willing to dig with me to extract it. I heard someone once say, “Speak to the king within the man and within the man the king will appear.”


    “Now obviously for this to work whether we are married or single we need to work hard every day to make the most of ourselves. It means that I must strive to spend my time laboring to be worthy of such a woman. Not only to be a man of ability but to the have the ability to see the women of ability.”

    “I believe like attracts like which means we tend to gravitate to those like us.”

    “I think all of us myself included spend much more time trying to find the right one, when we should be trying to become the right one. If you desire someone that is physically fit, the best way to accomplish that is to be physically fit yourself.

    If you want someone to be spiritually sound, the good news is there are plenty of them out there. However because they are spiritually sound they are only looking for people who are spiritually sound.”

    A good exercise to do is to take those lists we used to make in our adolescence of what we wanted in a spouse and update them and then rate ourselves 1-10 on how we are doing in those categories ourselves. It is an eye opener.

    I realized the reason I wasn’t married wasn’t because the type of person I was looking for doesn’t exist but that the type of person I wanted wouldn’t be interested in me."


    "I have noticed that some remain frustrated at their spouse for various character flaws that they have. What they usually don’t understand is those same character flaws are in them too. In fact that is usually at least partially what attracted them to each other.

    If we want things to change in our relationship, we can not do it by taking a way the agency of another. We can only change things by changing ourselves.

    …….Only by working on ourselves can we guarantee results, because then if nothing else we have bettered all our relationships because we bring a better us to the table.

    Then by so doing we liberate others to do the same, we provide an example to others to follow suit."
    -----------------------------------------

    A day later, on May 19, Travis texted Taylor: “I physically can’t take it. I can’t sleep anymore. I need to get to the bottom of it with Lisa, “ and on May 24 that he had “made a mistake but I learned from it.”

    Also on May 24, to another friend, he texted: “I have to get all of this off my chest, regardless of how she takes it. I’ll feel a little better; (my need to do this) is “just unquenchable.”

    He sent like texts to other friends over those days, May 19-24, and wrote in his journal of the need to come clean with Lisa.

    On May 21, Travis began trying to reach Lisa by phone to initiate that come clean conversation with her.

    And on the same day, May 21, he sent the following texts to MariaM who he was almost certain was the POS:

    “ I would have been your friend regardless. The dishonesty just makes things worse in the long run and is harmful to others. I hope whatever made you act as you did, the Gospel will help you out of it.

    I knew almost from the beginning that you were being dishonest, and I think you know that. I was hoping you would come clean and then I could help you, but no luck. Anyway, I wish you the best and hold no grudges.

    I forgive you, whoever you are, but you need to come clean. I need to know who you really are. Please just come clean and tell me the truth. All of it, not just part. You’ll feel better.”


    Fast forward to the May 26 chat. In proper order, thematically, Travis first essentially challenges as a lie the POS’s stated need to go to her bishop. He moves on to calling her out as a liar more generally, and demands that she tell him the truth, including that she is not sorry. It is the POS who continually diverts the texting back to sex, not Travis, including by calling herself a whore, and it is she who first applies the label “addicted” to Travis, then to herself, an assertion Travis does not agree to, or even reply to at the time.

    Throughout, Travis’s focus is on her lies, and getting her to admit to them. She succeeds in diverting him several times into talking about sex, but in short order Travis goes right back to trying to force her to admit to her lies. He loses it several times, he returns after each outburst to insisting that she admit to her lies. She doesn’t.


    Travis changes course in the last few minutes of the chat. It’s then he says he’s addicted. He isn’t referring to sex, he’s referring to what he says he knows will be his inevitable forgiving of her transgressions. In these minutes, all his demands are reduced to one: “JUST TELL ME YOU ARE NOT SORRY.”

    She replies, “everything you said when you were playing the tough Travis is true,” but that it’s complicated to explain. Travis tells her to “say it with details, and be specific.”

    It’s at that point he tells her to call him, saying: “I don’t want bull shiz that neither of us believes, just call me and tell me, “I want to hear it because I feel it will be the first pure truth you’ve ever told me.”

    She says it will be difficult, and when TA asks why she replies-because sometimes the truth sucks.

    He tells her it (telling the truth) should feel liberating, then asks, right? Right? Right? Right? And tells her again he doesn’t want bull shiz.

    The chat ends there, followed by a 2-3 minute phone call, that was in turn immediately followed up by her email to him titled: “Two things- I did not slash your tires and I did not steal your journals.”

    He was asking her to come clean. He may or may not have expected she actually would. If he did imagine she was on the verge of telling him that first “pure truth,” he likely was all the more furious when instead she finally said what she had wanted to say since May 22 (IMO, the sex tape).


    The POS didn’t come clean with Travis on May 26, but two days later, May 28, Travis did with Lisa. He texted afterwards to friends how good it felt to unburden himself, how liberating, that he felt “happy as a lark.”

    He felt good about himself. He no longer felt depressed. He was jauntily flirting with Brooke and looking forward to the future. His belief in himself had been restored, and his belief in the power of “coming clean” had been reinforced.

    And just possibly, had the POS been paying attention on May 26 as I suspect she was, a more confident and relieved Travis may well have had handed her the key she needed to manipulate him just enough on June 1 that when she ambushed him on June 4, however distrustful he was of her that day, it wasn’t nearly enough.

    It’s a theory, anyway.
    It's interesting that you cite self-loathing as a motivator for Travis while I cite guilt, two closely related internal mechanisms.

    A major departure in the theories occurs in how Travis deals with each. In my scenario, a 'different' relationship with Jodi is necessary to liberate him from his guilt, whereas in your scenario, Travis' honesty with those whom he feels the need to be honest leads to his liberation from self-loathing.

    They come together again in that Jodi is able to use them both (or either) to manipulate Travis one last time, on June 4.

    In my scenario, Jodi holds the key directly, and is thus able to manipulate Travis easily since she is the source of his guilt.

    In your scenario, Jodi 'borrows' the key from Travis, that of honesty, and 'finally' comes clean to Travis on June 4, and thus enables a new dynamic between the two which enables her to re-establish her manipulation one last time.

    It's an interesting and sophisticated theory, and accounts for your belief that the guilt card between Travis and Jodi was out of play, she knew it, and found another card.

    Am I understanding this correctly?
    All of my posts are my opinion only, and reflect my point of view, and not necessarily objective truth.

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve44 View Post
    It's interesting that you cite self-loathing as a motivator for Travis while I cite guilt, two closely related internal mechanisms.

    A major departure in the theories occurs in how Travis deals with each. In my scenario, a 'different' relationship with Jodi is necessary to liberate him from his guilt, whereas in your scenario, Travis' honesty with those whom he feels the need to be honest leads to his liberation from self-loathing.

    They come together again in that Jodi is able to use them both (or either) to manipulate Travis one last time, on June 4.

    In my scenario, Jodi holds the key directly, and is thus able to manipulate Travis easily since she is the source of his guilt.

    In your scenario, Jodi 'borrows' the key from Travis, that of honesty, and 'finally' comes clean to Travis on June 4, and thus enables a new dynamic between the two which enables her to re-establish her manipulation one last time.

    It's an interesting and sophisticated theory, and accounts for your belief that the guilt card between Travis and Jodi was out of play, she knew it, and found another card.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    IMO, based on his texts, the May 26 chat, and what I know about tactics by BPD to maintain control, what Travis found most intolerable about the POS were her lies. They made him doubt himself on numerous levels, stirred up past trauma, and were anathema to him as the devout Mormon he in fact was, regardless of his lapses.

    I think what he thought in mid-May was what he said indirectly in his blog--that his aversion to her lies was in part because he had also been untruthful- to Lisa, and he found it intolerable to carry that burden any longer.

    I don't think for a minute the POS ever came clean with him about anything. She didn't pretend to, at least up until June 2, and then only possibly, and Travis didn't contact her to give her the opportunity.

    They spoke on the phone for about an hour on June 2, and she left Yreka immediately afterwards. It is sheer speculation, but what I'm saying is that the POS wanted/needed to get a sense of how he would respond when she surprised him in his own house on the 4th. I don't think anything she said on the 2nd made him feel OK about her, much less motivated to "take her back" or any such thing. But I do think she may have looked for and found just enough of an opening to feel confident in her plans to kill him, and that the manipulation she may have used was to approach him as a spiritual mentor, mirroring back his words about coming clean, etc.

    I don't think there was any new dynamic to be had, but then, she didn't need for one to be created. All she needed to do on the 4th was to get him to suspend his suspicion, distrust , and his contempt, for that matter, for long enough to put him in a physically vulnerable position so she could kill him.

    I think what she may have used against him weren't bad feelings of any kind, but his restored confidence in himself.


    Note: this is more an intellectual proposition than not, an exercise in connecting the dots in a different way. I do think his focus on coming clean (May 18-28) is meaningful, whatever dots that connects to or not on the 4th.
    Last edited by Hope4More; 05-11-2016 at 10:52 PM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    IMO, based on his texts, the May 26 chat, and what I know about tactics by BPD to maintain control, what Travis found most intolerable about the POS were her lies. They made him doubt himself on numerous levels, stirred up past trauma, and were anathema to him as the devout Mormon he in fact was, regardless of his lapses.

    I think what he thought in mid-May was what he said indirectly in his blog--that his aversion to her lies was in part because he had also been untruthful- to Lisa, and he found it intolerable to carry that burden any longer.

    I don't think for a minute the POS ever came clean with him about anything. She didn't pretend to, at least up until June 2, and then only possibly, and Travis didn't contact her to give her the opportunity.

    They spoke on the phone for about an hour on June 2, and she left Yreka immediately afterwards. It is sheer speculation, but what I'm saying is that the POS wanted/needed to get a sense of how he would respond when she surprised him in his own house on the 4th. I don't think anything she said on the 2nd made him feel OK about her, much less motivated to "take her back" or any such thing. But I do think she may have looked for and found just enough of an opening to feel confident in her plans to kill him, and that the manipulation she may have used was to approach him as a spiritual mentor, mirroring back his words about coming clean, etc.

    I don't think there was any new dynamic to be had, but then, she didn't need for one to be created. All she needed to do on the 4th was to get him to suspend his suspicion, distrust , and his contempt, for that matter, for long enough to put him in a physically vulnerable position so she could kill him.

    I think what she may have used against him weren't bad feelings of any kind, but his restored confidence in himself.


    Note: this is more an intellectual proposition than not, an exercise in connecting the dots in a different way. I do think his focus on coming clean (May 18-28) is meaningful, whatever dots that connects to or not on the 4th.

    Ahhh...so flattery, in a sense? "Oh, how I wish I could be like you, you're so spiritually aware and together, and I'm just a confused mess spiritually...."

    Like that?

    I understand this is all speculation, but it does make sense, and while the above does not require any actual honesty from the killer with regards to her past, it can align with 'honesty' in the sense of sounding sincere.
    Last edited by Steve44; 05-11-2016 at 11:00 PM.
    All of my posts are my opinion only, and reflect my point of view, and not necessarily objective truth.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    24,160

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by salberg7 View Post
    On a lighter note, I was grocery shopping yesterday and was disgusted to be bombarded with the pictures of killer on the cover of "In Touch" rag-mag. My beloved Prince was relegated to a small corner, and there was the killer in an orange jumpsuit with a photoshopped bouquet. I guess she now has star status with Drew Peterson and Scott Peterson, who graced many a rag-mag cover in their heyday as well. Yuck! Why? Why do we glorify murderers? I hope their sales drop. Only $2.99 (being sarcastic). And no, I didn't sneak read it in line.
    Also Steve, I wanted to "thank you" for your posts and insight in the previous thread as several posts were spot on. Sometimes my "Thank You" button works on this phone & sometimes it doesn't.
    And thanks to all the wonderful posters on this thread for being here to discuss this case that for some reason still has my interest. Yes H4M, my hubby looks at me weird too when he asks what I am reading and tell him it's about JA. I get an eye roll as he about faces out of the room.
    I did! It was a big come-on because on the cover it mentions gown, rings, flowers and when you read the article it states the AZDOC restrictions that she can't wear a gown or have rings.
    This is the year to locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin NamUs MP#876 and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff NamUs MP#6410 and bring them home to their families!

    Parents watch your children. Free-range parenting leads to more child victims.

    Cruelty to humans begins with cruelty to animals.

    I believe in closure, not forgiveness. I'm also unapologetically judgemental.

    JeSuisJuif
    JeSuisCharlie


  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve44 View Post
    Ahhh...so flattery, in a sense? "Oh, how I wish I could be like you, you're so spiritually aware and together, and I'm just a confused mess spiritually...."

    Like that?

    I understand this is all speculation, but it does make sense, and while the above does not require any actual honesty from the killer with regards to her past, it can align with 'honesty' in the sense of sounding sincere.

    Way more subtle, and deeper than that overt flattery. I only have a cursory understanding of a few Mormon tenets, but my understanding is that bringing someone into the Church is considered both a big deal, both in this life and the next life, and a religious responsibility.

    The Hughes have said that she used this very responsibility against him on numerous occasions when he tried to distance himself from her, trying to make him feel guilty for "abandoning" her as her spiritual guide.

    The tactic wouldn't have been new, just a different flavor, more similar to the numerous times in April when she texted him about Mormon -related questions/topics, then thanked him profusely for his knowledge and for being there to assist her.

    I'm not sure he would have even needed to think her sincere if she professed a need for his spiritual assistance to help her get right. I think he might have felt obligated to not turn her away, at the very least, and given his own recent experience with Lisa, perhaps tentatively encouraged she was at least trying.

    Does all that fit in with ending up in bed? No more or less than it ever had before.

Page 4 of 112 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 104 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8
    By Coldpizza in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 578
    Last Post: 10-21-2017, 06:02 PM
  2. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #6
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1416
    Last Post: 05-10-2016, 02:19 PM
  3. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1647
    Last Post: 03-26-2016, 09:56 PM
  4. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #4
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1253
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 09:48 PM
  5. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #3
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1365
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 11:35 PM

Tags for this Thread