Jodi Arias Trial Watchers Thread #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just re-watched NG tonight to attempt to pseudo-transcribe what Taylor Searle stated about the Oral and Anal sex being less of a sin than vaginal sex in the Mormon religion (NG's question- not mine).

Taylor stated the Mormon religion is very strict about having sex before marriage. There "is a lot of grey area" that Mormon men have considered about their sexualization. he doesn't agree with this interpretation and there is nothing in the Mormon religion that states what is allowed and what is not. Searles stated "Everyone has been there before, finding the lines that they will or will not cross". Searles furthered that he did not know the context where or how Travis said that but he "could imagine every Mormon guy has had those thoughts about what is and what is not allowed". NG attemped to interrupt and say "or even if Travis said it" and Taylor agreed "if" he said it at all.

Taylor also stated he did not like Arias because she was so posessive of Travis and his home. Taylor had gone to TA's home to bake cookies with a bunch of other people. He used to be Travis' roommate and had been @ the home many times. JA answered the door and said something like "welcome to my home". Taylor thought . . . wait - who are you and why are you here?

Taylor also stated he asked TA if he thought JA might be violent - given the escalation of behaviors . . . TA replied something to the effect of she's harmless - what could she do?

**I just wanted to add that I am not posting this information to "blame the victim" in anyway. Only to add that there is some credibility to JA's statement about the sex. I think this played a role in her rage toward TA. She was good enough to be a "****** buddy" but not good enough to take to Cancun or to become his wife or partner for eternity. JA had been living with another man before she met TA. He wanted her to date and be baptised in the LDS faith - but later realized how unstable she was (I imagine). I am not sure how he could have completely severed the relationship with JA. I think she was so obsessed with him that she would have done anything to keep him or never allow him to be with another woman.

Please do not become offended by my post - I am not trying to upset anyone or enrage people. I am merely a messenger of my own experiences and how "common" Travis's friend thought the rationalization of sexual do's and don'ts for "every Mormon".
 
Just trying to catch up tonight and wanted to add my :twocents: about why a knife may have come into the picture. I posted a day or two ago that I was curious about the crime photo showing duct tape wadded up, looking like it may have bound someone's hands. As you may know, duct tape once stuck together is near impossible to get off of something. My guess is that the knife was used to cut the duct tape to remove it. I'm still trying to figure out if the duct tape was used to bind someone. Hoping this will be explained soon.

ETA: My view on sex and man and woman. I go back to the old saying: Women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex. Maybe she tricked him into a last blast for old times sake and he couldn't say no to the sex.

BBM - I haven't heard this old saying but it was worth repeating! I think your theory about the knife may be right on. It would explain how a knife is so readily available without being a "threatening item" until the very moment it is used as a weapon.
 
Hi borndem!

That's the million dollar question! They must have something, right, or they wouldn't be in court. We know there are emails, phone recordings and a DV expert.

I'm wondering whether the prosecution will be brief in its case in chief, the defense will then attempt to bring in lots of stuff to prove "abuse" and chronology, which they will argue about, and then the prosecution will do a lot of refuting the defense assertions.

But I can't imagine how the defense can present a plausible explanation to support that she feared for her life based on a series of events without JA testifying. Who else is there to offer the defense's version?

I think that defense is working in a little bit of the Mary Winkler defense. I'm still going with door no. 2 the Fatal Attraction motive
 
ha! no doubt. Did you read about the mom of 3 busted for going to a hotel to have sex with a dog. Phx pd busted her from the craigslist ad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-solicit-dog-sex-AVOID-prison-sentence.html
OMG! Am I reading that right? Was that the second set of people that that sheriff has arrested for trying to get dogs to have sex with on CL?
He makes it sound like it's happened before and he contacted CL to ask them to monitor for that type of activity and since these people were arrested he assumes they still do not monitor for people trying to get animals off there for sex! w.t.h. is wrong with people!?!
 
ETA: My view on sex and man and woman. I go back to the old saying: Women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex. Maybe she tricked him into a last blast for old times sake and he couldn't say no to the sex.

She tricked him into sex and he couldn't say no? Yet some think the case will be biased in favor of the woman?
 
I agree with what you said about the tassels and French maid's outfits. But, I must point out that many people use bondage suits and collars in their regular sexual life. I personally don't think that abusers need any props to beat and rape. People who are into fetish sex are generally not abusers. This sexual partnership includes a dominant and a submissive and is purely a non-conventional sexual style.

LOL, I thought about a "Master/Slave" situation while reading and hearing the evidence. I think it is very plausible. Could explain the t-shirt too.
 
OMG! Am I reading that right? Was that the second set of people that that sheriff has arrested for trying to get dogs to have sex with on CL?
He makes it sound like it's happened before and he contacted CL to ask them to monitor for that type of activity and since these people were arrested he assumes they still do not monitor for people trying to get animals off there for sex! w.t.h. is wrong with people!?!

You're reading it right and it's COMMON! The light was shined on it in the example, but it goes on all day every day and not just in the PHX.
 
She tricked him into sex and he couldn't say no? Yet some think the case will be biased in favor of the woman?

Well, she did drive hundreds of miles to see him prior to his vacation. He did make the remark about him being just a "dildo with a heartbeat" to her. And I believe that she was going to give him one last try to change his mind about going with the other woman to Cancun. I think the sex was a way to help him change his mind, only it didn't work so she moved on to her next plan.
 
I just re-watched NG tonight to attempt to pseudo-transcribe what Taylor Searle stated about the Oral and Anal sex being less of a sin than vaginal sex in the Mormon religion (NG's question- not mine).

Taylor stated the Mormon religion is very strict about having sex before marriage. There "is a lot of grey area" that Mormon men have considered about their sexualization. he doesn't agree with this interpretation and there is nothing in the Mormon religion that states what is allowed and what is not. Searles stated "Everyone has been there before, finding the lines that they will or will not cross". Searles furthered that he did not know the context where or how Travis said that but he "could imagine every Mormon guy has had those thoughts about what is and what is not allowed". NG attemped to interrupt and say "or even if Travis said it" and Taylor agreed "if" he said it at all.

Taylor also stated he did not like Arias because she was so posessive of Travis and his home. Taylor had gone to TA's home to bake cookies with a bunch of other people. He used to be Travis' roommate and had been @ the home many times. JA answered the door and said something like "welcome to my home". Taylor thought . . . wait - who are you and why are you here?

Taylor also stated he asked TA if he thought JA might be violent - given the escalation of behaviors . . . TA replied something to the effect of she's harmless - what could she do?

**I just wanted to add that I am not posting this information to "blame the victim" in anyway. Only to add that there is some credibility to JA's statement about the sex. I think this played a role in her rage toward TA. She was good enough to be a "****** buddy" but not good enough to take to Cancun or to become his wife or partner for eternity. JA had been living with another man before she met TA. He wanted her to date and be baptised in the LDS faith - but later realized how unstable she was (I imagine). I am not sure how he could have completely severed the relationship with JA. I think she was so obsessed with him that she would have done anything to keep him or never allow him to be with another woman.

Please do not become offended by my post - I am not trying to upset anyone or enrage people. I am merely a messenger of my own experiences and how "common" Travis's friend thought the rationalization of sexual do's and don'ts for "every Mormon".

Thanks for re-watching NG, that couldn't have been easy!
 
I just re-watched NG tonight to attempt to pseudo-transcribe what Taylor Searle stated about the Oral and Anal sex being less of a sin than vaginal sex in the Mormon religion (NG's question- not mine).

Taylor stated the Mormon religion is very strict about having sex before marriage. There "is a lot of grey area" that Mormon men have considered about their sexualization. he doesn't agree with this interpretation and there is nothing in the Mormon religion that states what is allowed and what is not. Searles stated "Everyone has been there before, finding the lines that they will or will not cross". Searles furthered that he did not know the context where or how Travis said that but he "could imagine every Mormon guy has had those thoughts about what is and what is not allowed". NG attemped to interrupt and say "or even if Travis said it" and Taylor agreed "if" he said it at all.

Taylor also stated he did not like Arias because she was so posessive of Travis and his home. Taylor had gone to TA's home to bake cookies with a bunch of other people. He used to be Travis' roommate and had been @ the home many times. JA answered the door and said something like "welcome to my home". Taylor thought . . . wait - who are you and why are you here?

Taylor also stated he asked TA if he thought JA might be violent - given the escalation of behaviors . . . TA replied something to the effect of she's harmless - what could she do?

**I just wanted to add that I am not posting this information to "blame the victim" in anyway. Only to add that there is some credibility to JA's statement about the sex. I think this played a role in her rage toward TA. She was good enough to be a "****** buddy" but not good enough to take to Cancun or to become his wife or partner for eternity. JA had been living with another man before she met TA. He wanted her to date and be baptised in the LDS faith - but later realized how unstable she was (I imagine). I am not sure how he could have completely severed the relationship with JA. I think she was so obsessed with him that she would have done anything to keep him or never allow him to be with another woman.

Please do not become offended by my post - I am not trying to upset anyone or enrage people. I am merely a messenger of my own experiences and how "common" Travis's friend thought the rationalization of sexual do's and don'ts for "every Mormon".

And to add to what Wenwe4 posted, in the Mormon church masterbation before or after marriage is major sin. It can keep a person from serving a mission until he/she goes through the repentence process and a male may be barred from blessing/passing the sacrament until repenting. There are also recovery groups one can join for addiction to masterbation. There is no sexual release at all, except nocturnal emissions, well, for the males anyway, when they are single if they are keeping all the commandments of the Mormon church. Alot of pressure IMHO.
 
BBM - I haven't heard this old saying but it was worth repeating! I think your theory about the knife may be right on. It would explain how a knife is so readily available without being a "threatening item" until the very moment it is used as a weapon.

But it still doesn't explain why it is in the bathroom.
 
Hi, Boodles!! Good to "see" you on here!

You make good points about Jodi needing to testify, Boods. Unless they put on some expert on how abuse/verbal cruelty affects someone, etc., etc., etc., and so forth -- and if this, we will prolly see more than one (verrrrrrrry exciting testimony <gag>). You can do just so much in a closing argument....

After watching her tv interviews I think she would most likely want to testify. She is so smug and sure that the jury will not find her guilty. I'm sure her attorneys will have a large task ahead of them to keep her from testifying.
 
I don't care how many sins Travis committed Jodi Arais took his life and she needs to pay for what she did.

I HOPE like hell........ the jury remembers what she said in that"Inside Edition" episode " No jury will ever convict me, mark my words, no jury will convict me".

Travis IS the victim. period. end of story. but someone forgot to tell Jodi that.

and for some reason they let her off the hook like some other well known figure, I hope her life is a living hell like KC's is.
 
Well, she did drive hundreds of miles to see him prior to his vacation. He did make the remark about him being just a "dildo with a heartbeat" to her. And I believe that she was going to give him one last try to change his mind about going with the other woman to Cancun. I think the sex was a way to help him change his mind, only it didn't work so she moved on to her next plan.

Agreed. But there was no tricking involved and "no" is supposed to always be an option and the absolute answer to any sexual aggression, right? I think she's a total pyscho, but I think Travis and his friends did, too. They've pretty much said as much. So, do you have crazy raunchy sex with your psycho stalker in your house days, if not hours, before you're to leave on a tropical vacation with someone who's worthy of your attention -- unlike the three-holed-wonder you're effing at the moment. I don't think self-defense is going to work here, and I REALLY don't understand why they're not claiming 2nd degree heat of passion.
 
She could have just walked back into the bedroom and grabbed it while he was in the shower.

But it still doesn't explain why it is in the bathroom.

Possible she was duct taped in the bathroom. Knife in the bathroom to cut a length of tape and then cut off of her in the bathroom. Possibly they liked watching themselves in the mirror. They liked taking pictures. Just a thought.
 
Tomorrow in court they are going to show more pictures of the crime scene. Beth from TruTV says they are going to show the area where she slit his throat in the hallway and other photos.

This poor guy imo was trying to get away from her. I think she took that picture of him in the shower and for some reason he came out and she stabbed him by the sink. They said he was probably spitting up blood over the sink then I think he tried to leave and she stabbed him in his back over and over again where he collasped in the hallway.

Its just to horrible to even write it.


:please: Prayers for his family and his friends.
 
I think the defense's fallback position will be to try to sway the jury to 2nd degree if they simply don't believe it was self-defense. They are trying first to get Arias acquitted (as defense attorneys they have to do their best for their client), and will ask the jury to consider the circumstances of all this activity taking place within 1 to 3 minutes of time. With 2nd degree their client could get out of prison someday. Not someday soon, but eventually, decades later.

So naturally any defense attorney will try to get their client off as a best case scenario (they know this is a longshot). And if that fails, try to get the jury to see this as a "crime of passion" level of murder.
 
The defense did not want evidence of the gun theft. They did not want her polygraph in, or her interviews. And they did not want the Dp on the table.


GN all
 
The defense did not want evidence of the gun theft. They did not want her polygraph in, or her interviews. And they did not want the Dp on the table.


GN all

She took a polygraph and failed?

If true ..,,,

I'm shocked!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
2,578
Total visitors
2,664

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,979
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top