Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

Steve44 said:

I never thought he knew she was coming. I've always assumed, for some reason, that the element of surprise was an integral part of her plan from the beginning, even though I also assume she was confident in her ability to manipulate him once in his physical presence.

I believe she wanted to be 'intimate' with him (cough) that day because she wanted to be sure she was the last one. That was her way of owning Travis for all time in her mind, if you will, and thus was an integral part of the plan.

I think manipulation by guilt is a strong possibility, but regardless, manipulation it was, and 'it' succeeded, whatever the mechanism, as was reflected by the physical evidence.

There's also the fact that planting the pictures for any other reason, for any reason at all, directly contradicts her desire not be seen anywhere near him that day, or to think they appeared by accident through memory card swapping and just happened to fit falsely yet perfectly into what actually happened that day is just a rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

I think her plan, if she didn't have to go with force at gunpoint, was to keep him off balance at every turn. For example, if she was actually in the house between 2-5ish and she actually brought photo CD's, I think she scratched them intentionally. Gaslighting. Here ---those CD's I promised you (Travis- maybe this will be OK), well damn, maybe you can't bring them up because they somehow got scratched? (Travis- WTF).

(Maybe even payback for the fight when she'd destroyed one of his PD CD's and he'd had the gall to express irritation about that)....

You asked why I thought what I do, and I've replied. It's nothing personal, but I'm not going down any more rabbit holes, nor getting on another hampster wheel discussion about June 4 or any particulars about that day. Like I said, I think we all bring our own stuff to this table, and I am well and truly done with the rich banquet we've had here for years discussing that day.

Hope4More said:

I think her plan, if she didn't have to go with force at gunpoint, was to keep him off balance at every turn. For example, if she was actually in the house between 2-5ish and she actually brought photo CD's, I think she scratched them intentionally. Gaslighting. Here ---those CD's I promised you (maybe this will be OK), well damn, maybe you can't bring them up because they somehow got scratched? (Payback for the fight when she'd destroyed one of his PD CD's and he'd had the gall to express irritation about that)....

You asked why I thought what I do, and I've replied. It's nothing personal, but I'm not going down any more rabbit holes, nor getting on another hampster wheel discussion about June 4 or any particulars about that day. Like I said, I think we all bring our own stuff to this table, and I am well and truly done with the rich banquet we've had here for years discussing that day.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your effort and I agree none of us can know the truth of the matter beyond all doubt, the best we can do is satisfy ourselves with the theory that fits best for each of us, and enjoy in the sharing of ideas about a bizarre subject that has or held our interest. I agree that past a certain point it's spinning wheels and no movement forward becomes frustrating, but, thanks for your thoughts, they are deep and insightful, and I appreciate you sharing them.

Steve44 said:

I appreciate your effort and I agree none of us can know the truth of the matter beyond all doubt, the best we can do is satisfy ourselves with the theory that fits best for each of us, and enjoy in the sharing of ideas about a bizarre subject that has or held our interest. I agree that past a certain point it's spinning wheels and no movement forward becomes frustrating, but, thanks for your thoughts, they are deep and insightful, and I appreciate you sharing them.

Click to expand...

Your own insights and always thoughtful opinions and comments warranted the time spent

Hope-

There are plenty of working theories as to why # murdered Travis. Among those working theories are:

• Mimi was going to Cancun, not her (#)
• Travis rejected her
• Travis was going to expose all her deviousness to their mutual friends and her family
• She wanted the last word (#Winning!)

Do you think it's also possible/probable/likely that #She wanted Travis to find himself on the other side of the pearly gates after #She murdered him? Not just him losing his Temple-recommend (which she knew was so important to him), but seen as a sinner after death in God's eye, and thus locked out of Heaven?

#2DESCEND

Steve44 said:

Not more available, just more believable.

Let's take as an example a cold-hearted woman who just wants to get rid of her husband. She kills him in cold blood and then claims she just snapped after years of abuse, both physical and emotional, that her husband constantly and openly cheated on her and tried to pull her into an open marriage, and she suspected he was sexually abusing his children. None of which is remotely true.

Now take that same cold heart and transplant it into a man who just wants to get rid of his wife. He again kills her in cold blood and then claims again that he just snapped, that she openly cheated on him for years, emotionally abused him, and was a terrible, negligent mother. None of which is remotely true.

Obviously the ability to produce supporting evidence (even manufactured evidence) in each case will carry the most weight, but which would be taken as more credible at face value?

The "appearance of mechanisms to those who desire to see them," is exactly from where they draw their reality. They are social assumptions based on traditional but increasingly anachronistic social roles of dominance and submission across genders.

I'm not saying it's any longer a viable defense, it's increasingly less so with a more aware society and increasingly accurate investigative forensics, but there's still an advantage to a female claiming victimhood at the hands of a man as a mitigator for what is really psychopathic behavior.

Click to expand...

Yes!

And that is how I see it, too. Even when convicted as charged, the female tends to have more sympathetic followers.

Shayna Hubers got 40 years for the first degree murder of Ryan Poston. She could have and should have received more than 40 as her crime was horrific, vengeful, and she had absolutely no remorse. But she faked some and claimed he had been abusive. Judge didn't accept her tale that they were "a couple" who had co-habitated, which is what would have been required for a domestic abuse consideration in that jurisdiction but the jury recommended 40 years and even though not bound by that, the judge caved.

Had Ryan killed Shayna under similar circumstances, there is not a doubt in my mind that the sentence would have been far more harsh.

It is what it is, folks. The climate has changed for the better in recent years but abuse is still a card best played by the female. Men are more easily seen as big and strong while women--even the physically strong ones--are often viewed as petite, and when a woman manages to overtake a male who more often than not outweighs her by a significant amount, it is hard for some citizens to fathom.

Steve44 said:

I have no doubt he broke the pattern, but whether or not he could be reeled back in is the question we should be asking. I maintain that his guilt was at too deep a level to excise completely in the time given.

He may have broken the pattern, but the very nature of patterns of behavior are to persist in spite of repeated efforts to change them.Momentary success is far more common than permanent change, so I think she still had a few tricks up her sleeve to invoke them into action regarding Travis.

Click to expand...

Very true
I think he thought he could lessen contact, she moved. Occasional phone sex, but I do not think he ever planned to travel to see her. But after the May 26 fight they did speak for an hour. (The day after the fight he told Taylor that Jodi was "harmless"). And when she showed up at his home the pattern resumes. Bait taken, reeled in. It's very difficult to break up with these highly manipulative individuals. She only needed him to repeat the pattern one more time so she could murder him and start prepping Ryan into believing she's his dream girl

Steve44 said:

I never thought he knew she was coming. I've always assumed, for some reason, that the element of surprise was an integral part of her plan from the beginning, even though I also assume she was confident in her ability to manipulate him once in his physical presence.

I believe she wanted to be 'intimate' with him (cough) that day because she wanted to be sure she was the last one. That was her way of owning Travis for all time in her mind, if you will, and thus was an integral part of the plan.

I think manipulation by guilt is a strong possibility, but regardless, manipulation it was, and 'it' succeeded, whatever the mechanism, as was reflected by the physical evidence.

There's also the fact that planting the pictures for any other reason, for any reason at all, directly contradicts her desire not to be seen anywhere near him that day, or to think they appeared by accident through memory card swapping and just happened to fit falsely yet perfectly into what actually happened that day is just a rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

BBM. Interesting, never thought of it that way before... like a dog marking it's territory, or a black widow spider. Also, eternally damning him in the Mormon church, as he'd have no opportunity to repent.

TexMex said:

Very true
I think he thought he could lessen contact, she moved. Occasional phone sex, but I do not think he ever planned to travel to see her. But after the May 26 fight they did speak for an hour. And when she showed up at his home the pattern resumes. Bait taken, reeled in. It's very difficult to break up with these highly manipulative individuals. She only needed him to repeat the pattern one more time so she could murder him and start prepping Ryan into believing she's his dream girl

Click to expand...

And for what it's worth, I've had real breakups intending to never even think a person's name again - but there is ALL kinds of sex...

Gratitude sex
Pity sex
GetOutOfHereAlready sex
Intimate sex
ForOldTimesSake sex
Goodbye sex...

The list goes on and on. I'm not the first person who has had sex with an ex for reasons other than I genuinely wanted to. Maybe he thought it was the best way to get her to leave, play it cool and act like everything is fine. Heck, he could have been planning on getting a restraining order during their liaison that day, for all we know.

His face in the shower absolutely says to me "Can you please leave and all this be over, already!"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

EquallyDivided said:

And for what it's worth, I've had real breakups intending to never even think a person's name again - but there is ALL kinds of sex...

Gratitude sex
Pity sex
GetOutOfHereAlready sex
Intimate sex
ForOldTimesSake sex
Goodbye sex...

The list goes on and on. I'm not the first person who has had sex with an ex for reasons other than I genuinely wanted to. Maybe he thought it was the best way to get her to leave, play it cool and act like everything is fine. Heck, he could have been planning on getting a restraining order during their liaison that day, for all we know.

His face in the shower absolutely says to me "Can you please leave and all this be over, already!"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Or...I'm about to leave for a week in Cancun with a girl who just kicked me into the Friend Zone...won't be getting any and oops:
Here's Jodi with the KY wanting to try out my new camera sex!

I have no doubt that he was ready for her to leave by about 2pm, right after whatever kind of sex they had..

TexMex said:

Or...I'm about to leave for a week in Cancun with a girl who just kicked me into the Friend Zone...won't be getting any and oops:
Here's Jodi with the KY wanting to try out my new camera sex!

I have no doubt that he was ready for her to leave by about 2pm, right after whatever kind of sex they had..

Click to expand...

Yet there was no sign of either of them during the hours of 3-4pm when Zach was there... other than he recalls a slick banister.

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.

TexMex said:

Travis May 26

I'm addicted to it
But it is bullshiz
Yet I'm addicted to it
And you know it
And you know I will take you back
You always know
You know I'll get pissed but I'll take you back

He also meant that. And he did take her back. Like his guilt and religion and "caregiver" type personality demanded IMO . She was in his home and in his bed June 4. Taking pictures of Jodi like he discussed May 10 This was due to a codependent toxic relationship with a sociopath. Jmo

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! And that's why it's important to understand Travis' role in all of this if one wants to understand the reality of the situation. I'm not into speculating people's feelings and thoughts or what they might have intended. I go with the evidence and where that evidence leads. And the evidence is pretty clear on matters in which both of these people were entwined in a dysfunctional, toxic, downspiraling situation. I don't think there can be many good outcomes when dealing with someone with BPD and narcissism; this would certainly count as the worst (just like Ryan Poston's murder -- check that one out if you want to see uncanny parallels with this case).

Just as a minor aside, the pictures taken didn't reflect anything that was said on the "May 10" call.

Madeleine74 said:

EXACTLY! And that's why it's important to understand Travis' role in all of this if one wants to understand the reality of the situation. I'm not into speculating people's feelings and thoughts or what they might have intended. I go with the evidence and where that evidence leads. And the evidence is pretty clear on matters in which both of these people were entwined in a dysfunctional, toxic, downspiraling situation. I don't think there can be many good outcomes when dealing with someone with BPD and narcissism; this would certainly count as the worst (just like Ryan Poston's murder -- check that one out if you want to see uncanny parallels with this case).

Click to expand...

If you want to look just at the "facts," and leave aside all interpretations of feelings, intentions, and thoughts, then all you are left with is the fact that a handful of naked photos were taken that day in the early afternoon, none of them depicting actual sexual activity, and then hours later more photos of him were taken in the shower, then he was murdered.

There are no other facts. There is no evidence about how she got into his house, whether or not he threatened to call the cops but didn't, how long she was there, why he let her stay in the house, whether or not he kicked her out only to have her return. No evidence. Just assumptions and speculation.

Hope4More said:

Just as a minor aside, the pictures taken didn't reflect anything that was said on the "May 10" call.

Click to expand...

IMO they did. Just listened to it yesterday. Very similar. Especially the one of her on her back, face turned, jawline focus pic

- I don't have to know how she got into his house that fateful day to know she in fact did get into his house.

- There are time-stamped photos of the 2 of them, verified by testimony on the stand by a forensic examiner called by Juan. Good enough for me to know those photos were taken that day, again proving she was at TA's house the day he was killed.

- It doesn't matter to me whether they had sex or not. I think they did (based on the circumstantial evidence of KY jelly, his erection, them being nude, that being what they usually did when the opportunity was present). The point is they were together that afternoon and she then killed him. Good enough to prove to me she was there at the scene.

- Facts that prove she planned the murder far in advance were presented. Good enough for me to see that she did, in fact, pre-plan TA's murder and intended to kill him.

- There is zero doubt that she killed him, she intended to kill him, she did kill him, she pre-planned it. There is zero doubt they had a dysfunctional relationship, she had one or more personality disorders, TA had his own issues, they were attracted to each other, and they had a semi-secret sexual relationship lasting over more than a year. All that proves killer and victim were in each other's orbit at various times.

I don't need to imagine anything when all the facts line up to show who killed whom, on what day, at what time, with 2 weapons, the physical evidence that was there, etc. etc. I don't even know what's in dispute at this point. Oh wait. Travis' emails in which he used language that many of us saw as cruel or abusive. But that was not the totality of their exchanges, it only represented a part of it (a small part, perhaps).

She's exactly where she needed to be and is, for life, without the chance at parole. I can live with that.

Tex-- I'm typing up what's gonna meet your interpretation half way, maybe 3/4ths of the way. The last bit of the way...not.

Hope4More to TrialWatcher, yesterday:


" I think it's plenty clear where I ended up on this, after going back and forth for a very long time. Hint- I didn't end up saying I didn't believe they had sex that day.



It's not clear what your view is. That's why people have asked you to explain. It's a genuine wish to understand. Since I first noticed, you've appeared to not believe they had sex. Then you changed your mind - they did have sex. Followed by no sex - floated rape as a theory, Yesterday - you were hinting you believe they did have sex. Why hint? You are clear on most other things, why not this? You repeatedly say you don't want to discuss it then - discuss it. As below. Please try to understand why this is confusing?


Hope4More, I have taken quotes most relevant here:

"Nailing up final notice-- not going there again, even to explain that I'm not going there again. Do I believe they had sex on June 4? Consider me an agnostic. I think it is more likely that they did than they did not, but I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if evidence unexpectedly fell out of the sky and say, definitively proved that the timestamps on those photos couldn’t possibly be accurate, or proved just as conclusively that one or more of the photos were taken on another day".

An agnostic looks to be persuaded in the face of evidence (generally). You have claimed to not understand the technical details - from your own posts - regarding the timestamps and expert testimony on photographs. To not accept the evidence - or argue against it - it not something that makes sense to me when the strength of the photo evidence is overwhelming


"The timestamped photos were extremely important to JM’s case not because they showed the naked bodies of Travis and his murderer, but because they placed her in his house on the day he was murdered. Time stamped photos of the two sitting down and having tea would have accomplished that same purpose".

Evidence of her being there was important. Juan detailed why. What they were doing is also relevant - as it shows a naked, graphic sexual intimacy .This doesn't fit with your theory on Travis having nothing to do with Arias. So, do you reject the evidence on the day or adjust the theory? You moved on to force or rape - despite there being a mountain of evidence suggesting anything but. Some of your points, I have no trouble agreeing with. Some of the psychological aspects too. Yet I think you are wrong on the draw of sex for Travis because the evidence presented by Juan Martinez was overwhelming. The texts support the sexual interaction evidence. The sex on the day and all interactions between them show that the pattern was not broken. She killed Travis before he could erode her from his life.


"One is about being genuinely intimate and is a reflection of that intimacy, the other involves moving and fitting body parts and can mean so little as to take place between strangers who pay and are paid to partake. I don’t see any indication of intimacy in those photos, or playfulness, or happiness, or enjoyment. Neither are even smiling. From the first time I made the mistake of looking at the photos of her nether regions, what I’ve sensed is the photographer’s contempt or complete detachment. The photos are, IMO, completely devoid of sentimentality, much less of intimacy or affection."


"If they had sex that day, it was for her an act of hostility. If they had sex that day, what was it for him?"

The evidence shows sexual interaction. No one claimed they were 'making love". It was sex that Travis - in his own words and voice - weeks earlier had shown desire for. He thought Arias was hot. He thought pigtails were hot. A naked Arias - in pigtails was on his bed. You think Travis wasn't interested in the sex? I think he wasn't interested in having much more to do with Arias but the sex - he took it. It was there. No judgement on him for doing that.

The reason I ever cared one way or another is because I couldn’t connect the dots between May 26 and June 4. Made no sense to me, and I take no quarter with things that don’t make sense to me.

The dots were pretty easy to connect from the texts, emails and their toxic relationship. It makes perfect sense to me given his words. He did not cut her off. Fact. She was in his bedroom on June 4 - having sex. Fact. Undisputed fact by defence, two juries, Arias, Juan and Travis' family. The sexual interaction was proven to be true in a court of law. It's a fact. You say you have no quarter with things that don't make sense. I have tolerance for a range of opinions and theories. When they fly in the face of the evidence that convicted Arias of slaughter, I want to find out why. It makes sense to me to discuss June 4 in a way that allows everyone to contribute. Hinting, being cryptic or selective discussing - despite telling people there will be no discussion - doesn't make sense to me.

Madeleine74 said:

- I don't have to know how she got into his house that fateful day to know she in fact did get into his house.

- There are time-stamped photos of the 2 of them, verified by testimony on the stand by a forensic examiner called by Juan. Good enough for me to know those photos were taken that day, again proving she was at TA's house the day he was killed.

- It doesn't matter to me whether they had sex or not. I think they did (based on the circumstantial evidence of KY jelly, his erection, them being nude, that being what they usually did when the opportunity was present). The point is they were together that afternoon and she then killed him. Good enough to prove to me she was there at the scene.

- Facts that prove she planned the murder far in advance were presented. Good enough for me to see that she did, in fact, pre-plan TA's murder and intended to kill him.

- There is zero doubt that she killed him, she intended to kill him, she did kill him, she pre-planned it. There is zero doubt they had a dysfunctional relationship, she had one or more personality disorders, TA had his own issues, they were attracted to each other, and they had a semi-secret sexual relationship lasting over more than a year. All that proves killer and victim were in each other's orbit at various times.

I don't need to imagine anything when all the facts line up to show who killed whom, on what day, at what time, with 2 weapons, the physical evidence that was there, etc. etc. I don't even know what's in dispute at this point. Oh wait. Travis' emails in which he used language that many of us saw as cruel or abusive. But that was not the totality of their exchanges, it only represented a part of it (a small part, perhaps).

She's exactly where she needed to be and is, for life, without the chance at parole. I can live with that.

Click to expand...

You seem to have been spared the desire/interest/compulsion to try to puzzle through those thoughts, feelings, intentions, and bits of evidence that have kept many of us here for this long, occupied with doing just that. Lucky you?

There's no disagreement to be had on anything relating to the big picture. JM saw to that.

TexMex said:

IMO they did. Just listened to it yesterday. Very similar. Especially the one of her on her back, face turned, jawline focus pic

Click to expand...

I agree. The pictures reflected much of what was said on May 10. Pigtails, hot. Graphically intimate photos taken by both of them. Travis being aroused. KY present.