Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #6

[TrialWatcher]

I base my views on the evidence. The jury have spoken - alternates too. Not one has expressed doubt about the sex tape or the sexual interaction. You think the jurors wouldn't have detailed that when being interviewed? How can you claim that Travis' voice - saying those words - is anything but sexual interaction? You have read the texts, H4M - they back up the sex tape and do so in a time frame that makes sense. Your opinion on this is not fact. Facts were presented in court -including time-stamped evidence from experts. Yet you are certain that they did not have sex based on what? I genuinely don't understand why this is such a controversial issue on this forum. I have suggested people are overly-protective of Travis. That's apparently not the case. That I could understand, not dismissing extremely strong evidence.

 

[LinasK]

Travis was a blameless victim of murder by a psychopath. That has to be a majority view outside and inside this forum. He was a real man with real flaws. Like everyone else - not a perfect person. Sexual hypocrisy was evident from both parties. Travis' wasn't a saint and excusing his every word is unnecessary. His reasons for using a few of those phrases are easy to understand. Not to justify.

" But he was the one taking advantage of those three holes, freely offered by her, then he uses that to shame her when he's angry? " - TEXMEX

It's the sexual shaming part many people would have trouble with - for a number of reasons. Juan Martinez thought so too. I agree.

See, I don't think Travis used those words to shame her sexually or otherwise. I'm not even sure Jodi's capable of shame.

 

[Hope4More]

Let JM speak for himself. Quoting from his book:


"(Travis) may have verbally crossed the line of good taste."

((After repeatedly trying to get her to admit to something Travis)" lashed out in derogatory fashion, calling her a 3-hole wonder."

"The first time I read those words I realized they were extremely harsh,(so I reread for context)."

.."it (3hole wonder) felt inappropriate under any circumstance because it was so derogatory."

"Even if they were talking in a sexual context, and even if Arias prompted the comment by saying she was "*advertiser censored*," it still didn't lessen the impact. It was the kind of comment that could shape a jury's opinion and garner sympathy for ()."

 

[TrialWatcher]

I'm so glad Juan didn't make excuses as he looked at the facts in the case and dealt with the good, the bad, the ugly. Misogyny has no place and I always find it ironic that even in 2016 women are often as harsh or more harsh on their own gender. Somehow the words that no mother would ever want to be used on her own daughter, *no matter what,* are okay when it's used on someone who has a mental or personality disorder and their behaviors are unacceptable. Especially if it's a female. I don't care what the disordered JA thought or didn't think. I, and many others, including Juan Martinez, saw those utterances by Travis as what they were. Nothing more, nothing less, no excuses.

Oh the hatred of disordered BPD fembots--they are more evil than anything conjured up and they are worse than the devil himself. And of course it's okay to use those words because "the B* deserves it." Talk about a double standard. If someone determined your daughter 'deserved it,' would that make it okay? I say no! It certainly doesn't make what the killer did after that okay, but those words were used on her before she ever became "the killer." And it certainly doesn't make the victim look any better either.

I don't think Travis was a misogynist but many of the terms used by his religion could arguably be deemed so. Arias herself bought into the whoredom nonsense. Some of the phrases Travis used were hypocritical and intended to shame a woman based on sex HE had enjoyed. This was sexist and hardly one of his finest moments. We get that it was fuelled by anger of very real, much worse abuse by Arias.

Some women are harsh on their own gender, sure. Do I think those words triggered her to kill? No. I don't think Travis would have been proud of some phrases he used either. No need to pretend they are ok.

 

[TrialWatcher]

LinasK - I think he chose the words precisely to shame her. He was (rightly) furious at all she had done and struck out from a place of extreme hurt, frustration and anger. He hadn't used those words before, had he? Do I understand why he was so hurt? Absolutely. It doesn't make sexual hypocrisy right. She was also a sexual hypocrite. Sometimes, we all say things in the heat of anger that don't reflect our normal selves or behaviour.

 

[Hope4More]

I base my views on the evidence. The jury have spoken - alternates too. Not one has expressed doubt about the sex tape or the sexual interaction. You think the jurors wouldn't have detailed that when being interviewed? How can you claim that Travis' voice - saying those words - is anything but sexual interaction? You have read the texts, H4M - they back up the sex tape and do so in a time frame that makes sense. Your opinion on this is not fact. Facts were presented in court -including time-stamped evidence from experts. Yet you are certain that they did not have sex based on what? I genuinely don't understand why this is such a controversial issue on this forum. I have suggested people are overly-protective of Travis. That's apparently not the case. That I could understand, not dismissing extremely strong evidence.

Trial. There was only one group interview of PP2 jurors and no, I am very sure they didn't think sex was important enough to bring up- they were all angry and upset to the point of tears about being hung because of 17.

The foreman was interviewed separately, and what he felt most important to discuss was why and how they were hung.

Jury 1 didn't give interviews as a whole jury, though the foreman and a few others spoke separately to the media, and again, no, why would they think it important?

The recording. No, if anything the texts support that phone sex was very unlikely to have been on May 10. Yes, of course I believe they had phone sex. Once, is all that tape demonstrated, and my point was she could have recorded it anytime, including while she was still in Mesa. Given that JM proved in court that she was manufacturing sex evidence against him in the very same week of May, I don't understand why anyone would take that tape at face value, actually.

As for sex on the 4th. Really, am not going there nohow, except to say I have never ever been so bold as to say I am certain about what actually happened on the 4th, any part of it, except he didn't expect her, wasn't waiting up for her, and that they didn't peacefully watch YouTube videos together before retiring to bed together.

And-- of course my opinion isn't fact. Actually, I try pretty hard to make a distinction between the two, but I do confess to arguing my opinions quite vigorously upon occasion.

 

[Hope4More]

I'm confused about something, Abe says he met Arias late Aug. 2006 at a Super Saturday PPL event (sitting by herself in the executive director's section with apparently no ED having invited her into that section) - I thought she hadn't gotten involved in PPL until the Fall and the event she met Travis at was her first exposure to any PPL event? Did I miss her testifying about having met Abe before Travis?

Geevee....I posted a whole Abe and chronology a while back. was definitely going to PPL events for several months before she targeted Travis in the fall; this was confirmed by Darryl Brewer.

 

[krkrjx]

There will always remain things about this trial, the murder, the relationship if you can call it that between the murderer and her victim that we will never know about. We can assume all we want, and that's OK because sometimes those thoughts can answer some important questions, or ask them.

I know that people engage in phone sex and often say things during such encounters that are pure fantasy and have nothing to do with what they really want or intend to "do" to the other, etc. It's no big deal to me that TA talked about tying her to a tree and...

Anyway, given all the possibilities of things that are said between two people that no one else ever hears, or innuendo that can occur between two people that only they can appreciate for what it is, I am not ready to concede that the "three hole wonder" remark was necessarily derogatory. Now, it may have been used that way a time or two late in their "relationship" but there is no way to know for sure when it was said for the first time and in what context. And for that matter, by whom.

IOW, just as I believe the killer either made the t-shirt that procaimed her as his property or asked him to make it...in jest...I think she could have been the first to refer to herself as the three-hole wonder. This is conceivable to me because women like JA who do things to hook a man will often say things to that effect as well.

Just sayin...things are not always as they seem.

 

[TrialWatcher]

The jurors who had spoken to the press would have kept silent if other jurors doubted sex had taken place? That would not have been important to relay? That fellow jurors questioned that sex took place? The reason it wasn't important was because both juries accepted the evidence. The juries took the tape on face value. The expert witness told how he had shaped the tape for presentation. The foreman discussed a range of things - if he doubted sex or the tape - why would he keep that secret? The texts fit with the timing of the phone sex. As for June 4th - the evidence of sexual interaction is overwhelming.

 

[Hope4More]

The jurors who had spoken to the press would have kept silent if other jurors doubted sex had taken place? That would not have been important to relay? That fellow jurors questioned that sex took place? The reason it wasn't important was because both juries accepted the evidence. The juries took the tape on face value. The expert witness told how he had shaped the tape for presentation. The foreman discussed a range of things - if he doubted sex or the tape - why would he keep that secret? The texts fit with the timing of the phone sex. As for June 4th - the evidence of sexual interaction is overwhelming.

I don't why you think sex or no sex that day is so important at all, much less why jurors would think it so. The first jury had to decide on premeditation, then whether or not she be put to death; the PPL jury, just on whether or not the deserved to stay alive. Sex or no sex was irrelevant.
----
What text, exactly, fits with the timing of the sex tape? Late May 9th was the night of a very bitter fight between the two, which ended with Travis telling her she had used up all his mercy, that supposedly just before they got on the phone and began discussing travel plans.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Juan Martinez:

"... I was eager to give jurors some insight into what motivated Travis' offensive missives to Arias by providing the context in which they were written. While I knew there was nothing I could do to eliminate those words from playing a part in the trial, I hoped that what was driving Travis' emotions would soften their harshness"

 

[TexMex]

I base my views on the evidence. The jury have spoken - alternates too. Not one has expressed doubt about the sex tape or the sexual interaction. You think the jurors wouldn't have detailed that when being interviewed? How can you claim that Travis' voice - saying those words - is anything but sexual interaction? You have read the texts, H4M - they back up the sex tape and do so in a time frame that makes sense. Your opinion on this is not fact. Facts were presented in court -including time-stamped evidence from experts. Yet you are certain that they did not have sex based on what? I genuinely don't understand why this is such a controversial issue on this forum. I have suggested people are overly-protective of Travis. That's apparently not the case. That I could understand, not dismissing extremely strong evidence.

True. Evidence was the phone sex recording was put together (spliced) by the expert from seven saved (verified by the phone metadata) recordings on Helio. It was verified as TA voice. It wasn't something Jodi just made up. It was recorded when the phone said it was. They spoke of upcoming dates of events, of travel plans and Cancun etc.

 

[TrialWatcher]

How is sex it irrelevant? Sexual interaction pics show Arias was there on the day of the murder. It shows an activity. Based solely on those naked pics, Martinez leant towards charging Arias for first degree murder. It placed her there on the day. Juan used those pics and the DNA to charge Arias with first degree murder. Sexual interaction shows intimacy between them. It shows what was happening on June 4, It shows she lied about the last time they had sex. You don't think that is useful to know? Why is it so important to claim sex did not take place? No sexual interaction? Is it because it negates any theories of Travis disconnecting completely on May 26th?

 

[Hope4More]

True. Evidence was the phone sex recording was put together (spliced) by the expert from seven saved (verified by the phone metadata) recordings on Helio. It was verified as TA voice. It wasn't something Jodi just made up. It was recorded when the phone said it was. They spoke of upcoming dates of events, of travel plans and Cancun etc.

It was recorded (perhaps) on the Helio on May 10. That really doesn't mean she and Travis spoke on May 10.

Many of us spent days listening to that foul tape over and over, and discussing how and why it couldn't have been recorded on the same day. Most notably, the expert's splicing of different segments does not account for the different sequence of travel plans spoken about on the tape.

More recently, there was a revival discussion about that tape recorder LE found in her trashcan.....

 

[Hope4More]

How is it irrelevant? Sexual interaction pics show Arias was there on the day of the murder. It shows an activity. Based solely on those naked pics, Martinez leant towards charging Arias for first degree murder. It placed her there on the day. Juan used those pics and the DNA to charge Arias with first degree murder. Sexual interaction shows intimacy between them. It shows what was happening on the day of the murder. it shows she lied about the last time they had sex. You don't think that is useful to know? Why is it so important to claim sex did not take place? No sexual interaction? Is it because it negates any theories of Travis disconnecting completely on May 26th?

Trial. Please to respect my sincerely stated desire not to rehash and rehash sex or no sex on June 4th. 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.
----
Nailing up final notice-- not going there again, even to explain that I'm not going there again.

 

[Hope4More]

LOL. My DH just asked what I was typing fast and furiously about, and FLED the room when I said "the thing."

Wise man.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Hope4More, I am answering questions based on the discussion with a range of people. June 4th relates to the discussion. It's pivotal to it. If you don't wish to participate from here on in - I respect that. Please respect that others disagree and have no problem discussing June 4th whatsoever.

 

[TrialWatcher]

True. Evidence was the phone sex recording was put together (spliced) by the expert from seven saved (verified by the phone metadata) recordings on Helio. It was verified as TA voice. It wasn't something Jodi just made up. It was recorded when the phone said it was. They spoke of upcoming dates of events, of travel plans and Cancun etc.

You have a very good memory for expert testimony, TM. What has to be the most boring sex tape in the history of the world turned out to be a major advantage for the prosecution. I hope I never have to hear a word of it again.

 

[salberg7]

Regarding sex between the two of them on June 4, I believe JM and Flores stated there were pictures of them in the act but were not shown to us. Maybe the jury saw them but they weren't offered in court. I won't argue with anyone either way as we all are entitled to our opinions, but part of Juan's closing I believe was that she killed him after they had just made love and that was further proof of how cruel the murder was - that after two people just shared a most intimate moment that normally was sacred, the killer took advantage of post coital contentment and murdered him in cold blood. It doesn't matter to me why anyone feels they didn't have sex, but evidence strongly suggests it, IMO. I can't quote Juan directly but If I remember correctly he did discuss that.
I am surprised Travis didn't change his passwords as well. He could have done that to all his accounts. But I think he was free with sharing his passwords with several people & just think he was too trusting of everyone, including his murderer. Remember, in 2008 computers were fairly new and the consequences of an easy to breach password wasn't as critical as nowadays. Plus Travis was prettying trusting, maybe to a fault. In no way do I believe he deserved to be murdered and I do think he didn't fear her that much even with her breaching his accounts because he was too nice of a guy and she was 1000 miles away.

 

[TrialWatcher]

I don't know what is. I don't think I want to either.:shame: