Jodi Arias TAKES THE STAND #28 *may contain graphic and adult content*

[JusticeJunkie]

By changing her religion Jodi was upset about giving up her Starbucks but giving up sex was no problem because she never really gave it up. Evidently Jodi never heard of the word no. I don't think she had all the sex she claims she had with Travis. If he gave in it would have been shortly before he was killed. We know from what Travis' friends say Jodi was constantly trying to seduce him. jmo

But remember, she supposedly did say no to Darrel, and in essence said no to the other "boyfriends" she left. As long as JA is the one saying "no", all goes well.
Not so well for the one her told HER no.

 

[norest4thewicked]

The defense DV expert said it's relevant as part of the dynamics that led Jodi to fear for her life on June 4.

Judge pretty much has to allow them to present the testimony even if it's false -- that's for the jury to decide.

Okay, but that just sucks! :furious::furious::furious:

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Okay, but that just sucks! :furious::furious::furious:

LOLOL no rest!!! That's exactly how I feel.

 

[Sweetiemom]

But remember, she supposedly did say no to Darrel, and in essence said no to the other "boyfriends" she left. As long as JA is the one saying "no", all goes well.
Not so well for the one her told HER no.

I just wonder if any of her stories about her previous lovers are true-the only one we heard from was Darryl.

 

[LotusPawprint]

Well.... I just caught up on the last thread and read what was unsealed from Thursday's hearing.

What more can I add that wasn't already said, this is dispicable and loathsome. Why it's being allowed, what's the basis of this pedo-*advertiser censored* ever existing, and how filthy the defense attorneys are permitted to go by our system.

There are some serious fundamental flaws in our so-called justice system. This trial is bringing them all to the forefront. We've gone over them all. The different standards for the defense and prosecution, the bias towards defendants over victims, the skewed prejudice towards female "abuse/violence victims" vs male victims/"abusers, etc.

I had to skip through pages towards the end of the last thread and I don't think I can sit through much more of the direct examination next week. This defendant has completely manipulated testifying in her own defense and has made a mockery of "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". I'm probably not making any sense now and that's because it's hard to think straight when steam is coming out of your head. :furious:

 

[minor4th]

Okay, but that just sucks! :furious::furious::furious:

I know. It is a depraved, wicked individual who would fabricate something like this -- after brutalizing him in such a violent manner -- and put everyone through that just to try to escape the consequences of what she did. It's hard to even put into words what I'm trying to say. "Depraved" and "wicked" do not quite capture it.

In a way I am kind of glad she is taking this route because I think it will be what pushes any fence-sitting jurors over the edge to give her the ultimate penalty.

 

[Bravo]

Looks like we will hear the sex tape next week. I'm dreading it. I just want to get to Cross. Cant come soon enough.

 

[Karmady]

You have made the assumption that Jodi couldnt have done that because women don't behave that way, and that was my whole point. I think that's a faulty assumption, and if the same crime happened with a male as the perpetrator and the female as the victim, the automatic conclusion would be that rape was involved, rather than consensual sex.

Women do victimize able bodied men able to potentially defend themselves:

Antje Crapnick -- Held several men hostage and sexually assaulted them for hours

Two cases of women sexually assaulting men at gunpoint: http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?o...n&catid=38:local-news&Itemid=131#.URcM4lrvzy8

A strange case of a man being ordered to pay child support for child born as a result of his involuntary sex with the birth mother: http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3630

Article on male rape victims: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201210/when-men-are-raped

I'll look at the links... thanks. But I want to be clear that I didn't assume she "couldn't" have done that because women don't behave that way. I said I doubted it would've happened that way because usually it doesn't and because there's a reason it doesn't. Able bodied men who are not prevented from defending themselves from women, armed or otherwise, typically will do so and will do so effectively. Especially if the weapon is a tiny little gun unlikely to inflict significant harm or a knife that can easily be deflected or otherwise rendered ineffective by a minor blow from the intended victim.

 

[LambChop]

If you knew nothing about what Jodi said, would it be possible that they didn't even have sexual relations?

Didn't Travis admit to someone he had sex with her once? Just listening to her she often is inconsistent in what she says. She appears articulate in her speech using big words properly but then tells us she does not know the meaning of the Vowel of Chastity. Thinks it means no premarital sex but continues to have sex. No sex means no sex. How plain could that be? And if she was unclear why not ask the bishop, or Sky for that matter. No, she uses the excuse that she does not discuss her sexual relationships with others. Well, yah, ya think. If she did she would have lost a foothold and ruined her chances to get a husband.

For some reason Jodi was under the impression if you really want something bad enough you have to use sex to get it. It's the only thing she knows. jmo

 

[minor4th]

I'll look at the links... thanks. But I want to be clear that I didn't assume she "couldn't" have done that because women don't behave that way. I said I doubted it would've happened that way because usually it doesn't and because there's a reason it doesn't. Able bodied men who are not prevented from defending themselves from women, armed or otherwise, typically will do so and will do so effectively. Especially if the weapon is a tiny little gun unlikely to inflict significant harm or a knife that can easily be deflected or otherwise rendered ineffective by a minor blow from the intended victim.

Read the links. I don't think it's quite as simple as you're thinking. It does happen, and any gun - tiny or not - is a pretty strong motivator when it's pointed at your head.

I'm not saying this is what happened - I'm saying it's one of several possibilities, and I think it has not really been explored because of the common assumption that a female couldn't or wouldn't have done that.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

It double sucks because it looked like from those screencaps someone posted of the documents in the last thread that she told the DV expert that they were on his computer yet they were not. So now what? She's going to say they were printed pictures or something? Either way, she lied and was caught in that lie ...but they are going to let her lie. I hope JM can make the jury know it's a lie.

 

[parker38]

If one person (woman) has a weapon and another doesn't (man), the playing field is pretty much equal. JA got TA into a very vulnerable position. He was naked, wet, and with either a gun, knife, or both trained on him. A huge number of people freeze in situations such as this. There is no doubt that JA could have controlled him.

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this. All I kept asking myself was
how could this man with his size not be able to do something, anything
to overpower her.
But with the points you've made, I once again see how logical this is,
which makes JA very slick in her warped thinking!! moo

On the other hand quite a few of his friends warned him to stay away
from her and always be on guard. At the very least PD should have
been notified and deadbolts on all the doors. All TA said was 'I can
take care of this'. Unfortunately he knew nothing of these situations
where someone could take stalking just one step further..

 

[popsicle]

This is a guy, Falater, that stabbed his wife 44 times while sleep walking. A younger Juan prosecuted this case. The defendant took the stand, unfortunately they didn't show the footage of when Juan questioned him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yk2Gs9r-mvY

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Reading and trying to catch up. Still reading on the last and I saw the Juanette's and I wonder if the guys would be the Juanabes? I didn't know if just anyJuan can. I mean not everyJuan can be. I guess noJuan knows?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'll look at the links... thanks. But I want to be clear that I didn't assume she "couldn't" have done that because women don't behave that way. I said I doubted it would've happened that way because usually it doesn't and because there's a reason it doesn't. Able bodied men who are not prevented from defending themselves from women, armed or otherwise, typically will do so and will do so effectively. Especially if the weapon is a tiny little gun unlikely to inflict significant harm or a knife that can easily be deflected or otherwise rendered ineffective by a minor blow from the intended victim.

Well if you believe the ME, and I do, she had the advantage. She had the element of surprise as well as her victim in the most vulnerable position possible. There is blood from floor to ceiling in the bathroom. Cast off blood.

He tried and failed to fend her off. His hands sliced and diced are evidence of that. We know he crawled down that hallway being stabbed in his back by the blood on the hallway walls.

At the end of the hall there is a blood pool from his throat being slashed.

It's all there. He tried to defend himself, he tried to flee. He didn't make it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[norest4thewicked]

I'll look at the links... thanks. But I want to be clear that I didn't assume she "couldn't" have done that because women don't behave that way. I said I doubted it would've happened that way because usually it doesn't and because there's a reason it doesn't. Able bodied men who are not prevented from defending themselves from women, armed or otherwise, typically will do so and will do so effectively. Especially if the weapon is a tiny little gun unlikely to inflict significant harm or a knife that can easily be deflected or otherwise rendered ineffective by a minor blow from the intended victim.

With all due respect, that just isn't true. I can tell you first hand that different people react differently in situations. Some people are able to run away while others are frozen with fear. You, personally, can doubt it. However, having worked in law enforcement for many years, it just isn't always (or even most of the time) case.

 

[paperwing]

By changing her religion Jodi was upset about giving up her Starbucks but giving up sex was no problem because she never really gave it up. Evidently Jodi never heard of the word no. I don't think she had all the sex she claims she had with Travis. If he gave in it would have been shortly before he was killed. We know from what Travis' friends say Jodi was constantly trying to seduce him. jmo

ITA - they really didn't see that much of each other imv. I absolutely do not believe the escapades at the Hughes', in the car or on her baptism day. Since none of these things can be verified, I will never believe they're true. The hotel weekend: there should be a record of their being there, but not what did/didn't happen between them. It's reasonable to assume they had some intimacy on some level, but I think the intensity and frequency is all in JA's head. If it's self-serving and impossible to prove, then there's a high chance shes embellishing or simply making stuff up.

After Travis' death she plastered his (myspace?) with a glut of photos of the two of them (per Travis' friends) to make it seem like they were a couple or besties... That she didn't/couldn't have done this when Travis was alive makes me think he wouldn't have appreciated it - at all - and wouldn't have let her do it.

On the Mormonism - I think it was simply a tool, too. I have yet to hear anything (either from her or family/friends or the media) saying she is actively practicing her new 'formal' faith. Not gonna happen.

What a joke. What a ruse. What a selfish thing to do to the Mormon community. It shouldn't even be a factor as she used it insincerely but good folks are paying the price. :furious:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I hope she gets exactly what she deserves... In abundance !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LotusPawprint]

Reading and trying to catch up. Still reading on the last and I saw the Juanette's and I wonder if the guys would be the Juanabes? I didn't know if just anyJuan can. I mean not everyJuan can be. I guess noJuan knows?

LOL... Awesome. You just turned my frown upside down. We can all depend uponJuan!

 

[TexasGirlie]

Hi everyone! I wanted to introduce myself b/c I've been a longtime follower of WS and especially this thread...so I figured it's about time I joined and said hello since I feel like I already know all of u!

I've been following this trial since it began & I remember reading the news stories years ago when JA murdered TA... something u definitely cannot forget due to the horrible death she caused him.

I love reading everyone's thoughts, theories, feelings, & comments in this forum and feel like I have learned even more about this case since I started following WS. You are all so insightful here! In addition I always log on here to read everyone's thoughts while I watch the trial on tv, & I find myself agreeing & thinking the same thing sometimes as I read all of the posts here!

Anyway...just figured it was about time I came out of lurkdom & said hi to you all!

Looking forward to joining in on this thread & getting to know everyone!