Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #7

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

What is a fact? Is it an undisputed, proven by a court of law, graphic, photographed, sexual interaction? Yes. Was that fact backed by evidence and a sequence of recorded discussions and writings by the given parties? To claim that they didn't show sexual activity is opinion that flies in the face of the facts.
 
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.

Trial- as evidenced by my taking a huge amount of time to reply to Steve, I have no problem explaining what I think and why I think it, and I was willing to do that, despite the topic, because Steve obviously was curious how I got from point A to point B. He and I disagree on some points; that exchange wasn't about the disagreements, or about arguing specific details, it was about understanding why each thought as we did.

It is that kind of exchange that I appreciate most because it gives me the opportunity to learn, and to see things from another perspective.

Agnostic means I'm not 100% sure and could be convinced to believe yes or no, provided with what I consider conclusive evidence. Changing one's mind based on new evidence or persuasive interpretations of evidence is, in both my profession and world view, an indication of intellectual honesty, a willingness to keep an open mind. I consider it a good thing, both for myself, and in others.
 
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? :D

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

This case reminds me of some other cases. In and of itself it's not the big mystery to me as it has been to others. I can't possibly know what went through anyone else's mind, speaking of the people involved in the case, unless they specifically told/tell us. I'm not a mind reader and I don't feel a compulsion to try and guess either, it's because I like answers, not guesses. Some things cannot be known and I can live with that. In the end it is what it is. Maybe someone else will learn from this case, but probably not many.

Arias doesn't scare me like she does others here. She's like any other premeditated first degree killer--they're all dangerous in their own way. As long as society is safe from a killer, then that's all I can hope for. Can't bring back any of the dead and spending time hating her is energy I don't have to expend. For instance, if JA's mug is on a tabloid in the store, 99% of the time I don't even notice it or give it a 2nd thought--I look past her as if she doesn't exist. She holds no place in my brain, outside of the times I've participated in these various threads. I've never found her interesting; in fact I couldn't bear to watch most of her testimony because it/she was so deadly dull. She really is out of sight/out of mind for me. The sentence she got was the exact sentence I always thought she'd get, there was zero fear of her getting anything less. My feelings about or towards her felt a lot like how Juan described his feelings. For him it was another case, not terribly unlike other cases, just a longer one. He wasted no energy on the murderess--she didn't fascinate him or scare him either. Just another disordered person who killed and who needed to be convicted.
 
This case reminds me of some other cases. In and of itself it's not the big mystery to me as it has been to others. I can't possibly know what went through anyone else's mind, speaking of the people involved in the case, unless they specifically told/tell us. I'm not a mind reader and I don't feel a compulsion to try and guess either, it's because I like answers, not guesses. Some things cannot be known and I can live with that. In the end it is what it is. Maybe someone else will learn from this case, but probably not many.

Arias doesn't scare me like she does others here. She's like any other premeditated first degree killer--they're all dangerous in their own way. As long as society is safe from a killer, then that's all I can hope for. Can't bring back any of the dead and spending time hating her is energy I don't have to expend. For instance, if JA's mug is on a tabloid in the store, 99% of the time I don't even notice it or give it a 2nd thought--I look past her as if she doesn't exist. She holds no place in my brain, outside of the times I've participated in these various threads. I've never found her interesting; in fact I couldn't bear to watch most of her testimony because it/she was so deadly dull. She really is out of sight/out of mind for me. The sentence she got was the exact sentence I always thought she'd get, there was zero fear of her getting anything less. My feelings about or towards her felt a lot like how Juan described his feelings. For him it was another case, not terribly unlike other cases, just a longer one. He wasted no energy on the murderess--she didn't fascinate him or scare him either. Just another disordered person who killed and who needed to be convicted.

Well said. It's a waste of energy hating her or calling her names. The thing that I take away from this is educating people on how to spot the "Jodi" that may be their coworker, their boyfriend, their daughter or in my case..our son's girlfriend. I happened to be watching this trial while a sociopath was breaking in to my sons home. She slashed his tires. She lied, manipulated, fabricated etc. We really knew something was wrong but after hearing DeMarte testify it was clear we were dealing with a borderline and NPD person. Further education led to a strategy of separating our son and grandson from this insanity. I honestly feel she could have hurt someone if things progressed any further.

So if we can understand the dynamics of the behavior disorders and recognize the signs then keep them away some good can come from this trial.

The Shayna Hubers reference was spot on by the way.

“He says he is only with me [because] I make him feel so awful when I cry,” Hubers wrote. “My love has turned to hate.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shocking-t...convicted-boyfriends-murder/story?id=31500565
 
This case reminds me of some other cases. In and of itself it's not the big mystery to me as it has been to others. I can't possibly know what went through anyone else's mind, speaking of the people involved in the case, unless they specifically told/tell us. I'm not a mind reader and I don't feel a compulsion to try and guess either, it's because I like answers, not guesses. Some things cannot be known and I can live with that. In the end it is what it is. Maybe someone else will learn from this case, but probably not many.

Arias doesn't scare me like she does others here. She's like any other premeditated first degree killer--they're all dangerous in their own way. As long as society is safe from a killer, then that's all I can hope for. Can't bring back any of the dead and spending time hating her is energy I don't have to expend. For instance, if JA's mug is on a tabloid in the store, 99% of the time I don't even notice it or give it a 2nd thought--I look past her as if she doesn't exist. She holds no place in my brain, outside of the times I've participated in these various threads. I've never found her interesting; in fact I couldn't bear to watch most of her testimony because it/she was so deadly dull. She really is out of sight/out of mind for me. The sentence she got was the exact sentence I always thought she'd get, there was zero fear of her getting anything less. My feelings about or towards her felt a lot like how Juan described his feelings. For him it was another case, not terribly unlike other cases, just a longer one. He wasted no energy on the murderess--she didn't fascinate him or scare him either. Just another disordered person who killed and who needed to be convicted.


"Haters" can readily be found on Twitter, even now, but I haven't encountered any here.

Personally, I find sociopaths fascinating, intellectually, and at a more primal level, disturbing; predators can have that effect.

It's the expression of psychopathy I find interesting, not necessarily the person. In this case, I agree that the is profoundly boring otherwise. Her journals were nothing less than a chore to read- not an original thought to be found in them.

I agree that the case itself for JM was just another case, but he's made it pretty clear he thought the was in fact not in the least an ordinary defendant. He's called her the "most sophisticated" defendant he has ever encountered on the stand, and has even said he thought she could have bested him on cross had he not been adequately forewarned of her "gifts" and prepared.

Me, post-trial, I've found it immensely satisfying to dig through what wasn't available at trial and puzzle the pieces, not only to uncover her lies, but as a way of understanding more about the why of what happened. Doesn't change a thing, but as you said, nothing changes the basic realities of any murder case.
 
Was Travis in a toxic relationship with ? Yes, according to Nurmi and Willmott since Travis abused , 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 , then was murdered by .
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 .

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Was Travis in a toxic relationship with ? Yes, according to Nurmi and Willmott since Travis abused , 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 , then was murdered by .
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 .

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 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?
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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 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 did to him.

But you knew this already.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 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 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 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 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 :

“ 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 ’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 who continually diverts the texting back to sex, not Travis, including by calling herself a *advertiser censored*, 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 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 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. ;)
 
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 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 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 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 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 :

“ 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 ’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 who continually diverts the texting back to sex, not Travis, including by calling herself a *advertiser censored*, 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 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 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?
 
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 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 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 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.
 
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 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 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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
1,839
Total visitors
1,956

Forum statistics

Threads
590,001
Messages
17,928,872
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top