SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

[ShadyLady]

I still can't understand why the ladies that saw straight through Ms. Jodi could not open the eyes of the "four".

It doesn't take rocket scientist as they say! One email taken out of context? Really?

 

[aa9511]

Just saw this on Twitter

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 2m
Exclusive Today! Live twinterview with @tarakelley320 the juror that asked "Why should we believe you now?" Don't miss it! 2pm PDT

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 2m
We have setup the WAT courtroom where you can chat along with other viewers and also watch the tweets below. http://wildabouttrial.com/wat-courtroom.html …

IS that Arizona time?

 

[Emmi]

BBM:
That would be using a pretty broad brush. There is 'verbal abuse' and there is 'telling it like it is'. Travis wanted her out of his life and she wouldn't go away. When he got to his wits end he used some pretty harsh words to tell her why. Some people need to hear the truth, no matter how harsh. (Yet she STILL wouldn't just walk away.):twocents:

I have to disagree. Travis was enraged alright, he was livid, but he was doing more than telling it like it is. His response to her was not merely harsh but vitriolic, and the words and expressions he used were designed and intended to objectify, dehumanize and annihilate.

Vitriol like that cannot be taken out of context; its very source is toxic; its voice betrays someone very at home, learned, and practised with the language of hatred and abuse. It has a second-nature quality--it flows. This kind of abuse may need a trigger, but it is not a one-off, born-full-grown kind of thing.

I tend to disagree, too, that he intended, at the moment of his abusive tirade, to get her out of his life once and for all. He was dismissing her as a human being and, at the same time, paradoxically and actively engaging her. Neither of them were just going to walk away.

 

[SusieD]

BBM: I think you could get away with an "n" (number of people in the study) in the hundreds, and get a reliable and valid result. :wink: That would be an interesting study, and not to hard to do using hypotheticals.

I know what an "n" is

and I don't think hundreds would do it, there are too many variables

and unless it was for real, no pretend trials, it wouldn't be valid. I wouldn't expect a lot of argument among civil people with open minds that deciding for real in a DP trial is a world away from pretending. It doesn't matter unless you're actually going to put another person to death. And it's about 20 worlds away from "I WOULD HAVE DONE IT"

because I don't think everyone who is so adamant about killing someone would be when it was reality. Reality world, not reality TV.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It is too bad that Travis didn't persist in the attempted reporting of his tires being slashed to LE. I am sure he would have mentioned JA's name. It could have made the difference had LE had a little chat with her. She would know they were on to her and perhaps it wouldn't have progressed to murder.

It's also too bad that Travis only told his friends that if he ended up dead it would be Jodi... had he reported her to LE for harassing and stalking him they would also be on to her pre-murder.

Men just do not report abuse often. Sad.

She had every angry word he dished on her coming to her. He had had enough. Was it abusive? ABSOLUTELY NOT. He finally blew, as any human would do at that point.
JA was the only abuser in the relationship.
The sex was mutually agreed to. So she can't claim emotional abuse on that either.
Just because she didn't get him to commit to her does not make him abusive.

ITA!

I just don't see why Wendy Murphy assumes the non-verdict came down due to the older age group being offended by the sex tape.

I am 66 and have countless friends around my age.....younger and a little older and not one of them thought the sex tape was even relevant and they came to me wanting me to explain to them why it was even allowed in the trial. I had no answer for them because I also found it totally irrelevant when proving that JA premeditated Travis' murder. All of them thought it was only put in to make Travis look bad.

So I really think that is a bunch of presumptive BS based on nothings when WM is assuming that. None of my friends nor I was offended by the sex tape. We are certainly old enough to know what others do in private is their business and these were two consenting adults whether Jodi lies it wasn't or not. So I don't agree with Wendy except she may have the foreman pegged since he seems in the Jodi camp all the way and blamed the victim/state instead of the cold blooded murderer.

I have noticed in a lot of cases Wendy seems to get hung up on the sex angle sometimes and gives it far too much weight imo.

We have already read linked articles here during the trial that even if male domestic violence/stalker victims report and call the police often they are dismissed. So I'm not sure the police would have taken it seriously even if he had reported it again.

In the same article it said society, including even LE, just does not look at stalking/abuse done by an aggressive dangerous female the way they do if a male does it. The psyche doctor writing the article said society tends to think a woman has a right to act out and do angry bad things if a man dares rebuke them or break up with them.

We must change that way of thinking. If we have learned anything at all in this case it is Travis was a victim of domestic violence homicide and his story must be told over and over again in hopes that it will bring awareness to some other man/men who is cringing in fear of his own female predator/stalker.

 

[aa9511]

I have to disagree. Travis was enraged alright, he was livid, but he was doing more than telling it like it is. His response to her was not merely harsh but vitriolic, and the words and expressions he used were designed and intended to objectify, dehumanize and annihilate.

Vitriol like that cannot be taken out of context; its very source is toxic; its voice betrays someone very at home, learned, and practised with the language of hatred and abuse. It has a second-nature quality--it flows. This kind of abuse may need a trigger, but it is not a one-off, born-full-grown kind of thing.

I tend to disagree, too, that he intended, at the moment of his abusive tirade, to get her out of his life once and for all. He was dismissing her as a human being and, at the same time, paradoxically and actively engaging her. Neither of them were just going to walk away.

bbm

If he was such a monster, she would have hurt her physically, IMO. he never laid a hand on her. And I disagree completely that this was a hate-filled attack designed to "annhilate" her -- he couldn't even use the word fu*****. He use "frickin'"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He couldn't even bring himself to use ACTUAL, real bad words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are u getting all of this from????

I personally would love to go to her jail cell and TELL HER OFF. I would love to stream a flow of REAL obscenties on her. I have SO MANY mean, cruel things I can think to say to her BECAUSE SHE DESERVES IT. And I haven't ever spoken one word with her. Travis had to deal with CMJA, for GOd's sake!!!!!!!!!!! Can you IMAGINE having to deal with this practically every day????

 

[TXProfessional]

Just saw this on Twitter

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 2m
Exclusive Today! Live twinterview with @tarakelley320 the juror that asked "Why should we believe you now?" Don't miss it! 2pm PDT

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 2m
We have setup the WAT courtroom where you can chat along with other viewers and also watch the tweets below. http://wildabouttrial.com/wat-courtroom.html …

TotallyO, this link doesn't work for me. Is it working for others? tia

 

[Linda7NJ]

I know what an "n" is

and I don't think hundreds would do it, there are too many variables

and unless it was for real, no pretend trials, it wouldn't be valid. I wouldn't expect a lot of argument among civil people with open minds that deciding for real in a DP trial is a world away from pretending. It doesn't matter unless you're actually going to put another person to death. And it's about 20 worlds away from "I WOULD HAVE DONE IT"

because I don't think everyone who is so adamant about killing someone would be when it was reality. Reality world, not reality TV.

I agree with you totally!

I was for the DP in this case, but now doubt if I were a juror, I could actually vote for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SusieD]

I still can't understand why the ladies that saw straight through Ms. Jodi could not open the eyes of the "four".

It doesn't take rocket scientist as they say! One email taken out of context? Really?

Why do you assume their eyes were not open? Why is their opinion not as valid as any other juror?

One does not have to make the same decision as everyone else for reasons of "not thinking" "not listening" and "eyes closed." One comes to an opinion for a lot of reasons.

Everyone agreed on facts of this case. When it comes to applying death one can agree with every single fact of the prosecution and still not believe this particular crime warrants death. It's why there is more than one juror.

There was nothing to open their eyes to. They watched the trial and because some don't like the outcome hardly means they weren't aware of the facts.

 

[Paintr]

BBM
I do not understand this part at all!! Here where I am, the younger generation talks to each other this way, and worse...all the time. I find it unsettling but not at all uncommon. Every twenty something would be classified as abusive, according to this definition.

ITA! I was at the mall when one young 'lady' bellowed 'B@TCH!' and started charging down the hall towards another young lady about her age..18-23...

Now where I come from those are fighting words. :floorlaugh: I was expecting a huge cat fight. But the 2 nd young lady screamed the same word, hugged the 1st girl and said'I am so glad to see you'.

Times they are a changing! :facepalm:

 

[TXProfessional]

I have to disagree. Travis was enraged alright, he was livid, but he was doing more than telling it like it is. His response to her was not merely harsh but vitriolic, and the words and expressions he used were designed and intended to objectify, dehumanize and annihilate.

Vitriol like that cannot be taken out of context; its very source is toxic; its voice betrays someone very at home, learned, and practised with the language of hatred and abuse. It has a second-nature quality--it flows. This kind of abuse may need a trigger, but it is not a one-off, born-full-grown kind of thing.

I tend to disagree, too, that he intended, at the moment of his abusive tirade, to get her out of his life once and for all. He was dismissing her as a human being and, at the same time, paradoxically and actively engaging her. Neither of them were just going to walk away.

You know, none of us really know what brought about Travis' attempt to get her OUT OF HIS LIFE--BUT WE DO KNOW THIS because thankfully there was REAL EVIDENCE that to prove that is what he wanted AND WHY HE WANTED IT.

With all due respect, you appear to be decoding and looking for hidden messages in his words to support your opinion jmho

 

[SunnyinMO]

Good Morning/Afternoon Team Travis My DH and I went away for the weekend...no TV...which was a blessing in disguise. I have tried to get caught up and finally gave up...y'all have been very chatty. I did see the jurors interviews and saw the jurors on DD last night. I hope to see more jurors coming out.....but have mixed feelings about that as well. I fear the DT will use everything theses jurors say, to mold their replay. I was really glad to see the women speaking out, since some were oh so sure the 8-4 vote was related to the 8 men, 4 women jury make up. I think the jurors that did not vote for the DP based their decision personally rather than legally. And I don't believe anything could have changed their minds. ABUSE???? come on. I do think the State erred in not stressing the lack of abusive words on other emails and texts and not going over that text session used by the DT to 'prove' abuse, with a fine tooth comb. Let the jury wonder just as we have....what had she done to provoke this texts. I thought so at the time and after listening to the jurors, I am even more convinced. If I have missed anything HUGE I would really appreciate y'all telling where to go look....and what to look for. Thanks

 

[I Object!]

I wouldn't characterize Travis' texts on May 26 as abuse. He was clearly full of anger over something pretty awful that he believed she perpetrated. When people talk of someone 'snapping' - this is what I imagine. He takes off the kid gloves and lets her have it VERBALLY. He doesn't threaten her bodily. He tells her how her actions disgust him. Actions she pretends didn't happen. No one else described him to be emotionally unstable.

The words were abusive.

I feel most people believe they were warranted.

IMO regardless... I do not feel Jodi was an emotionally or psychologically abused woman by Travis or anyone else. There was no pattern or history of verbal abuse. Few a few isolated abusive words do not a domestic violence victim make.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:facepalm: Me too!! I wonder if it's on the transcript, hahaha!!

:seeya: Checking it now ... it got bleeped there too ... LOL !


Snippets from JVM show with Wendy Murphy on 5/24/13:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/24/ijvm.01.html


MURPHY: Well, so what. I mean 95 percent of the people in this country probably fit the definition of abuse under that standard. There`s a guy on death row in Arizona, a guy not a woman with implants, a guy who is mentally retarded, was sexually and repeatedly violated as a child. And then he became a killer and they didn`t care. You know why? Because that`s the way the law works.

We`re not interested in your abuse as a child or anything. We`re interested in whether the fact that you were abused cuts against the weight of reasons to put you to death.

Look, my feeling is the only reason anybody voted to spare her life is because she`s cute, she`s white and because she talked about sex. There`s a lot of guys on the jury, eight of them and you`re telling me they weren`t fantasizing a little bit while she was talking about (EXPLETIVE DELETED) --


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wendy.

MURPHY: --- of course, they were. It`s hard to kill somebody you`re sexually fantasizing about. The prosecutor will think about that the next time and --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh.

(CROSSTALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on, hold on. Did you just -- no way. Wait -- let`s rewind that. We`re rewinding that. Come on, now.


:facepalm:

 

[Stripehaven]

I am not enjoying the assumptions made about older people's attitudes and how it may have affected juror attitudes about this trial's testimony. I am old myself and I actually had heard of sex before Jodi Arias came along. A lot of the activity between her and Travis was not to my taste and I would have slapped a lot of that language out of my partner's mouth. BUT if that was their thing, I do not care. I didn't find her truthful or sympathetic. I thing Travis was a decent person but, like a fair number of younger guys, could be a bit of a dick. But none of that mattered to me a bit. He did not deserve to die. Nothing he did or said mitigated the heinous nature of the crime. I am not even pro-DP but would have felt it appropriate here. So please do not assume old people wimp out. Sometimes we even have some extra big-picture perspective due to our vast life experience LOL.

Oh, yeah - I am TEXTING this, too! Imagine!

On a separate note, I will be perfectly happy with JA getting LWOP because it will mean NO automatic appeals, with the attendant publicity, attention, fawning attorneys, and possible overturning of her verdict. Let her be locked up, ignored, and forgotten. Much better than becoming some kind of false martyr to those who believe she was abused.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

bbm

If he was such a monster, she would have hurt her physically, IMO. he never laid a hand on her. And I disagree completely that this was a hate-filled attack designed to "annhilate" her -- he couldn't even use the word fu*****. He use "frickin'"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He couldn't even bring himself to use ACTUAL, real bad words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are u getting all of this from????

I personally would love to go to her jail cell and TELL HER OFF. I would love to stream a flow of REAL obscenties on her. I have SO MANY mean, cruel things I can think to say to her BECAUSE SHE DESERVES IT. And I haven't ever spoken one word with her. Travis had to deal with CMJA, for GOd's sake!!!!!!!!!!! Can you IMAGINE having to deal with this practically every day????

Exactly. IMO, it is highly unfair to select a tiny few times he finally couldn't tolerate her psychotic evil ways anymore and say that is abuse. Baloney.

There has to be a consistent pattern for it to become abusive. And out of over 8,000 text, emails.. the DT could only find 3-4 times he lost his cool with JA the psychopath. That is not a pattern of abuse. With it being only those few times out of thousands of nice ones it shows he rarely lost his temper with JA. I am amazed he was able to contain his frustration and anger so much during the 1.5 year crazy relationship.

I have a feeling whatever JA had done when he finally couldn't stand it anymore causing the flurry of messages on May 26th was something HUGE!

He threatened to expose her to her parents and PPL friends. He finally told her how he felt about her and how she had ruined his life. When he threatened to expose her for what she is that is when Travis unbeknown to him.........sealed his fate. She immediately began to plot his murder.

Abuse.......is stalking someone.
Abuse ........is hacking into someone's personal accounts.
Abuse........is slashing tires ........three sets.
Abuse..........is writing threatening email to someone they are jealous of.
Abuse .......is peering in someone's window like a damn sick pervert.
Abuse.........is hiding in someone's closet when they had not been invited there.
Abuse .........is stabbing someone 29 times....slitting their throat and shooting them in the head.
Abuse .........is saying that someone is a pedophile when it is a BALD FACE LIE.

Travis couldn't hold a candle to JA in the abuse department imo.

 

[aa9511]

ITA! I was at the mall when one young 'lady' bellowed 'B@TCH!' and started charging down the hall towards another young lady about her age..18-23...

Now where I come from those are fighting words. :floorlaugh: I was expecting a huge cat fight. But the 2 nd young lady screamed the same word, hugged the 1st girl and said'I am so glad to see you'.

Times they are a changing! :facepalm:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Bet you were ready to step in and stop a fight!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!

 

[DAWN TREADER]

TotallyO, this link doesn't work for me. Is it working for others? tia

Just tried it and no, it's not working for me either.

 

[Litigatrix]

The handcuffs and carting off to jail only apply to defendants who aren't already in jail. Since CKJA was already in jail and wearing a stun belt, it was unnecessary.

I wish they had done a perp walk with her at some point. The thought of her handcuffed with no makeup on being shoved into a police car trying to hide behind her hair curtain past a crowd of angry spectators is the stuff that dreams are made of.

And also...Hi guys! Long time no see!!:seeya:

 

[Emmi]

You know, none of us really know what brought about Travis' attempt to get her OUT OF HIS LIFE--BUT WE DO KNOW THIS because thankfully there was REAL EVIDENCE that to prove that is what he wanted AND WHY HE WANTED IT.

With all due respect, you appear to be decoding and looking for hidden messages in his words to support your opinion jmho

Decode the hidden messages in these, please. What are they? Anagram puzzles?

pure *advertiser censored*

three-hole wonder

If he knew what I know about you he'd spit in ur face. So would everyone else.

You`re a laughing stock

you have *advertiser censored*`s job

Who freaking cares about you? You`re worthless

rotten lunatic

corrupted carcass

And, with all due respect, many people appear to be launching a defense of blatant verbal abuse, apologizing for it, and attempting to re-define it, simply because they despise the target. Easy to do when the target is an incarcerated convict, but these are not sound arguments.