SIDEBAR #8- Arias/Alexander forum

[LindaFaye]

I don't want to sound dumb but what are Michael Kiefer and Beth talking about in the post above ?

 

[Emmi]

pure *advertiser censored* TRUE

three-hole wonder TRUE

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

You`re a laughing stock TRUE

you have *advertiser censored*`s job OK, I'll give you that one.

Who freaking cares about you? You`re worthless TRUE

rotten lunatic TRUE

corrupted carcass VERY VERY TRUE

Exposes the underlying attitudes of the verbal abuser, independent of context and immediate triggers - TRUE

 

[LindaFaye]

Sorry I think it's a page are two back where it was posted..LindaFaye

 

[TexMex]

Thanks. It wasn't murder one. It was some kind of 'sudden passion' murder charge, they're calling it manslaughter here, with a maximum of 20 years. But, it sounds very similar to the overkill in this case. That's assuming you do not believe premed was proven, which I don't. IMO


The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles made the decision Thursday, citing the nature of the offense as the reason.

"The record indicates that the inmate committed one or more violent criminal acts indicating a conscious disregard for the lives, safety or property of others; or the instant offense of pattern of criminal activity has elements of brutality, violence or conscious selection of victim's vulnerability such that the inmate poses a continuing threat to public safety; or the records indicates use of a weapon," according to a release from the parole board.

"That sounds like boilerplate language," Detoto said.

She acknowledged the odds were stacked against Harris being paroled on her first attempt.

"But, we always remained hopeful," Detoto said.

Harris has served half of her 20-year sentence for the July 24, 2002, manslaughter of 44-year-old David Harris

After eight hours of deliberation, the jury found her guilty of murder, which might have sent her to jail for life. But the jury also decided that she acted with “sudden passion,” cutting the sentence to a maximum of 20 years.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/jus...heating-hubby-article-1.1259905#ixzz2UhsEZnEr

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Snipped:

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!

BBM: I so agree.
B&EBM: Snort!!!

 

[Sleuth5]

:seeya: You know what else I have never seen any evidence of... squirrel poop... sure there's goose poop, and bird poop, occasionally my dog's:blushing:, and horse poop everywhere. Nobody complains about stepping in squirrel poop, just my thought for the day...

(I've seen squirrel poop.) :floorlaugh:

 

[SusieD]

Thanks. It wasn't murder one. It was some kind of 'sudden passion' murder charge, they're calling it manslaughter here, with a maximum of 20 years. But, it sounds very similar to the overkill in this case. That's assuming you do not believe premed was proven, which I don't. IMO


The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles made the decision Thursday, citing the nature of the offense as the reason.

"The record indicates that the inmate committed one or more violent criminal acts indicating a conscious disregard for the lives, safety or property of others; or the instant offense of pattern of criminal activity has elements of brutality, violence or conscious selection of victim's vulnerability such that the inmate poses a continuing threat to public safety; or the records indicates use of a weapon," according to a release from the parole board.

"That sounds like boilerplate language," Detoto said.

She acknowledged the odds were stacked against Harris being paroled on her first attempt.

"But, we always remained hopeful," Detoto said.

Harris has served half of her 20-year sentence for the July 24, 2002, manslaughter of 44-year-old David Harris

I think things might have gone a little better for Clara Harris (at trial & w/ parole attempt) if she hadn't had her daughter in the car when she smooshed her cheating husband (and the girl's dad) a few times.

 

[aa9511]

Listening to HLN talking about Victim IMpact Statements -

This might be controversial, but what do you all think about next time maybe they should have Samantha and one of the other sisters, instead of Stephen? This is in NO WAY how I feel...he actually made a BIG impact on me, but I'm trying to look at it from someone like Foreman's view: He already thought Travis was "abusive" in one way or another. He probably thinks other things about Travis (i.e. sex tape) that he was not willing to say publicly. Think about it, whatever he said publicly is a MINIMIZATION of what he probably actually thinks.

In Stephen's VIS, it was apparent how much hate he has for CMJA. Samantha had a different way of coming across. If somone thinks Travis was "angry" and "abusive," then seeing his brother act that way (anger) might make them think, oh see his brother is like that it must run in the family. Since that is his brother, a male, the jurors like Foreman might have said, oh yeah, I can see Travis having the same rage in him.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT HOW I PERSONALLY FEEL. But then again, I never ever thought there would be even one person on the jury who actually believed the "verbal abuse" line, MUCH LESS "physical abuse." Juror 6 clearly said last night that there were some, meaning AT LEAST ONE PERSON, WHO BELIEVED THE PHYSICAL ABUSE.

I think Juan needs to play the same game CMJA played...play to the jury. I think next time, he should have Samantha and the younge sister who was shown in the tape of the memorial speaking about Travis, and also maybe Tanisha too.

 

[Sleuth5]

Exposes the underlying attitudes of the verbal abuser, independent of context and immediate triggers - TRUE

Perhaps he was simply angry. Really, really angry, because a sociopath was manipulating him and he came to realize how badly she had done so. Of course, I don't know, but under the circumstances, it seems a reasonable assumption that might explain his ranting.

 

[Paintr]

:seeya: You know what else I have never seen any evidence of... squirrel poop... sure there's goose poop, and bird poop, occasionally my dog's:blushing:, and horse poop everywhere. Nobody complains about stepping in squirrel poop, just my thought for the day...

So true!

I was standing under a tree in my backyard one morning, drinking my coffee and got peed on by a squirrel. I always assumed they would climb down to the ground to pee, but this one just hung it's little furry kiester over the side of the branch and let go. They must have bladders the size of baseballs, considering how much liquid came down. :floorlaugh:

 

[nightwatch]

From the last thread.



When I write "you" I mean the generic "you."

To me, the bold sentence is key.

For the life of me, I cannot craft an argument in order to play devil's advocate for this case. I've tried.

The bold sentence is why. Yes, she was able to contain her crazy until she met Travis. No doubt.

But there were many signs along the road CMja traveled to indicate the genie was just about out of the bottle.

She fixated and attached herself to men. Whenever she felt threatened, she panicked. When she panicked she'd do something desperate to retain control of the person. The first time it happened years and years ago, it was probably something cute and funny that the first love interest probably found flattering or even enchanting.

But each subsequent time was less funny, less cute and increasingly disturbing. Any time she felt threatened or rejected in subsequent relationships, the panicked response made her create drama and before long, it was downright exasperating then annoying. No one ever called her on it because it wasn't "crazy" just irritating. By the time it got to crazy, they were just happy she dumped them.

It was only a matter of time before she became lethal. So Travis could just as easily have been Walter or Brian or David or Wayne. Anyone.

I don't believe Travis did anything that any other guy in the same stage of life would have done or would do. That isn't an excuse, just a reality check.

PPL and LDS were just particulars that came along with Travis; seemed like just red herrings that threw the general public off the discussion of a murderous beast. PPL and LDS were not strange things that somehow paved the road to this disaster.

She was 27 years old, wanted to get married and have children and the biological clock wasn't ticking, it was blowing up. She knew what he had told her about Deanna being almost 30 and what that meant in LDS if she wasn't married.

She was pissed because starting over meant losing time and she felt she had no time to spare. I don't believe she loved him. She loved the future she saw with him but she was fixated and obsessed.

The more she panicked, the more she acted out and the more she acted out, the more fearful Travis became and the faster he backed off. He was trying to find forgiveness for himself and his transgressions. He probably thought it would be hypocritical to continue asking for forgiveness for himself and not extend it to CMja. (for her to call him hypocritical makes my blood boil) Travis just had no idea her crazy was about to get buck wild.

It could have been anyone. It could have been for any reason. Just paying attention to her was enough for her to build dreams in her head.

If it were only about the sex and feeling used, one good stab wound would have done it, maybe two if she missed the first time.

The savagery of the attack makes it clear TO ME that this didn't have much to do with feeling used for sex or whether or not TA should or shouldn't have had sex with her. It was rage because she wasn't going to get what she wanted and it was because he foiled her plans and he wasn't sorry about it. I'm sure she felt TA was her last hope.

Guilting him didn't work. Sexing him didn't work. Angering him didn't work. She was probably thinking WTF do I have to do here?

She was probably about ready to start over and focus on Ryan when TA discovered whatever it was he discovered and that's when the gates of hell opened for him.

In my view, she was a grown a$$ woman in the mutha of all snits behaving like an even more demented Chucky.

J M O

And with that thesis, it's off to work I go. lol

two clicks on the thanks button well said!

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

I would like to know how long it took for those who "got" her to figure it out. She was on the stand for 18 days, and since this phase will be an abbreviated version, I'm concerned a short time on the stand won't adequately show the new jurors the real psychopath hiding under the 'girl'.

And I do think she might take some more direction from JW/Nurmi this time around. Well, correct that, I think she'll listen to them tell her what apparently worked and what didn't last time, based on these interviews. She has lived her life trying to present herself to people based on what she thinks they need, so I'm a bit concerned that an abbreviated version of her lst performance might just work. She'll try to show remorse, and remember to be the pathetic picked on little girl that needs help from these jurors...

I am also wondering how much of the state's case can be presented for this phase since so much of it was specific to the guilt and premeditation phases? Do those lies of hers come out for this one or is the state limited to only talking about the cruelty mitigator?

Are my worries showing?

It's a vicious Catch-22: if she doesn't remain on the stand they may miss her subtleties but if she does remain on the stand, there's the chance someone will get sucked in by whatever funky pheromones she secretes up there, lol.

Maybe solitary confinement will have stripped away some of that protective webbing she uses. *snort*

 

[Emmi]

I was not taking issue with angry reactions, calling people out on their BS, using swear words (verbal abuse, by the way, does not require obscenities, and obscenities are not, by default, abusive) or telling someone they are the worst thing ever to happen to them, or telling them to go to hell and how to get there. That's a different animal.

Concerning context, I've already made a post earlier about why the context argument doesn't convince me in this case, and I'm not going to re-write it.

And, of course abuse can be provoked--when you're provoking someone who has an abusive orientation.[/QUOTE]

bbm

Have to flat out disagree with that statement. Wrong. I bet I could provoke you to physical violence, much less verbal. Would you say you are abuse-orientated? If not I'll pick someone else. ANYONE can provoke ANYONE under the right circumstances. I've never "abused" anyone. But hurt my dog, my kid, my friends and you'll get your share of "abuse" if that's what you want to call defense.

That's just wrong, mean and demeaning on so many levels. It's also unrealistic and represents, to me, a very juvenile attitude.

I tried for you, but you lost me forever with that statement.

ETA: I've got some emails from after I caught my then BF with another man. They probably make TA look like a saint. I guess in your book, I'm abusive. You're soooooooo wrong

Totally unfair. Never said self-defense or defense of others, even of the physically violent sort, was abusive.

 

[katydid23]

Oh, it has nothing to do with knowing and appreciating Sinatra, Presley and Liz Taylor. I'm 58 and still adore listening to Elvis.

It's just that if the goal was to manipulate those "older jurors" with portraits of contemporaries, then CMja would have done better to have chosen people from my generation, not my mother's. Sinatra was born in 1915, IIRC. Hmm. I suppose a nice portrait of John Lennon would be out, because he was murdered. That would have not gone over well.

I'm smiling a little at some of the generalizations about and criticism of the older jurors. We don't go all soft-hearted, senile and unable to make rational decisions once we become eligible for AARP!

I am 60, so I would have fit right in with that jury. lol

I think the problem that some of the older jurors had was the 'abusive' names that Travis called Jodi in those messages/texts.

I have kids that are 21 and 25, so I am familiar with the way young people use
terms like ' ho' and *advertiser censored*, etc. It is not considered as 'vile' as when we were younger. No one would ever think of calling their ex-girlfriend such a long list of curse words back in the day. But this younger generation uses those words rather effortlessly. They do not have the same shock value to Generation X.

So imo, the older jurors were convinced that she was being 'abused' because of the names he called her.

 

[MidwestMama]

<mod snip>

One of the jurors on Dr Drew last night said they did discuss it (deliberate). They each had an opportunity to discuss their reasons for their choice. They discussed the reasons they voted one way or another. None of that changed anyone's mind (or at least that's the impression I got).
Because this decision is based on their OWN PERSONAL CONVICTIONS you really can't sway each other. If juror A feels her age is a reason to spare her life and you don't, you aren't likely to sway or be swayed. It is a personal issue.
I did NOT like what the foreman had to say but I also do not feel they "did not deliberate". This is the most difficult phase to come to a joint decision on because you cannot "prove your postion" with FACTS.
Also, the same juror said that the foreman did not sway anyone to change from death to life.

 

[elementary]

Happiness for me is not having fresh convict video, and the concurrent media frenzy over their 'star'. Life is beautiful.

 

[scmom]

[video=youtube;kyXz6eMCj2k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyXz6eMCj2k[/video]

 

[aa9511]

Exposes the underlying attitudes of the verbal abuser, independent of context and immediate triggers - TRUE

Sigh. Was his underlying attitude the reason he let her come into his house whenever she wanted and mooch off of him? Was his underlying attitude the reason he lent her his car whenever she needed it, and loaned her money? Was his underlying attitude the reason he PAID her for cleaning his house - don't you think, if he really felt all of the above before she pushed him to the very edge, that he would have just MADE her clean his house...as in you are my property, you're worthless, you're a *advertiser censored*. ????? He could have easily just told her to clean his house WITHOUT PAYING HER, if he felt she was completely wrothless.
Was his underlying attitude the reason he introduced her to his friends and let her become a part of his "group"? Was his underlying attitude the reason he took her to events and social friend functions, which we have clearly seen in videos and pictures? ETC, ETC........

 

[SusieD]

Totally unfair. Never said self-defense or defense of others, even of the physically violent sort, was abusive.

In my opinion Travis was defending himself in that email. Or else we would have seen hundreds more of the same thing.

But you go ahead and think that everyone who responds to sociopathic manipulation (and who knows what else) with a nasty email or two is abusive. I cannot respect that opinion.

 

[Tenaciousdae]

So true!

I was standing under a tree in my backyard one morning, drinking my coffee and got peed on by a squirrel. I always assumed they would climb down to the ground to pee, but this one just hung it's little furry kiester over the side of the branch and let go. They must have bladders the size of baseballs, considering how much liquid came down. :floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh: Well they must be saving all of their love for you and sleuth because I have never seen any of it. HA, now I have to google it...

Good afternoon! Hope I havent spoiled any lunches! :angel2: