SIDEBAR #7- Arias/Alexander forum

[TXProfessional]

:goodpost:

I am firmly convinced that had the roles been reversed, with JA as the victim and TA as the perpetrator, there would be no chance of a hung jury. The foreman would have given a death sentence in the first 10 minutes.

So much of the information is hovering dangerously close to the "wellllllllll, I know she killed him, but he (sorta) had it coming," type of philosophy. I truly don't believe anyone would ever say that about a female victim playing a role in her own death.

Angela Frost, ITA. I posted this info yesterday, I hope you all don't mind a repost of it, but I really believe there is a need for increased awareness about the women who engage in DV and stalking.

I HIGHLY recommend the following articles on Female Stalkers to understand what Travis was experiencing;

http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/08...lked-by-women/

http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/16...ent-behaviors/

http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/02/17...for-an-answer/

Not only is this information incredibly accurate, Dr Palmatier, has referenced her sources for further research. THESE FACTS AS THEY RELATE TO JA SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN THE SENTENCING PHASE IMHO

 

[thefragile7393]

:goodpost:

I am firmly convinced that had the roles been reversed, with JA as the victim and TA as the perpetrator, there would be no chance of a hung jury. The foreman would have given a death sentence in the first 10 minutes.

So much of the information is hovering dangerously close to the "wellllllllll, I know she killed him, but he (sorta) had it coming," type of philosophy. I truly don't believe anyone would ever say that about a female victim playing a role in her own death.

That has long been my rant here. And I have seen people here say similar stuff. If the roles were reversed would many say "well I think she verbally abused him but that does not mean he should have taken her life?" Men are always seen as the aggressor and if a woman kils a man its because he deserved it but if a man kills a woman it's the opposite.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[thefragile7393]

Annnnnnd becaue it is sidebar here is my lovely rescue Bengal Tiger Lily

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Exactly, I have heard people say on After Dark or other things..he had it coming...WTF?! NO! It makes me wonder what these people are doing in their lives to other people or are they just ignorant of facts in the case.

I stopped watching After Dark due to the constant made up BS some called evidence when it was no such thing.

Who in the world on there is saying Travis had it coming???? That is repulsive and revolting.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Stunted moral development is the real weakness.

You should explain that to the violent murderers. I'm sure they'll change their ways.

 

[Celeskitty]

Annnnnnd becaue it is sidebar here is my lovely rescue Bengal Tiger Lily

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

That is a beautiful cat.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That has long been my rant here. And I have seen people here say similar stuff. If the roles were reversed would many say "well I think she verbally abused him but that does not mean he should have taken her life?" Men are always seen as the aggressor and if a woman kils a man its because he deserved it but if a man kills a woman it's the opposite.Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

BBM

And some in society seem hell bound to keep on spewing that stupid ignorant myth!:banghead:

In fact some of the murders I have kept up with that were done by women are some of the most torturous and heinous murders I've seen.

imo

 

[pip]

That has long been my rant here. And I have seen people here say similar stuff. If the roles were reversed would many say "well I think she verbally abused him but that does not mean he should have taken her life?" Men are always seen as the aggressor and if a woman kils a man its because he deserved it but if a man kills a woman it's the opposite.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

And that's why only 2% of all US deathrow inmates are women. It's not that they aren't murdering, they are just not being sentenced the same as men. Men commit murders more than women, but still, most of the women that do murder aren't given the DP.

 

[Mare10]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdB-8eLEW8g

One Love

 

[thefragile7393]

That is a beautiful cat.

Thank you! She knows it too....little princess

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tenaciousdae]

:giggle:

Its a mixture of hard boiled eggs, olives, feta, basil, rigani, red pepper, chives and olive oil all smooshed up together and stuffed into hollowed out hard rolls. Then baked until ooey and gooey on the inside and crusty/ flaky on the outside.....very yummy but take forever to assemble. They freeze great too!!!

Ohh, thanks for reminding me!! We have a huge Greek Orthodox community and Greek Fest is around the corner! The only one I can think of where it's totally acceptable to walk around with your own bottlle of wine, and no cup:blushing:!
I've missed the last few, but will make sure to go and look for these!

 

[Geralyn]

Re; Juror 16 on GMA saying some jurors believed verbal abuse, some believed emotional abuse, some believed physical abuse....AGHGHGHGHGHSHGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! And she says "some" as in meaning more than one??????? Omigosh...well I don't think it was Foreman b/c he specifcally stated verbal and emotional abuse. It must have been some of the others who voted life.

So I guess the only requirement for claiming abuse in a criminal trial is just yelling out "ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE" in as many different ways as you can! OMG! I am sooooooo sad. Could they not see that the defense had nothing else to work with?? OF COURSE they would pull out the abuse card - sheesh they are giving CMJA and the defense too much benefit of the doubt in dealing with them honestly.

I think some of the jurors just needed answers as to "WHY" she did it, and they were willing to go out on a limb to get those answers. That is the only justification I can find.

Either they weren't paying attention to some parts, or Juan (and I LOVE Juan Martinez) wasn't clear enough for them on the following:

I will preface with this. If Arias lied about even one of the "physical abuse" events, then its safe to assume she lied about them all. Well, it can be proven that she lied about the physical abuse of January 22, 08. Her story on the stand about that "fight"...was that it started over her not loaning Travis money. ($200 iirc). However, the text messages from Jan 22 show Arias asking Travis if HE deposited $ into her account. He says "yes". She then says she "will make it up" to him. Juan asked her under cross exam if this was a loan. (given that she said she'd make it up to him, she had to cop to it being a loan and said "yes"). She couldn't recall how much it was.

Now...it doesn't take a rocket scientist, imo. He is not going to deposit a loan of money into her account ..and then try to borrow money back on the same darn day! He wasn't mad over her not loaning him money..therefore there was no fight and therefore, no broken finger.

..she lied about the fight. If she lied about *that fight, then she lied about the other instances, imo.

Did some of the jury miss this important detail? I waited for Juan to reiterate this, but he never did. I'd wondered if the bank witness who was precluded from testifying was going to speak to this. Maybe thats why it wasn't brought up again?

 

[Emmi]

You should explain that to the violent murderers. I'm sure they'll change their ways.

That's a non sequitur. I'm not in a conversation with a murderer, am I?

Laughing at another's prolonged and painful death by heat stroke in a cage, hoping for that fate for another, calling that "just" punishment--these are all examples of morally stunted development. In my opinion, of course.

 

[ShadyLady]

DOGS!!!

Talking dogs:

Clark Griswold - Sir Talksalot - YouTube

Adopt one today:

Clarks PSA - YouTube

Sorry to interrupt serious conversations!

DOGS!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Either they weren't paying attention to some parts, or Juan (and I LOVE Juan Martinez) wasn't clear enough for them on the following:

I will preface with this. If Arias lied about even one of the "physical abuse" events, then its safe to assume she lied about them all. Well, it can be proven that she lied about the physical abuse of January 22, 08. Her story on the stand about that "fight"...was that it started over her not loaning Travis money. ($200 iirc). However, the text messages from Jan 22 show Arias asking Travis if HE deposited $ into her account. He says "yes". She then says she "will make it up" to him. Juan asked her under cross exam if this was a loan. (given that she said she'd make it up to him, she had to cop to it being a loan and said "yes"). She couldn't recall how much it was.

Now...it doesn't take a rocket scientist, imo. He is not going to deposit a loan of money into her account ..and then try to borrow money back on the same darn day! He wasn't mad over her not loaning him money..therefore there was no fight and therefore, no broken finger.

..she lied about the fight. If she lied about *that fight, then she lied about the other instances, imo.

Did some of the jury miss this important detail? I waited for Juan to reiterate this, but he never did. I'd wondered if the bank witness who was precluded from testifying was going to speak to this. Maybe thats why it wasn't brought up again?

All and I mean ALL of her testimony should have been disregarded as SHE was NOT credible. It's really was just that simple!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TXProfessional]

BBM

And some in society seem hell bound to keep on spewing that stupid ignorant myth!:banghead:

In fact some of the murders I have kept up with that were done by women are some of the most torturous and heinous murders I've seen.

imo

Oceanblue, I am so glad to see someone else feels as strongly as I do about this issue. Sometimes I feel like one amongst many when I conduct trainings on this issue...you might be surprised to know the LE is often the hardest sell, especially regarding female stalking and perpetration of DV!!!

 

[KMouse]

The only thing that explains Mr. Foreman is that his massive ego kept him for asking for the hearing-impaired gear that juror "Headphones" used, and only heard every 5th word of evidence.

That would imply that he was listening in the first place.

 

[pip]

I have to wonder how long she can drag out before next penalty phase begins? And once it does, how much time the judge will allow for her case to be presented all over again?

 

[Linda7NJ]

That's a non sequitur. I'm not in a conversation with a murderer, am I?

Laughing at another's prolonged and painful death by heat stroke in a cage, hoping for that fate for another, calling that "just" punishment--these are all examples of morally stunted development. In my opinion, of course.

I wouldn't wish that kind of slow agonizing death for anyone.

Must admit that if it were to happen to select few, I'd not lose any sleep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gcharlie]

Re; Juror 16 on GMA saying some jurors believed verbal abuse, some believed emotional abuse, some believed physical abuse....AGHGHGHGHGHSHGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! And she says "some" as in meaning more than one??????? Omigosh...well I don't think it was Foreman b/c he specifcally stated verbal and emotional abuse. It must have been some of the others who voted life.

So I guess the only requirement for claiming abuse in a criminal trial is just yelling out "ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE" in as many different ways as you can! OMG! I am sooooooo sad. Could they not see that the defense had nothing else to work with?? OF COURSE they would pull out the abuse card - sheesh they are giving CMJA and the defense too much benefit of the doubt in dealing with them honestly.

I think some of the jurors just needed answers as to "WHY" she did it, and they were willing to go out on a limb to get those answers. That is the only justification I can find.

I'll have to go back and watch it again, because I missed anyone going for the physical abuse claim.

It's just hard for me to understand how any juror could have bought even a portion of what JA was trying to sell. She lacked any credibility, IMO.

Why would a person who was in an abusive relationship travel over 1,000 to see someone? Just does not make any sense whatsoever.

I can't see the killing as being anything but premeditated well in advance. Not the legal definition of premeditated, but the general definition of detailed planning well ahead of time. With her planning, she had the mental mindset to alter the scene. She had thought this whole thing out so much that she was able to do a pretty good clean up job in an hour, hour and a half max. When I say pretty good, there was no blood in the bedroom, closet or leading out of the bedroom. She left behind one strand of hair, missed wiping down one bloody fingerprint and mistakenly left behind or believed that any images on the camera would be destroyed. Martinez implied in closing that she had cleaned herself up before leaving the house.

I sometimes wonder how this case would have turned out if she had not made the mistakes with the camera, her handprint and the strand of hair. She was the number one suspect from the get-go, but it would have been entirely a circumstantial case unless her ego tripped her up with elaborate iies.