Jodi Arias Trial: the weekend discussion

[Karmady]

In NJ it would not be considered domestic violence as the two never lived together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's the AZ stat. The part about prior romantic/intimate relationships where there was no co-habitation and no children in common, etc. gives discretion to consider several factors about the relationship. That's what I'm talking about, in gneeral. That I'm not sure the relationship b/w Jodi and Travis would/should qualify as dv even under AZ law.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03601.htm

 

[kkdj]

In NJ it would not be considered domestic violence as the two never lived together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought I had read that she had moved Herself in although uninvited.

What is it considered in NJ?

 

[PASA]

Hi! I am new here, but have been following this trial for awhile and reading the posts. Thanks for all of the info you have been posting! There is something that is really bothering me that I have noticed while watching the trial......the lack of any kind of emotion or reaction to anything that has been said/shown by JA's mother (or the aunt). They sit there stone faced no matter what it going on, whether it be pics of TA's wounds, whether the defense is talking about how her daughter had to kill to defend herself (which I know is not true), there is nothing that seems to effect this woman. There is something wrong with her, also, IMO. Anyone else notice this?

Welcome to Websleuths!

I have noticed it as well.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hi! I am new here, but have been following this trial for awhile and reading the posts. Thanks for all of the info you have been posting! There is something that is really bothering me that I have noticed while watching the trial......the lack of any kind of emotion or reaction to anything that has been said/shown by JA's mother (or the aunt). They sit there stone faced no matter what it going on, whether it be pics of TA's wounds, whether the defense is talking about how her daughter had to kill to defend herself (which I know is not true), there is nothing that seems to effect this woman. There is something wrong with her, also, IMO. Anyone else notice this?

I'm not going to judge her mother. I have no way of knowing what she's thinking or feeling. I have heard nothing that leads me to believe she was anything but a good mother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmady]

DC A friend of Travis that he had Sunday dinners with, was on JVM or NG this weekend stating Travis told him if one Sunday he didn't show up it was because he would be dead. Words to that effect.

Added..someone posted a link to the video the other day but I am too lazy to search for it, I am sorry.

here 'tis, I think

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/jane-velez-mitchell

eta: the vid is right on the front page

 

[Linda7NJ]

Here's the AZ stat. The part about prior romantic/intimate relationships where there was no co-habitation and no children in common, etc. gives discretion to consider several factors about the relationship. That's what I'm talking about, in gneeral. That I'm not sure the relationship b/w Jodi and Travis would/should qualify as dv even under AZ law.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03601.htm

Cool! I had no idea about the laws in AZ!

DV laws in NJ are a huge pain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kkdj]

Here's the AZ stat. The part about prior romantic/intimate relationships where there was no co-habitation and no children in common, etc. gives discretion to consider several factors about the relationship. That's what I'm talking about, in gneeral. That I'm not sure the relationship b/w Jodi and Travis would/should qualify as dv even under AZ law.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03601.htm

Thank you for this.
I think it could fall under #6.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I know it's considered dv under the law -- at least now and for quite some time it has been. I was speaking more toward the purpose of the broadening of the dv umbrella and whether this case falls under that broad umbrella when maybe it shouldn't. All crimes of stalking, threats and violence leave the victim in fear for their safety. The dv designation is applied so that the type of situations that arise between spouses and other intimate partners can be handled in a certain way by LE and the courts. At least that's a big part of the reason, imo.

It is a domestic violence homicide as it should be.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEFINED

Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of behaviors involving physical, sexual, economic and emotional abuse, alone or in combination, by an intimate partner often for the purpose of establishing and maintaining power and control over the other partner.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDES DEFINED

Domestic violence homicides are those murders that occur between men and women, husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, boyfriends and boyfriends and girlfriends and girlfriend relationships. In fact, any murder between intimate partners would be considered a domestic violence homicide. They may also involve third party relationships, such as "love triangles" former husbands and/or wives, and jilted lovers.

INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE ORIENTED DISPUTES AND ASSAULTS

In Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques, these murders are classified sex related homicides in the category of INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE ORIENTED DISPUTES AND ASSAULTS or LUST MURDERS depending on what was done to the victim. The motive in this category of slayings is most often based upon elements of rage, hate, anger, jealously or revenge. The psychological dynamics involved in such violent interpersonal disputes and assaults oftentimes present scenarios which involve violent actions and the classic statement; "If I can't have you then nobody will have you." This is most common in sexual domestic dispute cases. DYNAMICS



http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/domviolence.htm

And we know the violence usually esculates when the victim either leaves or breaks up with the spouse or boyfriend ...girlfriend etc.

 

[popsicle]

Hi! I am new here, but have been following this trial for awhile and reading the posts. Thanks for all of the info you have been posting! There is something that is really bothering me that I have noticed while watching the trial......the lack of any kind of emotion or reaction to anything that has been said/shown by JA's mother (or the aunt). They sit there stone faced no matter what it going on, whether it be pics of TA's wounds, whether the defense is talking about how her daughter had to kill to defend herself (which I know is not true), there is nothing that seems to effect this woman. There is something wrong with her, also, IMO. Anyone else notice this?

I have seen the Mom in court and there is a picture in our Time line thread of her that shows a rather large earphone looking contraption in her left ear. Maybe she isn't even listening to the trial. I have no idea what this is but it shows a cord running down towards her waist area.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thank you for this.
I think it could fall under #6.

I am quite stunned that some dont seem to think this is a domestic violence case when if the gender was reversed it most certainly would be.

Anytime there has been a personal relationship between the victim and the murderer even if it had ended it is considered a domestic violence case. In fact more victims are in more grave danger when they leave or break up with the abuser.

IMO

 

[Karmady]

If this isn't domestic violence, then I don't know what is.

I just posted the stat. definition upthread. If they were or had been married or living together, if they had a child together or if she were pregnant and a few other things, it would clearly be dv under the law. Unless it's been established that they were living together at some point (not sure about that), though, then it seems that this scenario would fall under Paragraph A.6 of the definition and might or might not be dv in AZ, imo. At least under the legal definition.

 

[Karmady]

I am quite stunned that some dont seem to think this is a domestic violence case when if the gender was reversed it most certainly would be.

Anytime there has been a personal relationship between the victim and the murderer even if it had ended it is considered a domestic violence case. In fact more victims are in more grave danger when they leave or break up with the abuser.

IMO

The law is completely gender-neutral on this.

 

[popsicle]

here is the picture

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am quite stunned that some dont seem to think this is a domestic violence case when if the gender was reversed it most certainly would be.

Anytime there has been a personal relationship between the victim and the murderer even if it had ended it is considered a domestic violence case. In fact more victims are in more grave danger when they leave or break up with the abuser.

IMO

I was just sharing that it wouldn't be in NJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Cool! I had no idea about the laws in AZ!

DV laws in NJ are a huge pain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They didnt even have to live together. All they had to do is be in a domestic relationship at one time. More people are killed when they break up with someone or finally leave their spouse than at any other time.

And that is what happened to Travis Alexander. He dared to break up with her and then the old motive of 'if I cant have him no one can' kicked in.

IMO

 

[Karmady]

Thank you for this.
I think it could fall under #6.

Yes, it definitely could. Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative I was just saying that the dv laws are now very broad to cover things that traditionally weren't considered dv because they didn't involve married people. My point is that the laws were broadened, at least in part, to address the changing nature of intimate relationships in society and not necessarily to treat every instance of stalking or violence between a man and a woman who had been intimate as dv. Just to take an extreme example, think of a prostitute and a john who have been sexually intimate -- possibly on multiple occasions over an extended period of time. Technically, if the john stalked the prositute or did her harm, it could fall under Paragraph 6, as well. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But in that scenario, LE has discretion to charge it as such and most likely would not because that's not really what the laws were intended to cover. The john would more likely be charged with "plain old" stalking, assualt or whatever.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The law is completely gender-neutral on this.

From your link.

6. The relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship. The following factors may be considered in determining whether the relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship:

Everyone knew they were in a romantic relationship. Even Travis never denied that nor Jodi.

 

[creepingskills]

Also, I can't understand why the 20 shower photos (except this one) were deleted, but the previous sexcapade photos and the subsequent ceiling and "dragging" photo weren't. To me, that implies there was a pause between the shower photo where someone stopped and deleted the batch of 20. And then the photo-taking resumed. I can't understand that.

It would be interesting to know how many pictures the memory card could hold at one time. Maybe she had to delete in order to keep shooting?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes, it definitely could. Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative I was just saying that the dv laws are now very broad to cover things that traditionally weren't considered dv because they didn't involve married people. My point is that the laws were broadened, at least in part, to address the changing nature of intimate relationships in society and not necessarily to treat every instance of stalking or violence between a man and a woman who had been intimate as dv. Just to take an extreme example, think of a prostitute and a john who have been sexually intimate -- possibly on multiple occasions over an extended period of time. Technically, if the john stalked the prositute or did her harm, it could fall under Paragraph 6, as well. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But in that scenario, LE has discretion to charge it as such and most likely would not because that's not really what the laws were intended to cover. The john would more likely be charged with "plain old" stalking, assualt or whatever.

I have never seen a case where a ex-boyfriend murdered his ex-girlfriend that wasnt classified as domestic violence homicide. Imo, Travis's murder will be added to the statistics as murder by an intimate partner which falls under the DV rule, imo.

If the person had a personal relationship or had one previously and was stalking...slashing tires and other violent acts those would be classified as acts arising out of DV.

Domestic means an engaging personal relationship......not one where a john would have with an impersonal hooker. I dont see it as the same at all and Im not trying to be arugmentative either but I just dont see it any other way than an ex-girlfriend murdered her ex-boyfriend which is another sad case of DVH.

JMO though

 

[norest4thewicked]

It's also worth considering what he thought the police's reaction would be keeping in mind that he had experience with them as a child.

Not all police are this way, but some don't want to be involved in DV situations. I have met one of them.

One of my cousins was once in an abusive relationship and one of the explosive nights she called me because she needed a ride away from her house. The BF had taken her oldest son (10 y/o or so) when he left for some reason as some kind of security that she wouldn't call the cops. This was not his child. She did call them anyways and the officer was there when I arrived. He refused to go get the boy. When I asked him why, he told me that he wasn't going to risk his life tonight knowing full well that she would have him back in the house next week. I was livid with him. I went and picked up her son myself because she texted him and he ran out to the street when he saw my headlights. Maybe that was stupid of me because I did not have any experience in DV but I couldn't just not go get him.

If I found myself in a situation (God forbid it!) were abuse was happening, I think I would recall that night and be reluctant to call the police. I hope I'd do it anyhow but I know I'd feel some anxiety about it.

I had to comment on your post. Coming from a law enforcement background, I can tell you that LE is legally not able to get involved in custodial cases. This is a civil matter and they are not able to just "go get" a child unless the child is in danger or there has been some domestic abuse involving the child. If the child had lived with both the mom and the boyfriend, then he could very well claim that he was the father, thus instigating a civil action. I'm not saying that you aren't telling the full story, so please don't think that, but there had to be more to it than that. This officer would be risking his job by saying that "he didn't want to risk his life that night".

Just another side of the story. I just have been on too many threads that blame LE for everything and I don't want this thread to turn into that.