Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5

[salberg7]

I think his close friends knew he wasn't a virgin. I don't think they were surprised when they found out after the murder that he was having robust sex with his killer. Maybe the peripherals didn't know, but it wasn't any of their business anyway. I also think many LDS members have sex prior to marriage and that there were plenty of them in Travis' circle. I don't think they would judge him. Travis' friends loved him because he was essentially a fun loving guy and good friend. LDS just don't talk about it. Look at poor Deanna, who was absolutely humiliated on the stand. Noone chastised her or loved her less for it.
Travis put up with the killer's drama for the sex, whether she was living in Palm Desert, Mesa or Yreka. It's safe for me to say that he was addicted to sex with her, as there is plenty of evidence to support it. His roommates knew she was always there. They said he had an open door policy for her as well as everyone else. Look at that picture at the hotel...she was all over him and he allowed it.
She used sex to manipulate him and it worked. Every time. That isn't speculation, and about as close to a fact as anything we can discuss. He was a normal guy with a healthy sexual appetite. Nothing wrong with that. He was conflicted about it but it was still a choice he made to continue.

 

[GigiG]

I couldn't agree more with you regarding Arias not being in control. It was a constant theme from the beginning of their association. Your grasp of the psychological aspect here is spot on. Arias shaped her entire personality to blend to fit the current man in her life.

With Travis this was obvious from small details to significant ones - like converting to his religion within months of meeting him. Being fundamentally dishonest came at a price especially when she didn't get what she wanted. Arias used sexual manipulation and any emotional trick she could pull. Telling Travis how she resented certain behaviours would have been the normal response. Instead she choked down feelings and doubled her efforts to appear 'sweet and calm', Inside, rage built to psychopathic levels. Far from being content with 'friends with benefits' - as Travis hoped she would be - she was obsessed with his other relationships. Stalking and spying and controlling what she knew about him was all she had. It appeased her rage for the moment.

Dr DeMarte testified that Arias was jealous and focused on how manipulative she was. She wanted to control Travis but she didn't succeed, no matter how hard she tried. By late May, she had unravelled enough to reveal what really lay beneath the fake exterior. She had to up her game and play bigger cards. All of Travis' suspicions were confirmed by her actions. Yet even during that G-chat surprising glimpses of sexual detail emerged. Travis admitted he was addicted to the sex. He also asked her about her sex life - in the middle of the speculated blackmail trauma. Arias rage and fury about never having control was shown when she slaughtered him mercilessly. Ultimately - 'Ha ha, beat you - brat"

https://youtu.be/u5lGJ72SQBM


32 minutes in.

Very well-stated.

 

[TexMex]

Yes, the reasons behind the May 26 argument are ALL interpretation/speculation. JA's threat about the bishop may be a fact, but unless it can be connected to the May 26 argument, then it's irrelevant as a catalyst. And I have no idea how the issue of privacy intrusions or FB is relevant at all to what we are discussing--so I can't really answer to that.

Just curious, because I am interested in looking at all sides (so I am not asking this in any way to be disrespectful). When TA says he is addicted in the gchat (twice), what do you think he means by that? What is he addicted to?

Kate

And even IF that threat was made about going to the bishop or about a sex tape, and whatever order the chat transcripts should read....Travis allowed her into his home and his bed on June 4. He initiated two calls to her totaling an hour on June 2.

Whatever happened in the chat is irrelevant. He either forgave her or was manipulated by her explanations. He told Taylor "she's a psycho but she's harmless" immediately after the chat. He thought June 4 would just be another day of sex with Jodi. However a switch had flipped in her brain.

Unbeknownst to him, she was done with him and he was now disposable.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Quote: "Travis admitted he was addicted to the sex."

He didn't.

(...)(...)

The chat covered several subjects to different degrees. Sexual interaction and addiction was one of them. By May 26, was Travis addicted to Arias’ personality? Her honesty? Her pure spirit? Her genuine love for him? In the May 10 sex tape he graphically explains what points he likes about Arias.

Was Travis threatened by a sex tape or Arias’ threats to go to her bishop? Many have speculated that sexual blackmail was the purpose behind the G-Chat. Travis didn’t want to marry Arias. They were not boyfriend and girlfriend beyond the briefest period. He dated other women but continued to have sex with her - after he suspected she stalked him, slashed his tyres, stole from him and invaded his privacy. Friends and family have claimed sex with Arias was an addiction for Travis. To conclude that this chat had nothing to do with sex or sexual addiction I would have to overlook the sexual references, specific and wider context.

Travis emphasised that despite all that had happened - Arias' voice drew him in. He tells her that she is ruining his life but he is addicted. The word addicted is used repeatedly. Examples from the G-chat captured below, as best I could in a short time.

“Travis - Because I am addicted

Travis - You are ruining my life but I’m addicted

Travis - I am in partial addiction to you

Travis - I’ m addicted to it

Travis - Yet I am addicted to it

Travis - I’m addicted”

What was Travis addicted to if not the sex? Was the drama part of the sexual tension? After she returned to Yreka he had phone sex with her. Travis claims to be addicted in the chat and the conversation flows forward to sex. Arias talks about the intoxication felt from sex and how it became addicting. Travis doesn’t interject, “DO not go there. I do not want to talk about sex but only offer advice on the church”. Instead, he details that she was noble in the sack. Then further on he asks her is she had been with anyone else?

"Arias - My sex drive is gone.
Travis - I doubt that
Arias - I haven’t dittled myself once since I moved here except for the times when we were on the phone and we did it together
Travis - It didn’t seem to be a problem on the phone
Arias - Of course not. That’s the affect you have. Nobody else can do that. Absolute kryptonite. I don’t want to be a *advertiser censored*. I could joke that if being a *advertiser censored* for Travis is wrong then I don’t want to be right"

The above quote - about not wanting to be right - also cropped up on the sex tape on May 10. Travis made that tape with Arias because he was sexually addicted. Even losing Lisa and the atrocities inflicted upon him didn't quell his addiction to the sex. Furious with her in the G-Chat - there is still talk of sex - and he allows Arias to roll out the sexual compliments.

Around a week later Travis was shown to have ‘sexual relations’ with Arias. Captured on his own camera. Are you suggesting that there is no sexual context in the G-Chat? Or is the difficulty simply that Travis didn't use the word sex in the multiple addiction quotes? Would the phrase, "Travis admitted he was addicted to Arias" be an improvement? I don't think so as it doesn't reflect the sexual dynamics between them even when he was furious. Would this be an adjustment made for pedantry or accuracy?

 

[geevee]

Chat and pants in stereo, lol. Bring on the pants.

Time to go hug and hang out with my just arrived kid (report card came home today--99% in social studies! 98% in math! 97% in English arts! 94% in science!) WOOT!!!!!

Woohoo - have a good time with the deserving kiddo!

 

[TrialWatcher]

You misunderstood my references TW, the 'dragging' photo is the last accidental pic (5:33:32 time stamp as mentioned above), in that pic there are clearly fingers in the very forefront of the picture:

View attachment 90631

There are no fingers that I can find in the pant leg (5:32:16 time stamp) photo, just the blur of her foot/toes as she (I believe) is still attacking Travis. I have posted before about the toes in the pics from trial, this one if harder to make out but you can see the blur of toes along the tile:

View attachment 90630

If I had better photo editing equipment I might be able to bring out more detail, but I have what I have and use it as best I can.

Many thanks, Geevee. I see the fingers you refer to in the first pic. The only pic I was asking about was the second one. Do you see any toes or fingers here below?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89470&d=1455670907

The dragging pic you are using is that from the monitor of Detective Flores? It's very unclear compared to the photo from the book by Jun Martinez.

I will magnify the second pic you provide above on my iPad later. For some reason, detail is easier to expand there.

 

[FinallyRegistered]

I think I found the pants she was wearing ...

https://poshmark.com/listing/SOLD-Womens-adidas-track-pant-with-ankle-zip-55900ac80e6176626a00c491

 

[pocketaccent]

Chat and pants in stereo, lol. Bring on the pants.

Time to go hug and hang out with my just arrived kid (report card came home today--99% in social studies! 98% in math! 97% in English arts! 94% in science!) WOOT!!!!!

Yay!!! Congratulations to your DS!:fireworks:

 

[TrialWatcher]

Quote: "Travis admitted he was addicted to the sex."

He didn't.

Everyone here knows I welcome opinions and debate. And I imagine everyone here also knows I put a lot of work into researching and writing up/paraphrasing the actual record (7 months of the text record, for example) so that those with an interest can base their opinions on the facts that are available

For myself, I don't have any interest in debating opinions about this case that are just general opinions-- it's been 3 years now, and that territory has long since been covered, and I have even less interest in debating opinions that misstate the factual record. Plenty enough room to debate that record, and that debate continues to be interesting, IMO.

I've spilt my reply in two to make it less long. You offered an opinion on the G-Chat and the nature of Travis' addiction.

Hope4More Post #833: "The “addiction” Travis was referring to on May 26.


It had nothing to do with sex. It had everything to do with the cycle he also refers to in the chat-- of catching her in her transgressions and intrusions, of her responding with lies and drama and apologies she never means, and of him forgiving her, only to have her do the same thing, over and over."

In your opinion it has nothing to do with sex. In the opinion of others, it does. That doesn't negate the other themes of the argument or his fury with her for invading his privacy and other matters. Let me give you an example based on post #833. You select certain texts and use them to offer an interpretation based on your opinion. What you don't select is as important as what you insert in presenting your view.

Travis repeatedly states that he will forgive Arias, take her back, near the beginning of the chat. Sure, his anger escalates further on but he starts out with resigned repetitions that despite everything, he will capitulate like he always did before. What he would capitulate to was the sexual addiction. Not her lovely personality or honest nature but the sex. Proof of that if offered on the day she kills him - a week later. Very few people, I'd bet, would look at those sexually graphic, naked, time-stamped photos and not decide that common sense suggests sexual interaction is a strong possibility. I'm talking about people in general, not on this forum. Two juries believed it.

Hope4More: "Travis, IMO, demonstrates quite plainly on May 26th that he isn’t “addicted” to their cycle anymore. "

You are offering an opinion, as everyone else is commenting on the G-Chat. Fair enough that you disagreed with my summation that Travis admitted he was addicted to the sex (based on him not using sex and addiction in the same sentence). Applying that same standard, there is no quote stating, "I'm not addicted to that cycle anymore" that I heard. The only mention of the word cycle is here:

"Travis - I can't keep up with this cycle, so lets cut out the act"

Travis then went on after that to talk of addiction and sex was discussed.

I enjoy all of the posts on the forum including the ones I disagree with. Many people here have read the book, watched the trial and read every text or related document they could find. That range of recall and opinion is invaluable on Websleuths - to end on the most positive of notes.

 

[Hope4More]

And even IF that threat was made about going to the bishop or about a sex tape, and whatever order the chat transcripts should read....Travis allowed her into his home and his bed on June 4. He initiated two calls to her totaling an hour on June 2.

Whatever happened in the chat is irrelevant. He either forgave her or was manipulated by her explanations. He told Taylor "she's a psycho but she's harmless" immediately after the chat. He thought June 4 would just be another day of sex with Jodi. However a switch had flipped in her brain.

Unbeknownst to him, she was done with him and he was now disposable.

To each his or her own about what is relevant. In one sense, none of this is, eh? Travis is dead and she's in prison until she dies, and nothing anyone says or thinks or believes about any part of any of it changes anything at all. The end.

But... the why of things still matters to me, which is why I'm still here, putting the time and effort into trying to track down and sort through and analyze and understand the remaining pieces of the puzzle, including the events of May and the chat.

As I've had to explain to my DH many many times, I get that I'm probably one of 9 people still left anywhere who cares about trying to fugure out what happened on May 26. Good enough for me--and actually, exceptionally fortune fo me that the other 8 people are here on WS still trying to figure out it out too.

 

[Hope4More]

I've spilt my reply in two to make it less long. You offered an opinion on the G-Chat and the nature of Travis' addiction.

Hope4More Post #833: "The “addiction” Travis was referring to on May 26.

Wrong order of the chat. Didn't happen that way, and yes....it kinda matters what the order is if you're gonna get in the weeds about what he was feeling and when he was most angry with her and what he was saying then, and when she sent him an email during the chat, and how the conversation shifted and perhaps why, and when he might have thought she was prepared to come clean about what he said for 13 pages mattered most to him, and why that might be connected to his willingness to speak with her by phone after the chat.

Or--they had sex as proven by time-stamped photos on the 4th so that proves nothing that the man said on May 26th meant much in the end.

Last, with all due respect, I didn't and don't cherry pick quotes or facts to support my opinions, which are, when they are opinions, stated as such, not assertions of fact. You're arguing a straw man about others having opinions about the chat or one opinion about the chat being "correct". Of course folks disagree. And that is a problem...why?

 

[MaLou]

Pocket....I second the "cute" and looks like you probably had a blast in Hawaii, and please forgive me if I'm overstepping any boundaries, but....I wish for your sake you'd take down that video of yourself.

Some seriously creepy JA fans known to try to track down "haters" are still out there.....

Man, I missed a video of our Pocket! : )

 

[TrialWatcher]

Hope4More: Please, if you have a different version of the chat offered on Beth Karas' site than I do, I'd appreciate being directed to it. Or elsewhere? Until there is an updated order, the transcript/recording most people here will have examined are an accessible base to argue around. I have no problem with disagreements. Nor did I construct a straw man argument. I didn't say you, "cherry-picked" quotes. You selected the text that was most relevant to you to present your argument. We all do. The only 'fact' around the G-Chat is the presentation of the argument between them. Speculation about what it all means is opinion.

Your opinions on the May 26 chat are every bit as important as anyone else's. I look forward to hearing a range of views from forum members.

PS: I had replied to your post before you edited it.

I'll address your addition:

"Didn't happen that way, and yes....it kinda matters what the order is if you're gonna get in the weeds about what he was feeling and when he was most angry with her and what he was saying then, and when she sent him an email during the chat, and how the conversation shifted and perhaps why, and when he might have thought she was prepared to come clean about what he said for 13 pages mattered most to him, and why that might be connected to his willingness to speak with her by phone after the chat.

Or--they had sex as proven by time-stamped photos on the 4th so that proves nothing that the man said on May 26th meant much in the end."

Not everyone posting here sees things in the same way - including what is relevant and what is not. What he was feeling - only Travis knew that. We are merely speculating based on what is available to examine, the wider context, trial outcome or other evidence.

 

[Hope4More]

Man, I missed a video of our Pocket! : )

LOL. You did indeed. It was u and then it was down, thankfully for Pocket, but not so much for those who missed her lovely cuteness.

 

[Hope4More]

Hope4More: Please, if you have a different version of the chat offered on Beth Karas' site than I do, I'd appreciate being directed to it. Or elsewhere? Until there is an updated order, the transcript/recording most people here will have examined are an accessible base to argue around. I have no problem with disagreements. Nor did I construct a straw man argument. I didn't say you, "cherry-picked" quotes. You selected the text that was most relevant to you to present your argument. We all do. The only 'fact' around the G-Chat is the presentation of the argument between them. Speculation about what it all means is opinion.


Your opinions on the May 26 chat are every bit as important as anyone else's. I look forward to hearing a range of views from forum members.


PS: I had replied to your post before you edited it.

LOL. Glad to hear you think my opinions are as important as anyone else's about the chat...or anything else.

I certainly have them, but even my own opinions don't matter as much to me as just getting the facts as they can be known as right as they can be put in order. I'd have saved myself a whole heck of a lot of work if all I cared about was voicing opinions, not hauling over info from BK, without violating rules about that here or there, in order to share it with the majority of folks here don't have access to the records on her site.

The corrected chat record isn't posted over on BK yet, if it will be, because I'm kinda picky about making sure I've gotten things right. I'm still double checking it against notes. If and when it is posted there, the chat still won't be over here unless permission is given for
it to be posted. I hope to obtain that permission.

But...anyone with access to BK can go do all the work for themselves. Doesn't have to come from me. In fact, I'd be interested to see someone else do the same work--or whatever- and see if they come up with the exact same order. Have at it.

 

[Hope4More]

Travis is the one who started this fight (and rightly so) for her snooping again. He was tired of his privacy being invaded

He is the one who tells her over and over again that she does not and never has cared for him.

He also tells her four or five times he's "addicted" I believe him. The pictures from June 4 prove he fell into the cycle of her manipulation again. They fight...they take a cooling off period...they wind up back in bed.

Travis "started this fight"? What makes you think that?

Why do you think he is telling her over and over that she doesn't care about him? That she hates him? That he means nothing to her?

You believe Travis when he says he's addicted. Leaving June 4th aside- stick to the 15 pages of the chat itself, which is the only time he says anything remotely similar, where do you see any evidence in anything he said that indicates the "addiction" he is referring to, taken at face value, refers to sex?

 

[TrialWatcher]

LOL. Glad to hear you think my opinions are as important as anyone else's about the chat...or anything else.

I certainly have them, but even my own opinions don't matter as much to me as just getting the facts as they can be known as right as they can be put in order. I'd have saved myself a whole heck of a lot of work if all I cared about was voicing opinions, not hauling over info from BK, without violating rules about that here or there, in order to share it with the majority of folks here don't have access to the records on her site.

The corrected chat record isn't posted over on BK yet, if it will be, because I'm kinda picky about making sure I've gotten things right. I'm still double checking it against notes. If and when it is posted there, the chat still won't be over here unless permission is given for
it to be posted. I hope to obtain that permission.

But...anyone with access to BK can go do all the work for themselves. Doesn't have to come from me. In fact, I'd be interested to see someone else do the same work--or whatever- and see if they come up with the exact same order. Have at it. [/QUOTE


Many are picky about getting things right. Few of us succeed 100 percent of the time. That's what makes a range of contributors and views helpful. I don't see the need to dissect the order of the May 26 chat further as there is enough there to piece together a semblance of meaning. *If* there is a significant order change, I'll look at it. Other aspects of the case interest me more than the G-Chat and the forum allows each individual to contribute, comment or ignore a range of topics. I have thanked you and others for posts I have enjoyed or that have been valuable. Everyone's contribution adds something to the overall base of knowledge.

 

[kmp3]

You believe Travis when he says he's addicted. Leaving June 4th aside- stick to the 15 pages of the chat itself, which is the only time he says anything remotely similar, where do you see any evidence in anything he said that indicates the "addiction" he is referring to, taken at face value, refers to sex?

Just chiming in here, because I know you guys love hearing from the new gal (snort!). For me, at least, it's the totality of the circumstances that suggest Travis's addiction is sexual in nature. If we look at the gchat itself, TA admits openly how much he hates her, how selfish and horrible she is, and yet (as with MOST of their conversations) it gradually takes on a sexual tone. IF the addiction TA is referring to is NOT sexual, then what is it? We know he's not addicted to her sterling character.

Though, in all fairness, he could have been addicted to their toxic, chaotic cycle (not JUST the sex, but that in which sex played a major role). Again, all conjecture. But certainly not a random guess, either. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support his addiction was sexual in nature. I'll spare everyone from posting the quotes and links, etc. because they would be numerous.

And I would also like to say how much I appreciate everyone's differing views and opinions. Where else can we have an intelligent discussion on this topic? IRL, people just blink at me when I try to talk about this stuff. lol And none of this may matter in long run, but it's certainly great mental exercise. :c)

Kate

 

[geevee]

Many thanks, Geevee. I see the fingers you refer to in the first pic. The only pic I was asking about was the second one. Do you see any toes or fingers here below?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89470&d=1455670907

The dragging pic you are using is that from the monitor of Detective Flores? It's very unclear compared to the photo from the book by Jun Martinez.

I will magnify the second pic you provide above on my iPad later. For some reason, detail is easier to expand there.

The second pic in my post (5:32:16 ie pant leg pic) is what was shown during the trial on the large overhead screen (not Flores' monitor), I wanted to show you the same toe blur is visible on that pic as is on Flores' monitor (and likley any version of this particular picture). And yes, I suggest using the largest monitor you have available, details on these pics cannot be seen well on small devices.

 

[kmp3]

As I've had to explain to my DH many many times, I get that I'm probably one of 9 people still left anywhere who cares about trying to fugure out what happened on May 26. Good enough for me--and actually, exceptionally fortune fo me that the other 8 people are here on WS still trying to figure out it out too.

Here, here! I often wonder why I'm so drawn to this case, and why I think about it as much as I do. When I'm at work, I listen to the JA trial for fun. For FUN, people! I must be crazy. But for me, it's the fascination of the case and how it played out in court. Court proceedings just fascinate me--it's like a giant game of chess. I'm probably the only person during jury duty who is just PRAYING to get picked! LOL! Oy.

Kate