Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5

[TexMex]

I don't think Travis would have noticed her feet/shoes, socks etc. Why would he? Ever see The Shawshank Redemption? To quote . "I mean, seriously, how often do you really look at a mans shoes?"

I think Travis noticed women's shoes. He always made efforts to dress nicely since he had few clothes/shoes as a boy

 

[micki68]

I think Travis noticed women's shoes. He always made efforts to dress nicely since he had few clothes/shoes as a boy

Perhaps under normal circumstances, but while he's showering? I notice shoes myself but I don't think most people IMO would notice while showering and posing for pics.

 

[TexMex]

Perhaps under normal circumstances, but while he's showering? I notice shoes myself but I don't think most people IMO would notice while showering and posing for pics.

JMO but the whole shower scene is to keep him at ease and vulnerable so she can surprise attack and kill him. IMO wearing socks over shoes would lead to Travis suspecting something was "off". He'd be asking questions "why would anyone do that? Even a five year old knows socks go on before shoes, take them off, it looks stupid". She just needs him to get in the shower in position and not arguing with her about it. She didn't need shoes on to kill him.

 

[TrialWatcher]

I don't believe JM (or maybe even Melendez) were interested in the particular content aside from the overall picture of each accidental photo - JM never pointed out what looks too much like Arias' dark hair and shelf of her jaw in the ceiling photo for it not to be that, he mever noticed (and neither apparently did Melendez when getting the pics into a visible form) that in the 'dragging' pic (5:33:32) that those are fingers in the forefront so it makes it very unlikely that directly behind them is Travis' back with "the same pattern of blood dripping down" as 5:32:16 - the scale is too far off for that to have been his back when a little color adjustment shows the fingers closest to the lens.

He didn't need these finite details to convict her, but we, sleuthers that we are, are very interested in them. 5:32:16 was not taken when both subjects were stationary, they are obviously in motion, the camera, having been hit hard enough to snap the pic, is also in some amount of motion, there is bound to be blur in what the camera captures, what's in that blur is an obvious debate so we'll just have to agree to disagree on what we see. My words may sound strong but my interior voice is actually quite soft and gentle, no disrespect ever intended on anyone's viewpoint.

Above - BBM

Thanks for answering, Geevee although I find it confusing in part, so please bear with me. Are you now saying that what you previously stated were toes are now fingers? Below is the photo of the dragging scene from Juan Martinez' book. This is a clear, wider photograph than the one from Detective Flores monitor with the 'fingers and gold ring' (the one I suggested was a reflection from the desk onto the monitor in court). You entirely dismiss this possibility. Please can you point where the fingers are on the clear photo below? You previously provided helpful red circles and arrows. If at all possible, could you do so with the picture from Juan's book below?

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

I see nothing at all on the exact same dragging photograph above. FinallyRegistered provided a helpful diagram outlining the foot, etc. Again, I see no bare toes or fingers on the photo above. I conclude that the glare in court explains the fingers imposed on the monitor. Just in case I was missing something, I thought I'd ask for more detail. There is no blur on the photo above. The distorted finger blur is from a shot of the monitor of Detective Flores. I am interested in the evidence and welcome robust debate. You make a point about your words being strong - it's the evidence being strong or weak that I am interested in. I have no issue at all with how you expressed them and would welcome a reply. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree if you don't want to debate this further.

 

[TrialWatcher]

She's actually wearing socks over shoes. You can see the bumps for the eyelets and the laces.

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

I can't see any bumps above. Is there a court admitted photo you can direct me to that shows more detail please? Not the pic from a court monitor which is blurred. The above looks in keeping with the experiment FinallyRegistered did below:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89508&d=1456074093

 

[kmp3]

I think when she realized he wasn't going to make efforts to come see her sing , plus his communication with other females and his upcoming Cancun trip...she unraveled

Totally agree. Plus, he was working out, and making a real effort to find a wife, etc.

Kate

 

[TexMex]

Totally agree. Plus, he was working out, and making a real effort to find a wife, etc.

Kate

Even posting the Gold Digger piece on his blog. That had to sting her

 

[TrialWatcher]

(...)

In the letter to the family she told of her terrible injury of a torn toenail in the "fight" with the female ninja. If she had socks on (I do think she does) she probably snagged it on a thread in the sock and that tore it. The socks would also help her have more a "purchase" on the tile floor, instead of barefeet.

View attachment 90594

I missed that in reading the letter and shall reread. It's comically self-indulgent, embarrassingly crass, cruel and so typically Arias. Like the day she trashed Travis' car then spent time detailing that her houseplants had wilted from being left. Or when Juan asked her to confirm how few injuries she sustained in the slaughtering of Travis - she could barely contain her smug one-upmanship.

 

[TexMex]

I missed that in reading the letter and shall reread. It's comically self-indulgent, embarrassingly crass, cruel and so typically Arias. Like the day she trashed Travis' car then spent time detailing that her houseplants had wilted from being left. Or when Juan asked her to confirm how few injuries she sustained in the slaughtering of Travis - she could barely contain her smug one-upmanship.

Including Travis possibly "bruising" her skull when he "body slammed" her.
She cut her finger from stabbing him and possibly hurt her foot/nails from kicking him
Meanwhile Travis lay butchered in his own shower

 

[TexMex]

Wrong order....altogether. That starts with what is actually the end of chat, and the sequence is out of order within pages.

Hard to describe, but each page of what is called the transcript (wasn't that) reads from the bottom up, and the bottom to top of a single actual page of the IM's doesn't fit exactly into a single page of transcript. So, the chat as presented on tape and everywhere else is very much , horribly, a large- amount -of- time- to- get- right out of order, especially since the transcript doesn't include the time at all, not for any line of chat, not for the chat itself, nada.

It is being read from the bottom up

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zGueroNxp8c

 

[Hope4More]

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.

(Paraphrased and with quotes from a website about sociopaths & relationships):


When a sociopath is about to be caught in the lie:

(She will) start a fight; will accuse you of something you haven’t done; will shift the blame and focus attention on you and what you are doing; and she will be very dramatic.

She “will make a small confession that is along the lines of truth, to try to fool you, and make you believe that she is being honest with you now (in case you find out about the lie).”

She will apologize and promise not to do it again, but her actions will not appear to be those of a person who is ‘sorry’.

“In fact, the sociopath will now be relentless in pursuing you, for something that you have not done, threading an element of truth in with a false accusation, so that your energy is now spent defending yourself.”

The sociopath will then go one further, and try to elicit pity, and will play victim, and will tell you a story designed to make you feel sorry for her.

“By now you are angry that you have been lied to again, so you react with anger to the lie.”

To detract from this, the sociopath will then attack you for not caring about them, or her problem. It is likely her story is a lie she is telling you to distract you from the real truth about what’s she done or a lie she’s told.

“ If you continue to push for truth in the lies, she will then accuse you of being horrible, thoughtless, or uncaring.”

She will choose a sensitive subject – so you will, when her words are repeated back to you feel bad, and doubt your own mind.

“You will experience this over and over again. What you see during this time is the sociopath revealed, the real person, angry and controlling, behind the mask. “

“Not wanting to believe it, and being so hurt, you might feel relieved when she says “sorry.”

You want to believe in the person you think her to be/can’t tolerate the pain of cognitive dissonance, nor resolve it/have been conditioned by previous abuse to submit and deny.

Whatever the specific reason that compels you to accept her apology, she considers it a “weakness” she knows to exploit, and uses this is the hook which allows her to do this to you again and again.
----------------------------------------------

Excerpts from May 26:


J- I know you don’t want apologies.
J- I don’t (know) what to say
T- you are not sorry
T-what I want is for you to quit blatantly lying
-------------------------------------------------

T-ur not sorry so quit apologizing
T- and that way I can quit forgiving
--------------------------------------------------------

T-even when you say u are telling the truth you are lying
T-even when u come clean it is a partial version of the truth to serve your purpose
T- you have been nothing but a liar from the beginning
-----------------------------------------------

T- after all I’ve done
T- how could you be the way you’ve been to me
T- how
T- I want an answer
T- NOW!!!
J- I don’t have an answer
J- I hurt too
-----------------------------------------------------

J- I would have been content with just cuddling, but I wasn’t strong enough
J- Again I am so sorry for that
-----------------------------------

T-let’s just quit with it all
T- if you want to sneak around just tell me what you want and I’ll give it to you
T- you’ll get it anyway
T- then I’ll yell
T- and then forgive
T- why go through all that

-------------------------------------------------------
T-all of that talk (catching her, confronting her, lies, lies, false apologies, forgiving her) has happened many times and it has never changed anything
T- so let’s quit with it
T-ur not sorry
T-im okay with that if you’ll admit it
T-it should be liberating to you
T-right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Travis, IMO, demonstrates quite plainly on May 26th that he isn’t “addicted” to their cycle anymore. Their 2 plus hour confrontation is about him telling her exactly that. He will not accept her lies any longer. He says he will forgive her for whatever else she’s done, but not for lying to him.

He says he will forgive, but he means on his terms, and not in response to apologies he knows are lies intended to manipulate him back into her crazy-making, back into that cycle he can’t and won’t tolerate.

Read the chat even quasi-closely and it’s clear his “forgiveness” is entirely contingent upon her confessing to him that she’s not sorry for anything she’s done to him (TA: ”in detail, be specific”), including deliberately trying to ruin his chance at marriage.

As if he was really going to forgive her if she confessed any of that to Travis?

In early April TA asked her to “give (me) a pardon from your madness.” On May 26 he was no longer asking, he was demanding that she do so, without realizing of course, that it was entirely too late.

 

[Hope4More]

It is being read from the bottom up

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zGueroNxp8c

I know. I know virtually every line from that blasted chat at this point. Take it or leave it, even reading the chat as is, backwards, does not put it in order. Wish it had been that easy.

 

[TexMex]

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.

(Paraphrased and with quotes from a website about sociopaths & relationships):


When a sociopath is about to be caught in the lie:

(She will) start a fight; will accuse you of something you haven’t done; will shift the blame and focus attention on you and what you are doing; and she will be very dramatic.

She “will make a small confession that is along the lines of truth, to try to fool you, and make you believe that she is being honest with you now (in case you find out about the lie).”

She will apologize and promise not to do it again, but her actions will not appear to be those of a person who is ‘sorry’.

“In fact, the sociopath will now be relentless in pursuing you, for something that you have not done, threading an element of truth in with a false accusation, so that your energy is now spent defending yourself.”

The sociopath will then go one further, and try to elicit pity, and will play victim, and will tell you a story designed to make you feel sorry for her.

“By now you are angry that you have been lied to again, so you react with anger to the lie.”

To detract from this, the sociopath will then attack you for not caring about them, or her problem. It is likely her story is a lie she is telling you to distract you from the real truth about what’s she done or a lie she’s told.

“ If you continue to push for truth in the lies, she will then accuse you of being horrible, thoughtless, or uncaring.”

She will choose a sensitive subject – so you will, when her words are repeated back to you feel bad, and doubt your own mind.

“You will experience this over and over again. What you see during this time is the sociopath revealed, the real person, angry and controlling, behind the mask. “

“Not wanting to believe it, and being so hurt, you might feel relieved when she says “sorry.”

You want to believe in the person you think her to be/can’t tolerate the pain of cognitive dissonance, nor resolve it/have been conditioned by previous abuse to submit and deny.

Whatever the specific reason that compels you to accept her apology, she considers it a “weakness” she knows to exploit, and uses this is the hook which allows her to do this to you again and again.
----------------------------------------------

Excerpts from May 26:


J- I know you don’t want apologies.
J- I don’t (know) what to say
T- you are not sorry
T-what I want is for you to quit blatantly lying
-------------------------------------------------

T-ur not sorry so quit apologizing
T- and that way I can quit forgiving
--------------------------------------------------------

T-even when you say u are telling the truth you are lying
T-even when u come clean it is a partial version of the truth to serve your purpose
T- you have been nothing but a liar from the beginning
-----------------------------------------------

T- after all I’ve done
T- how could you be the way you’ve been to me
T- how
T- I want an answer
T- NOW!!!
J- I don’t have an answer
J- I hurt too
-----------------------------------------------------

J- I would have been content with just cuddling, but I wasn’t strong enough
J- Again I am so sorry for that
-----------------------------------

T-let’s just quit with it all
T- if you want to sneak around just tell me what you want and I’ll give it to you
T- you’ll get it anyway
T- then I’ll yell
T- and then forgive
T- why go through all that

-------------------------------------------------------
T-all of that talk (catching her, confronting her, lies, lies, false apologies, forgiving her) has happened many times and it has never changed anything
T- so let’s quit with it
T-ur not sorry
T-im okay with that if you’ll admit it
T-it should be liberating to you
T-right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

 

[TexMex]

I know. I know virtually every line from that blasted chat at this point. Take it or leave it, even reading the chat as is, backwards, does not put it in order. Wish it had been that easy.

Travis read the chat to Taylor. He told him she'd been snooping again and he'd gotten rough with her about it. I haven't seen Taylor saying anything was out of order in the transcript as read from bottom up. Jmo

 

[Hope4More]

She asked Darrel
for his gas cans.

Yes. And, according to JM, snooped his May 19th IM exchange with Regan, just as TA warned Regan she would..."the beginning of premeditation."

 

[TrialWatcher]

I don't think she was in total control of their conversations in late May. I think she was OUT of control - she didn't know what he was up to, she knew he was texting other girls, and the amount of texts between them were diminishing greatly. He was texting other women non stop. I think her threats to him, and we don't know what they were, were an effort to remain in control, which she saw slipping away. Those threats could have been just empty threats since they were never really defined. Her lack of control over Travis led to her premeditating his murder. She'd been out of Mesa since early April, he was blowing her off regarding coming to visit, gave credit to another girl friend (not romantically connected) who typed up and edited his introduction to his book while ignoring her, and was moving on with his life. The day she left he threw her two birds (although I never read that, just here) and was so done with her. That's why I am convinced he wasn't aware that she was coming to Mesa June 3. She couldn't risk telling him for fear he would tell one of his roommates. She snuck in while he was chilling on the computer watching funny Youtube videos with Naps, he turned around and there she was. Or, she snuck in in the morning when he was alseep and his roommates were asleep or at work. Then she managed to offer the one thing she knew he couldn't resist, he relented, they finished the "wild thing", he went to take a post coital shower to get ready for his conference call and she put her plan into place because he wanted her gone, & she felt the rejection and humiliation yet again as he didn't want much to do with her after sex... she became enraged and the rest is history.

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.

 

[Hope4More]

Travis read the chat to Taylor. He told him she'd been snooping again and he'd gotten rough with her about it. I haven't seen Taylor saying anything was out of order in the transcript as read from bottom up. Jmo

Last try. Out of order. As in, the sections of the chat are out of order. Not in proper sequence. Sections had to be reorganized to be put in order. I spend many days watching every minute of both trials and reading tweets and trial logs of PP2 to get clues about the proper sequence and to capture any and all mentions of time for specific lines of the chat. I spent more days -unfun days- figuring out why and how the chat was put together the wrong way in the only available transcript that is available to us- BK's, which was pilfered by Juror13. Same transcript.

Then I spent more days piecing the thing together in the proper sequence, checking against times, etc. from testimony.

As is, it is in the wrong order. Taylor has nothing whatsoever to do with how the transcript is ordered and has never spoken in any interview anywhere saying more than just that- TA was pissed she'd gotten into his FB, etc.

And, BTW. The chat is 15 pages long. 99% of it has nothing whatsoever to do with her FB intrusions, and in fact, FB doesn't even come up at all until well into the chat.

 

[Dogface]

Gosh I made it through the trial without seeing too many pictures, that foot one with him in the background is so awful and scary.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

Interpretations are one thing, facts another.

Nowhere in that chat did Travis say or allude to being "addicted to sex." That did not happen. He did not say that.

The chat was about lying, and the chat was often about sex because the threat she had made was about sex. Their sex. Revealing it to her bishop. That is also not interpretation, but fact. The foreman of PP2 said the jury saw an email we don't have access to, that it was a threat by her that she was going to her bishop. The jury as a whole concluded it was this threat which had made Travis so angry on May 26.

If you understand the context, then it's plenty easy to understand why Travis is asking her whether or not she'd been whoring around. She's claiming spiritual purity and acting like a *advertiser censored*. Go figure.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Interpretations are one thing, facts another.

Nowhere in that chat did Travis say or allude to being "addicted to sex." That did not happen. He did not say that.

The chat was about lying, and the chat was often about sex because the threat she had made was about sex. Their sex. Revealing it to her bishop. That is also not interpretation, but fact. The foreman of PP2 said the jury saw an email we don't have access to, that it was a threat by her that she was going to her bishop. The jury as a whole concluded it was this threat which had made Travis so angry on May 26.

If you understand the context, then it's plenty easy to understand why Travis is asking her whether or not she'd been whoring around. She's claiming spiritual purity and acting like a *advertiser censored*. Go figure.

Where did I quote Travis? I didn't. I was summing up his addiction to sex with Jodi. Facts do matter, I agree. The old adage that we are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts, is especially pertinent here. Your interpretations are based on your reading of the chat. Others may disagree. I'll return to this when I get to my desk later. Have a look at your own quote on the thread:

"The “addiction” Travis was referring to on May 26. " -Hope4More

Summation of conversations can be useful.