Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #6

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
She was incapable of even acting remorseful, IMO. The best she could do in her secret testimony was to say " I wish I had that day to do over again." And the best she could offer up at sentencing was "I'm disgusted with myself."

I think DeMarte explained the best, and especially, what the had to do internally to prepare herself to murder Travis. DeMarte said the had to devalue Travis so completely as to convince herself that she was completely justified in taking his life.

The did that. I have no doubt at all she still believes Travis deserved to die. One of her tweets as she waited to hear whether or not the first jury was going to sentence her to death said it all. She quoted lyrics from whatever song that said- why did you have to say goodbye, why did you do this to me, I'm crying now (and it's all your fault).

Yes, she is convinced that Travis deserved to die and that she is just misunderstood more than anything else. But there is a bright side to that...for as long as she continues to believe she was justified in murder she will continue to believe she is unjustly incarcerated. Not a peaceful existence by any stretch of the imagination.
 
She was incapable of even acting remorseful, IMO. The best she could do in her secret testimony was to say " I wish I had that day to do over again." And the best she could offer up at sentencing was "I'm disgusted with myself."

I think DeMarte explained the best, and especially, what the had to do internally to prepare herself to murder Travis. DeMarte said the had to devalue Travis so completely as to convince herself that she was completely justified in taking his life.

The did that. I have no doubt at all she still believes Travis deserved to die. One of her tweets as she waited to hear whether or not the first jury was going to sentence her to death said it all. She quoted lyrics from whatever song that said- why did you have to say goodbye, why did you do this to me, I'm crying now (and it's all your fault).

I would agree except to say she didn't have to devalue him. No one she meets has any value from the get-go except what they can do for her. When Travis stopped being useful to her, his innate value became obvious, so she acted on it.
 
Some of the words Travis used were simply horrible. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter, and even Juan said it. Juan is, if nothing, honest about every aspect of the case, even when it came to understanding things Travis said or did, which Juan did not qualify as "she must have deserved it." Whether or not anyone thinks those words were warranted, it's never ok to say some of the things T said, just as it's never ok to drive a knife into a person. I don't care how much someone hates the killer, that doesn't excuse the language that was used.

I've long believed that it was some of the cruel things Travis said that was 'the final insult' and when the plan all came together. It was the tipping point, IMO. I think Juan might also agree with that. Of course that doesn't excuse her or what she did, but we know very well she was a highly disordered person with Borderline Personality Disorder. It was like lighting a stick of dynamite and once that fuse was lit, she was on her mission to destroy.
 
Some of the words Travis used were simply horrible. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter, and even Juan said it. Juan is, if nothing, honest about every aspect of the case, even when it came to understanding things Travis said or did, which Juan did not qualify as "she must have deserved it." Whether or not anyone thinks those words were warranted, it's never ok to say some of the things T said, just as it's never ok to drive a knife into a person. I don't care how much someone hates the killer, that doesn't excuse the language that was used.

I've long believed that it was some of the cruel things Travis said that was 'the final insult' and when the plan all came together. It was the tipping point, IMO. I think Juan might also agree with that. Of course that doesn't excuse her or what she did, but we know very well she was a highly disordered person with Borderline Personality Disorder. It was like lighting a stick of dynamite and once that fuse was lit, she was on her mission to destroy.

Yet she herself proved every word true.
 
Yes, she is convinced that Travis deserved to die and that she is just misunderstood more than anything else. But there is a bright side to that...for as long as she continues to believe she was justified in murder she will continue to believe she is unjustly incarcerated. Not a peaceful existence by any stretch of the imagination.

I think there's a subtle distinction to be made between her self-justification and the justification she uses in public and used in court. Her victim-hood was an act, an attempt at manipulation to get off scott-free from the murder. She has never really seen herself as a victim, so she does not see Travis as having deserved to die for making her one. Internally and by herself, she needs no justification. Travis was more convenient to her dead than alive, so that is what she made happen. She does not need the external justification she pedals to the public while facing herself internally.
 
I think her killing Travis was her (obviously sick) way of trying to kill the obsession she had with him. Does it make sense? Well not to a normal person. No doubt she was obsessed over him and her obsession just escalated and escalated. She'd probably be like that with any guy who rejected her but with Travis she went full-tilt over the edge. In her mind Travis was the "illness" the thing that created such pain she had to destroy what he stood for. Something she couldn't have, couldn't control, and who, with his free will, rejected her.
 
I think her killing Travis was her (obviously sick) way of trying to kill the obsession she had with him. Does it make sense? Well not to a normal person. No doubt she was obsessed over him and her obsession just escalated and escalated. She'd probably be like that with any guy who rejected her but with Travis she went full-tilt over the edge. In her mind Travis was the "illness" the thing that created such pain she had to destroy what he stood for. Something she couldn't have, couldn't control, and who, with his free will, rejected her.

I disagree. She wanted to kill him, not her obsession. She was able to justify to herself all of her emotions, including her obsession. Killing her obsession by killing him would be a self-ackowledgment
at some level that she was wrong, and she's not capable of that.

I believe she killed him because she could see that she had no future with him, yet the investment she had made into the relationship before that became clear required her to reveal too much of her true character to him. Letting Travis go free with the knowledge he had about her, and his sentiments about it, was dangerous to her, so he had to be silenced so she could move on unencumbered.
 
Some of the words Travis used were simply horrible. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter, and even Juan said it. Juan is, if nothing, honest about every aspect of the case, even when it came to understanding things Travis said or did, which Juan did not qualify as "she must have deserved it." Whether or not anyone thinks those words were warranted, it's never ok to say some of the things T said, just as it's never ok to drive a knife into a person. I don't care how much someone hates the killer, that doesn't excuse the language that was used.

I've long believed that it was some of the cruel things Travis said that was 'the final insult' and when the plan all came together. It was the tipping point, IMO. I think Juan might also agree with that. Of course that doesn't excuse her or what she did, but we know very well she was a highly disordered person with Borderline Personality Disorder. It was like lighting a stick of dynamite and once that fuse was lit, she was on her mission to destroy.


We don't agree that what Travis said to her on May 26 was cruel. I don't think it was, and my opinion about that has nothing to do with "hating" the .

As for whether or not his choice of words on May 26 tipped the balance. Once again, I disagree. I don't think it was his words that drove her to murder, I think it was the fact that he made it entirely clear to her that he was never going to marry her and didn't want her in his life. At all. Wasn't going to change his mind.

What JM has said is he believes the fact of that rejection is what drove her to murder. Even if May 26 hadn't happened at all, IMO sooner or later the was going to be confronted with that rejection by Travis, no matter how gently he told her she was never ever going to be the One.
 
I think her killing Travis was her (obviously sick) way of trying to kill the obsession she had with him. Does it make sense? Well not to a normal person. No doubt she was obsessed over him and her obsession just escalated and escalated. She'd probably be like that with any guy who rejected her but with Travis she went full-tilt over the edge. In her mind Travis was the "illness" the thing that created such pain she had to destroy what he stood for. Something she couldn't have, couldn't control, and who, with his free will, rejected her.


This I mostly agree with. She said as much, repeatedly, both in her journal and on May 26. She couldn't put an end to the obsession she knew was keeping her from "moving on" to her next target and the financial security/ lifestyle she felt entitled to, so she had to put an end to the source of that obsession.

Rejection by Travis wouldn't have mattered to the point of murder if she hadn't been obsessed.
 
This I mostly agree with. She said as much, repeatedly, both in her journal and on May 26. She couldn't put an end to the obsession she knew was keeping her from "moving on" to her next target and the financial security/ lifestyle she felt entitled to, so she had to put an end to the source of that obsession.

Rejection by Travis wouldn't have mattered to the point of murder if she hadn't been obsessed.
She was never, imo, actually obsessed with Travis, she was only obsessed with what he could do for her. To the extent that the two were in alignment, she was obsessed with Travis. As the relationship devolved, Travis the person became more and more divorced from Travis the meal ticket, and in the end Travis as an autonomous individual was a dangerous element in the community to her continuing social manipulations.
 
I think there's a subtle distinction to be made between her self-justification and the justification she uses in public and used in court. Her victim-hood was an act, an attempt at manipulation to get off scott-free from the murder. She has never really seen herself as a victim, so she does not see Travis as having deserved to die for making her one. Internally and by herself, she needs no justification. Travis was more convenient to her dead than alive, so that is what she made happen. She does not need the external justification she pedals to the public while facing herself internally.

Disagree. I think she has felt like a victim her entire life. She seems to have had a life-long history of ruthlessly pushing away then attacking anyone who tried to care for her, then interpreting the consequences of that as being victimized.

And I do believe DeMarte that the had to devalue Travis to be able to kill him. I saw some of that progression in her texts to him, which became increasingly hostile and demeaning from January 2008 on, and especially so after she was forced to leave Mesa.
 
Disagree. I think she has felt like a victim her entire life. She seems to have had a life-long history of ruthlessly pushing away then attacking anyone who tried to care for her, then interpreting the consequences of that as being victimized.

And I do believe DeMarte that the had to devalue Travis to be able to kill him. I saw some of that progression in her texts to him, which became increasingly hostile and demeaning from January 2008 on, and especially so after she was forced to leave Mesa.

To say that she had to devalue him would mean that he would have had to have some real value to begin with. That was present, but only in the sense that she thought she could get something out of him. She never really valued him as a person. As it became clear she wasn't going to get what she wanted from him his 'value' to her naturally decreased, but to assume she ever really valued him and then devalued him is to attribute to her an element that was never present.

I guess it's a subtle distinction that plays on the surface identically, but I think the distinction more accurately reflects her psychology.

As far as her being a victim, I agree she played the victim all of her life when it suited her, but to believe that reflects a true internal self-identity contradicts her obvious belief in her own superiority and sense of entitlement. Her victim-hood was never more than a strategy, and not a true part of her psychological make up.
 
She was never, imo, actually obsessed with Travis, she was only obsessed with what he could do for her. To the extent that the two were in alignment, she was obsessed with Travis. As the relationship devolved, Travis the person became more and more divorced from Travis the meal ticket, and in the end Travis as an autonomous individual was a dangerous element in the community to her continuing social manipulations.

She knew by late 2007 that Travis wasn't going to be the meal ticket she'd planned on securing. Yet she persisted. When she left Mesa all she had to do was latch onto Ryan Burns or another replacement for Travis. But she didn't do that. I'm sure she knew Travis well enough to know he wouldn't try to destroy her chances with another target, at that point anyway. But she couldn't move on.

JM said in one of his recent interviews that in his opinion what June 4th meant to her was regaining control. SHE would decide how the "relationship" would end, and it would end on her terms, not his.
 
To say that she had to devalue him would mean that he would have had to have some real value to begin with. That was present, but only in the sense that she thought she could get something out of him. She never really valued him as a person. As it became clear she wasn't going to get what she wanted from him his 'value' to her naturally decreased, but to assume she ever really valued him and then devalued him is to attribute to her an element that was never present.

I guess it's a subtle distinction that plays on the surface identically, but I think the distinction more accurately reflects her psychology.

As far as her being a victim, I agree she played the victim all of her life when it suited her, but to believe that reflects a true internal self-identity contradicts her obvious belief in her own superiority and sense of entitlement. Her victim-hood was never more than a strategy, and not a true part of her psychological make up.


I think you are using the term "value" more literally than I am. I don't think she ever saw him as his own person, much less valued him for the person he was. Which made all her perceptions of him unhinged, detached from any reality.

Before June 29, 2007 she raved about him in her journal as magnificent and perfect. After that, she turned any perceived slight by him into justification for believing him capable of any manner of foul and hateful behavior towards her.
 
She knew by late 2007 that Travis wasn't going to be the meal ticket she'd planned on securing. Yet she persisted. When she left Mesa all she had to do was latch onto Ryan Burns or another replacement for Travis. But she didn't do that. I'm sure she knew Travis well enough to know he wouldn't try to destroy her chances with another target, at that point anyway. But she couldn't move on.

JM said in one of his recent interviews that in his opinion what June 4th meant to her was regaining control. SHE would decide how the "relationship" would end, and it would end on her terms, not his.

I think we're lacking too many details to be able to accurately determine when she 'gave up' on Travis, though obviously the process was complete by June 4, 2008. It's speculative to attribute obsession to the fact that she didn't give up until she absolutely had to, it could also be attributed to her confidence in her ability to ultimately manipulate Travis in spite of the many setbacks.

If she ever had confidence that Travis wouldn't try to destroy her chances with another target, that confidence had to be shaken by the May 26 emails, and I think after that she determined that was a risk she was not willing to take.

Yes, she could have moved on before the 26th and been confident of Travis' silence (I believe) but for whatever reason she didn't. It may have been obsession, or maybe she just hadn't convinced herself her goals with Travis were completely out of reach.
 
I think you are using the term "value" more literally than I am. I don't think she ever saw him as his own person, much less valued him for the person he was. Which made all her perceptions of him unhinged, detached from any reality.

Before June 29, 2007 she raved about him in her journal as magnificent and perfect. After that, she turned any perceived slight by him into justification for believing him capable of any manner of foul and hateful behavior towards her.

I do tend to be somewhat literal-minded, but I think there's a psychological distinction here that's worth acknowledging in terms of the world inside Arias' head.
 
The jury (even the ones who wanted to sentence her to death) conceded that some of what TA said was 'abusive.' I don't shock easily at all, and even I was aghast at some of his words. Those words were abusive, and no one I know would ever put up with being called the things he said. I knew the moment I heard those email exchanges/text exchanges that a line had been crossed, especially in someone with BPD, and that was the beginning of the final spiral.

I do believe JA would have had trouble ever walking away, but had those words never been spoken, TA might have gotten to live longer than he did; perhaps he would not have been murdered at all, or perhaps she would have killed him eventually but later on. To pretend nothing abusive or nasty ever came out of TA's mouth is to deny his human frailty, something Travis didn't deny in himself. He was imperfect, and he was not merely a spectator, but a participant in a semi-secretive, dysfunctional situation that spiraled way beyond anything he could imagine, with a lethally disordered narcissistic woman who unleashed her inner rage killer.
 
The jury (even the ones who wanted to sentence her to death) conceded that some of what TA said was 'abusive.' I don't shock easily at all, and even I was aghast at some of his words. Those words were abusive, and no one I know would ever put up with being called the things he said. I knew the moment I heard those email exchanges/text exchanges that a line had been crossed, especially in someone with BPD, and that was the beginning of the final spiral.

I do believe JA would have had trouble ever walking away, but had those words never been spoken, TA might have gotten to live longer than he did; perhaps he would not have been murdered at all, or perhaps she would have killed him eventually but later on. To pretend nothing abusive or nasty ever came out of TA's mouth is to deny his human frailty, something Travis didn't deny in himself. He was imperfect, and he was not merely a spectator, but a participant in a semi-secretive, dysfunctional situation that spiraled way beyond anything he could imagine, with a lethally disordered narcissistic woman who unleashed her inner rage killer.

Very well said.


Thirty is a man. Not a young man. Old enough to be responsible and honest with women, not cheating, not name calling. It's like when the defense tried to portray Jodi who was 27 as a girl or young woman. She was a grown woman and needed to be held responsible as a grown up.

I think I would have liked Travis if I'd sat next to him on a plane or met on the golf course. I'm a Republican, enjoy UFC, shoot guns, go to church. We'd have a lot to talk about. But knowing what I know now....would I want him dating my 21 year old daughter? Nope.

Not saying he is a bad guy at all. I just believe he had some issues he needed to deal with before he was ready to commit.
He overcame a horrible childhood. Didn't have good role models during much of his childhood until his grandmother came along. I think that his past was giving him more trouble than he wanted to admit.
 
I think there's a subtle distinction to be made between her self-justification and the justification she uses in public and used in court. Her victim-hood was an act, an attempt at manipulation to get off scott-free from the murder. She has never really seen herself as a victim, so she does not see Travis as having deserved to die for making her one. Internally and by herself, she needs no justification. Travis was more convenient to her dead than alive, so that is what she made happen. She does not need the external justification she pedals to the public while facing herself internally.

I am not understanding how Travis dead was more convenient to her than Travis alive. He was no threat to her other than emotionally and the way I see it...she killed him because she always had to have the last word.

Arias is unable to let go, ever, of anything, unless on her terms. In court her answers rambled in her attempts to have the last word on as many subjects as possible. And she would try to taunt JM sometimes during questioning just to have the last word.

I think having the last word wherever possible gives Killer an enormous sense of satisfaction. It is, to me, why she was the way she was in court as well as in before and after trial interviews. And who will ever forget her final statement to the court at sentencing!

This killer had many opportunities to make things look better for herself, yet every single opportunity was missed because of her desperate need to have the last word, to say what she wants said regardless of how damaging it might be. I think the bulk of any problems she has while incarcerated are going to occur because of that need. And I think she sits in prison for the rest of her life because of that need.

IMO
 
I agree. Harsh but true words do not equate to abuse. The appearance of abuse only stood when taking his words completely out of context, and that context was that of a genuinely good man trying patiently and lovingly to bring the good out of a person who had no good to bring out. His words were only the frustrating reflection of that realization.
BBM. Bingo! :clap::clap::goodpost::winner:Jodi deserved every single bad thing Travis ever said about her, and most it wasn't even that bad! Calling her "the worst thing that ever happened to him" is NOT on the same level as calling her a *advertiser censored* or the b word, both of which were also true. This is the woman who stalked him, slashed his tires and ruined his credit and his life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
1,551
Total visitors
1,710

Forum statistics

Threads
606,144
Messages
18,199,477
Members
233,756
Latest member
IndigoRose
Back
Top