Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[RickshawFan]

I'm still slicing and dicing............ Currently on June 4th....... thinking about the fact that she wore gloves that day. Not one finger print found, not on clorox bottle, not on washing machine, not on master bedroom door knob, not in the shower area, not in guest bathroom, not anywhere. Police found her palm print and hair. No finger print. ......And some other things.

She taped her finger tips?

 

[RickshawFan]

*******

Answer: Clark isn't and won't be involved in any capacity in the 's direct appeal to the COA.

She requested and received permission to access 's ENTIRE trial record, including everything that had been put under seal, for purposes of her civil case against Nurmi, and for "administrative" work she is doing for the .

That "administrative work" almost certainly refers to the Bar complaints she has filed against JM, as Nurmi had already been disbarred at the time of her request.

*******

Wasn't Clark the one who "inadvertently" handed over all her working documentation with to JM?

This could be good.....

Revenge, much?

 

[pocketaccent]

A few weeks ago when I was focusing on the pre-murder pedo letter, I re-watched interrogation videos to look for any signs of it during the interrogation. Made some notes in word pad as I was watching. Forgot to post it. I think she was going to go with abuse/self defense lies at one point, but hesitated because she didn't want to admit that she was the killer. See bolded.
Ninjas did not appear until Flores suggested it first.

Extremely condensed version of interrogation, July 2008

Second day with Dective Blaney
She doesn't seem to know what to do or say. Definitely has not formulated the ninja story.
Notable:
- She says T was violent a couple times. Had bruises. Relationship was rocky. T said several choice words that weren't nice.
-Whoever took the shower photos must have done it without permission.
-she wants to see pictures to piece things together.

Second day with Dective Flores
(the following is not their continuous conversation. I took some bits randomly, not verbatim, but they are in the correct chronological order.)

-Begins with small talk
-JA wants to see photos. DF says 'nope, no more. Which do you want to see?'
-JA says 'the photos of after everything'. Keeps begging, DF refuses.
-DF asks 'Was he expecting you?' She says 'He wanted me to come', 'I told him I was going to Utah'
-They talk about T's family, her concerns (wedding photos, need cash in jail), her journals (Did you get all 3?), YouTube video she uploaded 2 nights ago...
- DF -What happened that day?, What time did you get there?, You showed up about 1:45, T's roommates didn't come home until 6:30 or 7 pm. They don't socialize, especially with his new roommate.
-JA-Who is that?
-DF- Did you know his new roommate?
-JA- I only knew Zach was there.
(DF tells her about Enrique and JA acts like she knew. She really did't know)
-DF- I need to know what happened
-JA- I just don't want to hurt anybody. I don't think I can avoid it though.
-DF - Nothing you can do to help. Need an explanation of why. Open up and talk. I'm ready.
- JA - I don't think I'm ready. I mean, there's so much to say, I just don't want...
-DF - Fill in some details. There are certain details that only I know and the person who did this knows. I use this info to confirm.
- JA cries.
- DF - Were you going to convince him not to go to Mexico
-JA - no
-DF - Then why were you there? The only other explanation is you went there to hurt him.
-JA - There's so many things that I want to say
- DF - Start then. Were you guys alone?
-JA - Sorry. There's so much that I just want...
- DF - Should I be looking for somebody else? Are you proecting somebody? This is the number one question his family has been asking. You don't have to give me names. Was somebody there with you?
-JA - Trying to think....What happens if I give you a confession
- DF - Nothing changes. It speeds up the process.
She asks again to see the photos. Talks about if she should see an attorney before she talks.

DF asks many questions (What went through your mind after it happened. What were you thinking everyday that went by. Did you tell anybody what happened. What was going through your head when you left. Were you worried his roommates were going to be home. You barely missed them. Why did you throw the camera in the washing machine.) She has no good answers.

They start to talk about : T's roommates, Travis didn't seem like husband material, Deanna's free breast implants, Mimi, Sky, Ryan, Cancun
Some while later - ninja lies begin. Very sloppy and and not well put together.

 

[pocketaccent]

to Flores : 'I only knew Zack was there'
(I forgot when Enrique left the house. 6 or 6:30?)

Possibilities:
1. She was hiding inside the house before 6 AM. When she heard someone leave, she thought it was Zack. Saw Zack again 3-4 PM.
2. She arrived after 6 AM after Enrique left. Saw Zack 3-4PM.
3. Her testimony was truthful- Daft videos, sex, CD throwing in office. When Zack came home between 3-4 PM, They hid and stayed quite. She had gloves on. All day.

She never incorporated anything regarding Zack being home 3-4 PM during interrogation or testimony.
#3 didn't happen. #1 or 2 did.

 

[pocketaccent]

Just saw this:

Jodi Arias' Former Cellmate Reveals Tattoos Given to Her by Arizona Killer

Lisa?

I think she hated Deanna more than Lisa. She was able to successfully chase Lisa away but not Deanna, who stood by Travis like a big loving sister, tried her best to keep the away from him.

Is it possible the went to Deanna's house in early morning of June 4th but wasn't able to kill her? Use the gun on Deanna, knife on Travis later. Two different weapons.

 

[RickshawFan]

I like this option. It speaks to the most extreme of ' feelings: her bottomless hatred of Deanna.

Deanna is someone very special. She seems lovely through and through, with a big heart and a big soul, mature and thoughtful.

TA's other "girlfriends" of various descriptions did not have Deanna's constellation of specialness. could "erase" all of the other women and their relationships with TA, even going so far as to erase (distort, delete, hijack) their online presence and relationships to one another.

But the qualities in Deanna that are most striking are not erasable because they're hard to put a finger on, even to describe precisely. They are not erasable because she exudes them.

I would speculate that killing Deanna would likely have presented itself to as the only option to erase her.

----------

We really don't know for a fact what was doing the whole day she murdered TA. It wouldn't surprise me if she hadn't spent the day staking out Deanna's house, as she'd likely done many times before.

 

[Hope4More]

OPENING BRIEFS: TO SEAL OR NOT TO SEAL? THAT IS STILL THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COA.




May 11, 2018. attorneys file motion to seal their opening briefs. In one short paragraph they state 2 reasons for sealing:


1. That the Court (COA) unsealed the record solely for purposes of appeal and that “major portions” of the record have not been available to the public.


2. “The contents of the opening brief may endanger some members of the public, given the continuing interest of the media and the public.”


“In the interest of protecting the safety of certain parties,” (her attorneys) request to present a paper copy of their brief to the Court (a paper brief is required if filed under seal, otherwise opening briefs are filed electronically).

------------------------------------------


May 15, 2018. THE STATE REPLIED (4 page response): The Court should deny the request to seal, because the ’s attorneys (PA) “present nothing to rebut the presumption that appellate briefs should be available to the public.”

The State further stated: AZ law dictates that the burden is on PA to factually demonstrate “the probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure, thus justifying an exception to the rule of full disclosure.”


AZ law also dictates that courts should consider a “practical alternative to the complete denial of access, such as deleting specific identifying information.”


The State: PA fails to satisfy this burden. Their claim that the contents of the opening brief may endanger some members of the public is “conclusory, speculative, and falls short of the specific showing required under AZ law.”


Nor has PA shown “that there isn’t a practical alternative to sealing the entire brief.”

---
Addressing the argument that the Superior Court sealed “some records,” and the COA unsealed records solely for the purposes of (preparing) this appeal:


“The initial motion to seal, then to reseal, made no argument at all for why any records should be sealed on appeal. Whatever the reasons for sealing records at trial, circumstances change, and this Court should decide anew whether the best interests of the public favor nondisclosure of the appellate record and briefs at THIS time.”


Final statement by the State: If PA can’t make a factual showing why sealing is warranted, this Court should deny the motion to seal.


May 16, 2018. attorneys replied to the State’s objections, in a 64 page document, much of that attachments rather than argument. Summary of their reply follows in next post.

 

[geevee]

to Flores : 'I only knew Zack was there'
(I forgot when Enrique left the house. 6 or 6:30?)

Possibilities:
1. She was hiding inside the house before 6 AM. When she heard someone leave, she thought it was Zack. Saw Zack again 3-4 PM.
2. She arrived after 6 AM after Enrique left. Saw Zack 3-4PM.
3. Her testimony was truthful- Daft videos, sex, CD throwing in office. When Zack came home between 3-4 PM, They hid and stayed quite. She had gloves on. All day.

She never incorporated anything regarding Zack being home 3-4 PM during interrogation or testimony.
#3 didn't happen. #1 or 2 did.

Yes, she didn't know about Enrique and Zach was spending the night house sitting at his gf's so she naturally assumed it was Zach leaving that morning because he came back that afternoon (if she was there before E left, which I'm still, after all these years, undecided on).

It proves more that she and T had no 'normal' conversations after she went to Yreka since T never mentioned having a new roommate, which also makes the sex tape's date highly suspicious, I don't believe they were having conversations like that (chit-chatty or sexy) once she was out of Mesa. He cut her out of his personal life and meant it to stay that way.

 

[Hope4More]

May 16, 2018. ’s attorneys’ reply to the State’s objection to sealing opening briefs.

----------------------------

Under the first section of their reply, labeled FACTS:


They acknowledge that opening briefs qualify as public records that must be disclosed, but argue that “this is not an average case.”


Next, they cite a COA Administrative Order (2013-2), which states:


“A record on appeal transferred to the COA as filed under seal shall remain closed to the public while the appeal is pending.”


They further quote from the Order, “documents will be filed under seal only of the Court has granted a separate motion requesting that the document be sealed.”

(This Order is entirely relevant, but they've omitted a crucial section, and in doing so have either ignored, inaccurately stated, or not understood the definition of DOCUMENTS. More on this later.)

And so begins their circular logic. They say they filed their motion to seal “taking this Order into account, given the fact that this appellate record has been sealed for three years.”


They list each COA order related to sealing. Of particular note (more on this later):


1. A COA court order that “new transcripts to be filed would remain sealed if ANY portion of the proceeding was sealed.”


2. That in March 2018, the COA allowed her attorneys’ Motion to Supplement be filed under seal, and in April 2018, for that supplement to also be filed under seal.

------

So much for their “factual” presentation. Next, under “ DISCUSSION” (of their factual argument):


1. The COA has consistently enforced the sealed status of the records.

2. JSS outlined her reasons for sealing the record, in a sealed minute (of course) dated Nov 13, 2013.

3. JSS ordered the electronic record be sealed while the trial (PP2) was ongoing.


4. “In addition, the information submitted under seal on April 2018 provides further reason to keep the record sealed, including the opening brief.”


5.” The Court must consider the absurd level of interest that this case inspires in the public.” The State “hopefully asserts” that circumstances change, (but) circumstances have not changed enough for this Court to unseal the record.”


Bullet points are provided as “examples” of that absurd interest: national & local media contacting them for status of appeals; interested parties “routinely” requesting the ’s commissary purchases and visitor lists, then posting on the internet; and an “inordinate amount of attention and energy is given by the media to routine motions relating to her appeal.

Their final bullet point- “These circumstances are a continuation of the events that led to the sealing of the record in the first place.”

Their conclusion, (paraphrased) : filing opening briefs under seal is warranted. Because we have the burden of demonstrating that sealing is appropriate, we will make ourselves available “to present further details in a forum where sealed information may be addressed freely.”

 

[Hope4More]

Just saw this:

Jodi Arias' Former Cellmate Reveals Tattoos Given to Her by Arizona Killer

Lisa?

That girl is whacked. She's too wrong about some details & too unbelievable about others to be taken seriously, IMO.

PS. Deanna moved back to CA from Mesa in early-mid April.

 

[geevee]

May 16, 2018. ’s attorneys’ reply to the State’s objection to sealing opening briefs.

----------------------------

Under the first section of their reply, labeled FACTS:


They acknowledge that opening briefs qualify as public records that must be disclosed, but argue that “this is not an average case.”


Next, they cite a COA Administrative Order (2013-2), which states:


“A record on appeal transferred to the COA as filed under seal shall remain closed to the public while the appeal is pending.”


They further quote from the Order, “documents will be filed under seal only of the Court has granted a separate motion requesting that the document be sealed.”

(This Order is entirely relevant, but they've omitted a crucial section, and in doing so have either ignored, inaccurately stated, or not understood the definition of DOCUMENTS. More on this later.)

And so begins their circular logic. They say they filed their motion to seal “taking this Order into account, given the fact that this appellate record has been sealed for three years.”


They list each COA order related to sealing. Of particular note (more on this later):


1. A COA court order that “new transcripts to be filed would remain sealed if ANY portion of the proceeding was sealed.”


2. That in March 2018, the COA allowed her attorneys’ Motion to Supplement be filed under seal, and in April 2018, for that supplement to also be filed under seal.

------

So much for their “factual” presentation. Next, under “ DISCUSSION” (of their factual argument):


1. The COA has consistently enforced the sealed status of the records.

2. JSS outlined her reasons for sealing the record, in a sealed minute (of course) dated Nov 13, 2013.

3. JSS ordered the electronic record be sealed while the trial (PP2) was ongoing.


4. “In addition, the information submitted under seal on April 2018 provides further reason to keep the record sealed, including the opening brief.”


5.” The Court must consider the absurd level of interest that this case inspires in the public.” The State “hopefully asserts” that circumstances change, (but) circumstances have not changed enough for this Court to unseal the record.”


Bullet points are provided as “examples” of that absurd interest: national & local media contacting them for status of appeals; interested parties “routinely” requesting the ’s commissary purchases and visitor lists, then posting on the internet; and an “inordinate amount of attention and energy is given by the media to routine motions relating to her appeal.

Their final bullet point- “These circumstances are a continuation of the events that led to the sealing of the record in the first place.”

Their conclusion, (paraphrased) : filing opening briefs under seal is warranted. Because we have the burden of demonstrating that sealing is appropriate, we will make ourselves available “to present further details in a forum where sealed information may be addressed freely.”

Throughout all of their blather, they omit the one reason that could justify sealing - any danger that unsealing will affect her appeal. I don't see how it possibly could, we aren't getting ready to pick a jury or anything - please slap this nonsense down COA and open the record.

Thanks for all this work Hope, you are diligence personified.

 

[geevee]

That girl is whacked. She's too wrong about some details & too unbelievable about others to be taken seriously, IMO.

PS. Deanna moved back to CA from Mesa in early-mid April.

I kinda wanted to see what pencil and mascara tattoos looked like but the links in the article are messed up.

Lisa was well out of the picture by June, but this chick will (apparently) wear ' name around her ankle for eternity. Credibility...yeah.

 

[Hope4More]

Pocket-

FWIW, any analysis is up to you..

During trial, after juror questions to the , in JM's follow-up to the questions, on the stand, JM asks a series of questions related to the pedo lie. The says in her replies:

1. That she told MM about the pedo in APRIL 2008.

2. That she first told a psychologist about the pedo in 2009. If true, that's really rather interesting.

I think it likely is true, because she added details about the psychologist she told: that it was a man, by interference it couldn't have been Samuels, and where the psychologist practiced.

It has never occurred to me, but of course it makes sense that her FIRST defense team must have hired psych evaluations of the .

Whatever evaluations were done by her first team were never introduced at trial. Until mentioned the 2009 psychologist, in fact, none of the testifying experts or the attorneys had ever mentioned that evaluations had been done prior to Dr. Samuels' initial eval in December 2009.

Makes one wonder if part of the reason the wanted to fire her first attorney (Schaeffer) was because Schaeffer either didn't believe the pedo lie, or because she wasn't willing to include the pedo lie in whatever case she was building, which after all, was still necessarily based on the ninjas lie.

----

Also, and during Nurmi's follow up to juror questions, he asked the why she waited so long to tell the truth- that she killed TA in self-defense, lol.

She included in her long-winded reply that she'd waited so long because she wanted to protect TA's reputation, and....that she hadn't wanted to tell about the physical abuse because THAT WOULD HAVE INDICATED SHE HAD MOTIVE to kill Travis.

 

[Hope4More]

Throughout all of their blather, they omit the one reason that could justify sealing - any danger that unsealing will affect her appeal. I don't see how it possibly could, we aren't getting ready to pick a jury or anything - please slap this nonsense down COA and open the record.

Thanks for all this work Hope, you are diligence personified.

Exactly, about the (no) danger to her appeal. I was struck by the same omission, which really does seem equally an admission.

Diligence has it's limits, so will rush-slap the conclusion right here.

1. On the sealing of whole transcripts if a part of the transcript was previously sealed:

That is a slimy argument. What they're referring to is when all of the transcripts were being redone, in one fell, time-consuming swoop. The COA made that ruling in order to EXPEDITE THE PROCESS, by saving poor Babicky a whole lot of extra work, NOT because they necessarily thought those transcripts merited sealing.

It's the same kind of loose with the truth, off base & off-putting argument they made when they asserted the entire COA should be recused for bias because one COA judge mentioned the 's case in an article.

2. About the sealed April 2018 supplement they say is proof that the opening brief should be sealed.

An attachment to their filing includes hints about that supplement: it is a single item. Best guess- it's a screenshot of something posted online. And...it is about someone or something that was discussed "on the record" at trial.

Really good guess- it's a screenshot of some post -trial nasty comment about Alyce or that lying Australian secret witness who lied about Travis and Deanna and DV and pedo.

Big whoopydy. And really, really lame.

Last, about that definition of DOCUMENT.

What her attorneys omitted from their discussion of the COA's very own administrative order (lol) is this part:

That the COA explicitly defines "documents" in this context as ANY document that was or is prepared for the COA, or that has been or will be submitted to the COA.

In other words, the trial record itself, if sealed by the Superior Court, MAY indeed be kept sealed, but opening briefs are considered documents that MUST be made public unless the COA decides otherwise; AND, the mere request by attorneys that briefs be sealed does NOT meet the burden laid out by the COA's order.

Brass tacks: my best bet is that IF the COA feels accommodating, they will deny the motion to seal the briefs themselves, but will order that names of annon witnesses etc be redacted, and possibly, that appendices containing previously sealed material be redacted or excluded from the public record until the Court makes it's final ruling on her appeal.

 

[geevee]

"Brass tacks: my best bet is that IF the COA feels accommodating, they will deny the motion to seal the briefs themselves, but will order that names of annon witnesses etc be redacted, and possibly, that appendices containing previously sealed material be redacted or excluded from the public record until the Court makes it's final ruling on her appeal." ~ Hope4More

I could live with that, but for the life of me I've never been able to understand the screaming need for so much secrecy in this whole trial - what in the world is in all this sealed stuff that could cause such a public outcry and endanger certain people? I don't believe any people (even LaV) are at any risk, most people are so glad Arias went away and would gladly forget everything they ever knew about her, but it makes me think once everything is unsealed, it may turn some of our theories on their heads.

 

[pocketaccent]

Pocket-

FWIW, any analysis is up to you..

During trial, after juror questions to the , in JM's follow-up to the questions, on the stand, JM asks a series of questions related to the pedo lie. The says in her replies:

1. That she told MM about the pedo in APRIL 2008.

2. That she first told a psychologist about the pedo in 2009. If true, that's really rather interesting.

I think it likely is true, because she added details about the psychologist she told: that it was a man, by interference it couldn't have been Samuels, and where the psychologist practiced.

It has never occurred to me, but of course it makes sense that her FIRST defense team must have hired psych evaluations of the .

Whatever evaluations were done by her first team were never introduced at trial. Until mentioned the 2009 psychologist, in fact, none of the testifying experts or the attorneys had ever mentioned that evaluations had been done prior to Dr. Samuels' initial eval in December 2009.

Makes one wonder if part of the reason the wanted to fire her first attorney (Schaeffer) was because Schaeffer either didn't believe the pedo lie, or because she wasn't willing to include the pedo lie in whatever case she was building, which after all, was still necessarily based on the ninjas lie.

----

Also, and during Nurmi's follow up to juror questions, he asked the why she waited so long to tell the truth- that she killed TA in self-defense, lol.

She included in her long-winded reply that she'd waited so long because she wanted to protect TA's reputation, and....that she hadn't wanted to tell about the physical abuse because THAT WOULD HAVE INDICATED SHE HAD MOTIVE to kill Travis.

One more item:
In the 2011 confiscated magazine, the wrote phone number of Mark Stanoch, ABC producer who interviewed her on July 2009, and Sep 2009, and that the interview was excellent. She seemed to be requesting the recipient to call that guy to find out what she had told him back then.

So the was already busy peddling the pedo lies in 2009.

 

[pocketaccent]

I like this option. It speaks to the most extreme of ' feelings: her bottomless hatred of Deanna.

Deanna is someone very special. She seems lovely through and through, with a big heart and a big soul, mature and thoughtful.

TA's other "girlfriends" of various descriptions did not have Deanna's constellation of specialness. could "erase" all of the other women and their relationships with TA, even going so far as to erase (distort, delete, hijack) their online presence and relationships to one another.

But the qualities in Deanna that are most striking are not erasable because they're hard to put a finger on, even to describe precisely. They are not erasable because she exudes them.

I would speculate that killing Deanna would likely have presented itself to as the only option to erase her.

----------

We really don't know for a fact what was doing the whole day she murdered TA. It wouldn't surprise me if she hadn't spent the day staking out Deanna's house, as she'd likely done many times before.

So accurately and beautifully written about Deanna, Rickshaw!

I get the feeling the sort of pitied Lisa and all the other girls as she was confident of her manipulation skill to rid them from T's life. Strong Deanna sure was impossible to manipulate though. The verbally and in various written forms, said numerous disparaging remarks about Deanna, one of them even appeared in one of the pedo letters.

I agree, we really don't know what she did on June 4th, except the lies she told. I really believe it is not too far fetched to speculate that she premeditated to kill both.

 

[Hope4More]

"Brass tacks: my best bet is that IF the COA feels accommodating, they will deny the motion to seal the briefs themselves, but will order that names of annon witnesses etc be redacted, and possibly, that appendices containing previously sealed material be redacted or excluded from the public record until the Court makes it's final ruling on her appeal." ~ Hope4More

I could live with that, but for the life of me I've never been able to understand the screaming need for so much secrecy in this whole trial - what in the world is in all this sealed stuff that could cause such a public outcry and endanger certain people? I don't believe any people (even LaV) are at any risk, most people are so glad Arias went away and would gladly forget everything they ever knew about her, but it makes me think once everything is unsealed, it may turn some of our theories on their heads.

There was no compelling reason why so much of the trial was sealed.

What occasioned so much secrecy AFTER the first trial and on through until the end of PP2 was a judge overseeing her first DP trial, a trial that garnered a huge amount of publicity in it's first phase.

JSS was cautious but pretty confident through round one, but far less so after sentencing ended in a mistrial, and Nurmi began pounding her in earnest about the being deprived of due process and a "full mitigation" case because of the publicity.

JSS blinked, then kept on blinking, up to and including violating the US and AZ constitutions by sealing her courtroom so the could testify in secret.

I want to see all the sealed info too, but I doubt it will turn very much, if anything, we know on its head.

JM said in his post-book interviews that there really isn't anything astonishing or amazing or even particularly significant about the or the case that he knows that we don't.

He has said he chose not to try to introduce some derogatory info he knew about her at trial because he didn't want to open any doors to a mistrial or to an overturned conviction. He said specifically that the info he knew had nothing to do with anything related to financial scams or money or crimes of any sort committed by the .

The 's attorneys simply don't have much to work with. I'm convinced that they are going to base their chief arguments squarely on the grounds Nurmi hammered on from day one until the end- excessive publicity deprived her of due process, including the testimony of witnesses who were too intimidated to appear on her behalf.

 

[Colie]

I think she hated Deanna more than Lisa. She was able to successfully chase Lisa away but not Deanna, who stood by Travis like a big loving sister, tried her best to keep the away from him.

Is it possible the went to Deanna's house in early morning of June 4th but wasn't able to kill her? Use the gun on Deanna, knife on Travis later. Two different weapons.

I do believe Deana moved to California in March or April.

 

[Hope4More]

So accurately and beautifully written about Deanna, Rickshaw!

I get the feeling the sort of pitied Lisa and all the other girls as she was confident of her manipulation skill to rid them from T's life. Strong Deanna sure was impossible to manipulate though. The verbally and in various written forms, said numerous disparaging remarks about Deanna, one of them even appeared in one of the pedo letters.

I agree, we really don't know what she did on June 4th, except the lies she told. I really believe it is not too far fetched to speculate that she premeditated to kill both.

I think the hated Lisa, and in fall 2007, entertained thoughts of killing her.

As much as she hated Lisa, I believe she loathed and resented Deanna far more. She knew Travis genuinely loved Deanna, had done so for many years, and absolutely would have married her had he not been so traumatized still by his upbringing that he simply couldn't make that commitment.

Travis was still in love with Deanna when the chose him as prey. No doubt she blamed Deanna for Travis's reluctance to even or ever consider the seriously as a contender for marriage. And, I'd guess she felt no small amount of rage that Deanna was so loved & liked by all the same friends of TA who actively disliked her, thought her creepy, and urged TA to run like hell away from her.