Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[Hope4More]

Gotcha. I wouldn't ask you to jump back into that debate! At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because the outcome is what it is.

Thank you for that reprieve. . And yes, in the most important way it doesn't matter whether or not they did, because as JM said so powerfully in a post-book interview- what mattered that day was a knife, a gun, and the unspeakable, brutal, premeditated violence committed by a .

 

[MagicRose99]

BBM

Is there evidence that the two did not have sex that day, or he resisted her?

Hinky that the camera would be stolen, but perhaps hinkier that it was thrown in the wash? I don't know her line of thinking there. Panicked, anyway. I agree with Steve44 that she might have done it as a taunt after her deed. She probably imagined there would be no trace of blood on the towels either.

One of TA's roommates was home during the time he was dead, right?

I wonder how strong the smell was. Mimi Hall indicated a strong smell when they entered the home looking for TA, but no one went into any detail about that.

I think she washed the camera thinking it would wipe out any pics that were on it... and it didn't. She wasn't that smart.

 

[Schmatz]

I think she accidentally picked up the camera with the washing when she stuffed everything in the machine. She probably looked for it frantically.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

 

[Steve44]

I see what you're saying. Well, on the other hand, we know he took triple-x-rated pictures of her body parts that afternoon, so I don't know why he would turn down sex if he was willing to do that.

Also, he was preparing to go out of town, so JA presented an opportunity to sew his oats before going on a trip with a woman who planned not to sleep with him.

Since you just watched the trial I'd like to give you a fuller picture of why I think it's more likely they had sex that day than not. I've already given my view of motivation but there also had to have been a psychological motivation on Travis' part as well, and IMO said motivation could only have been arrived at through manipulation. One of the arguments against it is that the argument on the 28th of May made is impossible or highly unlikely that he would be intimate with her ever again, however, even though Travis was fully done with her, genuinely angry, and saw her more clearly than he ever had before, my contention is that she was still able to manipulate him that one last time, and she did that by using his own anger against him.

Throughout their relationship, Travis tried to see the good in her despite all evidence to the contrary. The reason they were together for as long as they were in spite of Travis knowing he would never marry her is because he wanted to help her. He felt he could teach her to be a better person. While the fight on the 28th ended even that aspect of their relationship, the fact that it ended on such a bitter note, in such utter failure bothered Travis deeply, and she knew that, so all she had to do on that final day was to capitulate fully to all his accusations, to fully acknowledge all that was her fault, and even acknowledge that the relationship was fully and finally over - but to beg him not to let it end on such a bitter note, that if they slept together one last time, they could end their relationship with the magic of the first time, part ways yes, but not with anger, not with bitterness, they could be free of that. This is exactly what Travis wanted; both to be free of her, but also free of the bitterness of a bad ending. That was her final ruse, her final manipulation to get him exactly where she wanted him...

 

[Hope4More]

Since you just watched the trial I'd like to give you a fuller picture of why I think it's more likely they had sex that day than not. I've already given my view of motivation but there also had to have been a psychological motivation on Travis' part as well, and IMO said motivation could only have been arrived at through manipulation. One of the arguments against it is that the argument on the 28th of May made is impossible or highly unlikely that he would be intimate with her ever again, however, even though Travis was fully done with her, genuinely angry, and saw her more clearly than he ever had before, my contention is that she was still able to manipulate him that one last time, and she did that by using his own anger against him.

Throughout their relationship, Travis tried to see the good in her despite all evidence to the contrary. The reason they were together for as long as they were in spite of Travis knowing he would never marry her is because he wanted to help her. He felt he could teach her to be a better person. While the fight on the 28th ended even that aspect of their relationship, the fact that it ended on such a bitter note, in such utter failure bothered Travis deeply, and she knew that, so all she had to do on that final day was to capitulate fully to all his accusations, to fully acknowledge all that was her fault, and even acknowledge that the relationship was fully and finally over - but to beg him not to let it end on such a bitter note, that if they slept together one last time, they could end their relationship with the magic of the first time, part ways yes, but not with anger, not with bitterness, they could be free of that. This is exactly what Travis wanted; both to be free of her, but also free of the bitterness of a bad ending. That was her final ruse, her final manipulation to get him exactly where she wanted him...

Leaving aside whether or not they had sex that day, the evidence is pretty clear he allowed her to stay in his house for an extended time, and that he did not try to communicate to friends or police any distress or fear he might have felt about her being there.

IMO, she would have had to use manipulation of whatever sort to accomplish even that much, because based on what we can know, I'm convinced he was truly done with her, didn't invite her there, didn't know she was coming, wasn't awake when she arrived, and wasn't happy (and likely freaked out) when she surprised him in his own house, whenever that happened.

So....her manipulations that day worked well enough and for long enough for her to be able to take advantage of T's vulnerability (ies), whether or not she was able to destroy him one last time using sex against him.

 

[natsound]

Since you just watched the trial I'd like to give you a fuller picture of why I think it's more likely they had sex that day than not. I've already given my view of motivation but there also had to have been a psychological motivation on Travis' part as well, and IMO said motivation could only have been arrived at through manipulation. One of the arguments against it is that the argument on the 28th of May made is impossible or highly unlikely that he would be intimate with her ever again, however, even though Travis was fully done with her, genuinely angry, and saw her more clearly than he ever had before, my contention is that she was still able to manipulate him that one last time, and she did that by using his own anger against him.

Throughout their relationship, Travis tried to see the good in her despite all evidence to the contrary. The reason they were together for as long as they were in spite of Travis knowing he would never marry her is because he wanted to help her. He felt he could teach her to be a better person. While the fight on the 28th ended even that aspect of their relationship, the fact that it ended on such a bitter note, in such utter failure bothered Travis deeply, and she knew that, so all she had to do on that final day was to capitulate fully to all his accusations, to fully acknowledge all that was her fault, and even acknowledge that the relationship was fully and finally over - but to beg him not to let it end on such a bitter note, that if they slept together one last time, they could end their relationship with the magic of the first time, part ways yes, but not with anger, not with bitterness, they could be free of that. This is exactly what Travis wanted; both to be free of her, but also free of the bitterness of a bad ending. That was her final ruse, her final manipulation to get him exactly where she wanted him...

BBM

This all may be true, and of course we can't crawl into his head and see his thoughts. But do you give any weight to the assessment of TA in the article below?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Travis-Alexander-friend-warned-Jodi-him.html

I am of the believe that while JA was severely flawed, mentally unstable and dangerous, TA had his faults as well. He was a nice guy, life of the party and everyone liked him. On the same token, something about him made Mimi Hall not want to date him (I wish we knew more about that). He engaged in sexual acts VERY quickly with a willing JA, even though his Mormon faith forbade it.

Looking at the big picture, and looking at what we know about both of them and the events of that day, I'm lead to believe he took advantage of what was being offered to him on June 4. He wasn't about to "turn it down". I think he was scared of her though, after she slashed his tires, sneaked into his home, etc.

 

[natsound]

Leaving aside whether or not they had sex that day, the evidence is pretty clear he allowed her to stay in his house for an extended time, and that he did not try to communicate to friends or police any distress or fear he might have felt about her being there.

IMO, she would have had to use manipulation of whatever sort to accomplish even that much, because based on what we can know, I'm convinced he was truly done with her, didn't invite her there, didn't know she was coming, wasn't awake when she arrived, and wasn't happy (and likely freaked out) when she surprised him in his own house, whenever that happened.

So....her manipulations that day worked well enough and for long enough for her to be able to take advantage of T's vulnerability (ies), whether or not she was able to destroy him one last time using sex against him.

I don't think he knew she was coming either, or maybe he found out shortly before she showed up. But they did watch Youtube videos together at 4am or so (Def hands stronger, faster, etc). He watched several of them, and she must have been there at that time because she knew what he watched.

 

[natsound]

I think she accidentally picked up the camera with the washing when she stuffed everything in the machine. She probably looked for it frantically.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

I don't know. Too coincidental. Putting the camera in the washing machine with bleach seems a deliberate act.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think he knew she was coming either, or maybe he found out shortly before she showed up. But they did watch Youtube videos together at 4am or so (Def hands stronger, faster, etc). He watched several of them, and she must have been there at that time because she knew what he watched.

BBM

This all may be true, and of course we can't crawl into his head and see his thoughts. But do you give any weight to the assessment of TA in the article below?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Travis-Alexander-friend-warned-Jodi-him.html

I am of the believe that while JA was severely flawed, mentally unstable and dangerous, TA had his faults as well. He was a nice guy, life of the party and everyone liked him. On the same token, something about him made Mimi Hall not want to date him (I wish we knew more about that). He engaged in sexual acts VERY quickly with a willing JA, even though his Mormon faith forbade it.

Looking at the big picture, and looking at what we know about both of them and the events of that day, I'm lead to believe he took advantage of what was being offered to him on June 4. He wasn't about to "turn it down". I think he was scared of her though, after she slashed his tires, sneaked into his home, etc.

He was definitely afraid of her. That Travis told his male BF after the May 28th finale he thought she was nuts but didn't think she'd hurt him was IMO more an expression of false security (she was 1,000 miles away in CA) and of his alpha man ego than of the degree of fear he felt about her.

For example: in addition to telling Regan(and his surrogate father)that he believed the might indeed kill him, there was a very telling text exchange between T and Regan just a few days before the events of May 28th. T had told Regan he was going to call the and confront her with proof that she had been hacking into his SM accounts and posing as someone else to lure him into a rendezvous.

He was terrified of making that call. Regan reassured him, telling him she would be there for him, and that Jesus would be there as he spoke with the , protecting him.

When Travis called the pure evil on May 28th, i have no doubt that was exactly how he felt.

As I've said here more than once, IMO gender reversal plays no small role in how many folks interpret what happened the day he was murdered. If Travis had been a woman, surprised in what she thought was the safety of her own house, by an ex-lover who she knew to be wildly unstable at best, a liar, a stalker, and someone who had already demonstrated the capacity for violence, would anyone find it impossible to imagine that she would have acquiesced to just about anything her ex-boyfriend suggested, hoping against hope he would just leave,ASAP, without harming her?

---
Noting:

Nothing proves that she watched the videos WITH Travis, as we have discussed/analyzed here at length. Remember her profiency with his backspace keys?

And- we have her word only that they were sexually involved very early on. Sky and David Hughes have said they don't believe any sexual contact was made at their house, where T and the met up, with the one exception of that motel stay in Nevada (they believe Travis & the "petted," but no more).

Having read all their texts and her journals, it's clear that the greatly exaggerated the extent of their sexual contact and lied about who initiated it most often (almost always it was her, not Travis).

And Mimi? Mimi made Travis very nervous and he acted that way around her. She was Mormon aristocracy, well read and well educated; he was a convert, insecure, unsure of himself around her, self-taught, "rough around the edges," and desperate to find a wife but not ready, willing, or able to commit to even a serious relationship.

On top of all that, the Mesa Mormon community he and Mimi were part of was insular, tight knit and very gossipy. Eligible marriage partners in the single wards discussed, frequently, the pros and cons of various prospects, and shared notes from personal experience and from second hand accounts.

Travis was successful, charming, apparently a committed and devout Mormon elder, well liked and well respected. But...he was approaching 30 and unmarried. If you were a Mimi in that situation you'd likely be pretty cautious too, eh?

 

[Hope4More]

I don't know. Too coincidental. Putting the camera in the washing machine with bleach seems a deliberate act.

IIRC, after the slit Travis's throat and started dragging him back to the bathroom, she had only approximately 20 minutes before the return of one of his T's roommates at his regular time of 6PM.

She had a great of cleaning up and staging to do in that short time, and yet, again IIRC, she took the time to delete the photos she'd taken of Travis in the shower, and the accidental photos taken during the murder. The naked body photos had already been deleted. The photos on the camera Travis had taken himself weren't deleted, IIRC.

Just a guess, but it does seem most likely she was confident that she, the self-professed "professional photographer," knew how to destroy those incriminating photos. Lol. A fine example of being hoisted by one's own petard (and/or simply being done in by her own delusions and arrogance).

 

[Steve44]

BBM

This all may be true, and of course we can't crawl into his head and see his thoughts. But do you give any weight to the assessment of TA in the article below?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Travis-Alexander-friend-warned-Jodi-him.html

I am of the believe that while JA was severely flawed, mentally unstable and dangerous, TA had his faults as well. He was a nice guy, life of the party and everyone liked him. On the same token, something about him made Mimi Hall not want to date him (I wish we knew more about that). He engaged in sexual acts VERY quickly with a willing JA, even though his Mormon faith forbade it.

Looking at the big picture, and looking at what we know about both of them and the events of that day, I'm lead to believe he took advantage of what was being offered to him on June 4. He wasn't about to "turn it down". I think he was scared of her though, after she slashed his tires, sneaked into his home, etc.

It depends on what you mean by 'weight'. The easy interpretation is that it indicates Travis was emotionally shallow and took advantage of women as a matter of course, but Deanna Reid stated that was not the case, that he cared deeply for the women he had relationships with while at the same time he had deep psychological issues with long term commitment due to his traumatic childhood. He was immersed in a culture in which sex was inextricably tied to marriage, but with a psychological block to marriage. Then Jodi came along, which allowed him to release his suppressed sexual urges and to delay dealing with his deeper psychological issues for the short term. He knew this, he knew it was temporary with Jodi, and that she was not the one to solve his problems in the long term. His behavior on the surface, particularly with Jodi, had the appearance it did simply because it was the outer form of his inner psychological difficulties with long-term commitment. To discount this and judge his behavior in superficial terms only, and use it to imply there was nothing going on deeper, is to miss the point IMO. His relationship with Arias was fraught with self conflict for him, it was his inner conflict brought out to the surface through her easy sexual availability. He knew it was unhealthy, but at the same time it was hard to resist.

In the beginning, she presented a very different face to the Hughes than she did to Travis. To them she was the innocent victim of Travis' sexual exploitation, the young innocent girl in 'love' with a man who couldn't appreciate her, who had the noble intentions in the relationship, when in reality it was she who was largely the sexual aggressor. Arias was good at playing all sides to her advantage, until she couldn't.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM

This all may be true, and of course we can't crawl into his head and see his thoughts. But do you give any weight to the assessment of TA in the article below?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Travis-Alexander-friend-warned-Jodi-him.html

I am of the believe that while JA was severely flawed, mentally unstable and dangerous, TA had his faults as well. He was a nice guy, life of the party and everyone liked him. On the same token, something about him made Mimi Hall not want to date him (I wish we knew more about that). He engaged in sexual acts VERY quickly with a willing JA, even though his Mormon faith forbade it.

Looking at the big picture, and looking at what we know about both of them and the events of that day, I'm lead to believe he took advantage of what was being offered to him on June 4. He wasn't about to "turn it down". I think he was scared of her though, after she slashed his tires, sneaked into his home, etc.

PS about the info in the Daily Mail link: some of it is just plain wrong, and most of it is based on a few & wildly out of context portions of an exchange between the Hughes and Travis.

I've read the full exchange. In actuality, Travis comes across as extremely respectful of women, very aware and deeply remorseful of the damage he had done to Deanna by not being able to commit to her, and admirably proactive in communicating to the that he was not ready to be in a relationship with her (which is why he encouraged her to go out and date other Mormen men).

By the end of T's exchange with the Hughes, both Sky and David had apologized profusely to Travis for levelling undeserved accusations. The entire exchange was the result of the 's deliberately trying to drive a wedge between Travis and his closest friends, to isolate him so as to more readily manipulate and control him.

 

[Steve44]

I don't think he knew she was coming either, or maybe he found out shortly before she showed up. But they did watch Youtube videos together at 4am or so (Def hands stronger, faster, etc). He watched several of them, and she must have been there at that time because she knew what he watched.

Because forewarned is forearmed I don't think he knew she was coming either, especially after the fight on the 28th. Once she got there she had a tabula rasa on which to explain why she was there. Suppose she said something like "I was on my way to Utah to meet R.B., a new love interest, but I just can't move on, as much as I want to, when we've ended on such a bitter note. It's not a good way to end, and it's so unnecessary..let's both walk away with something, anything, good between us instead of nothing but bad...etc. etc. etc.

 

[natsound]

He was definitely afraid of her. That Travis told his male BF after the May 28th finale he thought she was nuts but didn't think she'd hurt him was IMO more an expression of false security (she was 1,000 miles away in CA) and of his alpha man ego than of the degree of fear he felt about her.

For example: in addition to telling Regan(and his surrogate father)that he believed the might indeed kill him, there was a very telling text exchange between T and Regan just a few days before the events of May 28th. T had told Regan he was going to call the and confront her with proof that she had been hacking into his SM accounts and posing as someone else to lure him into a rendezvous.

He was terrified of making that call. Regan reassured him, telling him she would be there for him, and that Jesus would be there as he spoke with the , protecting him.

When Travis called the pure evil on May 28th, i have no doubt that was exactly how he felt.

As I've said here more than once, IMO gender reversal plays no small role in how many folks interpret what happened the day he was murdered. If Travis had been a woman, surprised in what she thought was the safety of her own house, by an ex-lover who she knew to be wildly unstable at best, a liar, a stalker, and someone who had already demonstrated the capacity for violence, would anyone find it impossible to imagine that she would have acquiesced to just about anything her ex-boyfriend suggested, hoping against hope he would just leave,ASAP, without harming her?

---
Noting:

Nothing proves that she watched the videos WITH Travis, as we have discussed/analyzed here at length. Remember her profiency with his backspace keys?

And- we have her word only that they were sexually involved very early on. Sky and David Hughes have said they don't believe any sexual contact was made at their house, where T and the met up, with the one exception of that motel stay in Nevada (they believe Travis & the "petted," but no more).

Having read all their texts and her journals, it's clear that the greatly exaggerated the extent of their sexual contact and lied about who initiated it most often (almost always it was her, not Travis).

And Mimi? Mimi made Travis very nervous and he acted that way around her. She was Mormon aristocracy, well read and well educated; he was a convert, insecure, unsure of himself around her, self-taught, "rough around the edges," and desperate to find a wife but not ready, willing, or able to commit to even a serious relationship.

On top of all that, the Mesa Mormon community he and Mimi were part of was insular, tight knit and very gossipy. Eligible marriage partners in the single wards discussed, frequently, the pros and cons of various prospects, and shared notes from personal experience and from second hand accounts.

Travis was successful, charming, apparently a committed and devout Mormon elder, well liked and well respected. But...he was approaching 30 and unmarried. If you were a Mimi in that situation you'd likely be pretty cautious too, eh?

BBM

I don't see any evidence to lead me to believe JA didn't watch the videos with TA. If there were evidence that it didn't happen, and if there wer evidence that they didn't have sex that day, I'd consider those notions. I'm not arguing with you at all, but I just feel differently about those two items, and also about TA himself.

If you're not willing to commit to a serious relationship, then how can you also be desperate to find a wife? IMO he wanted to find the right girl and settle down, but he also had a wild side.

 

[natsound]

It depends on what you mean by 'weight'. The easy interpretation is that it indicates Travis was emotionally shallow and took advantage of women as a matter of course, but Deanna Reid stated that was not the case, that he cared deeply for the women he had relationships with while at the same time he had deep psychological issues with long term commitment due to his traumatic childhood. He was immersed in a culture in which sex was inextricably tied to marriage, but with a psychological block to marriage. Then Jodi came along, which allowed him to release his suppressed sexual urges and to delay dealing with his deeper psychological issues for the short term. He knew this, he knew it was temporary with Jodi, and that she was not the one to solve his problems in the long term. His behavior on the surface, particularly with Jodi, had the appearance it did simply because it was the outer form of his inner psychological difficulties with long-term commitment. To discount this and judge his behavior in superficial terms only, and use it to imply there was nothing going on deeper, is to miss the point IMO. His relationship with Arias was fraught with self conflict for him, it was his inner conflict brought out to the surface through her easy sexual availability. He knew it was unhealthy, but at the same time it was hard to resist.

In the beginning, she presented a very different face to the Hughes than she did to Travis. To them she was the innocent victim of Travis' sexual exploitation, the young innocent girl in 'love' with a man who couldn't appreciate her, who had the noble intentions in the relationship, when in reality it was she who was largely the sexual aggressor. Arias was good at playing all sides to her advantage, until she couldn't.

Interesting and thoughtful post! I definitely agree with what I bolded.

We all bring some sort of baggage from our childhood. I don't know how much we can use it as an interpretation of our adult behavior. It plays a role surely, but how much of a role, I just don't know.

 

[Sidetrak]

BBM

This all may be true, and of course we can't crawl into his head and see his thoughts. But do you give any weight to the assessment of TA in the article below?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Travis-Alexander-friend-warned-Jodi-him.html

I am of the believe that while JA was severely flawed, mentally unstable and dangerous, TA had his faults as well. He was a nice guy, life of the party and everyone liked him. On the same token, something about him made Mimi Hall not want to date him (I wish we knew more about that). He engaged in sexual acts VERY quickly with a willing JA, even though his Mormon faith forbade it.

Looking at the big picture, and looking at what we know about both of them and the events of that day, I'm lead to believe he took advantage of what was being offered to him on June 4. He wasn't about to "turn it down". I think he was scared of her though, after she slashed his tires, sneaked into his home, etc.

Astute observation! Long story short,,,the perp in the Pen, Travis is with the Trinity and men have God in our head and the devil in our pants.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM

I don't see any evidence to lead me to believe JA didn't watch the videos with TA. If there were evidence that it didn't happen, and if there wer evidence that they didn't have sex that day, I'd consider those notions. I'm not arguing with you at all, but I just feel differently about those two items, and also about TA himself.

If you're not willing to commit to a serious relationship, then how can you also be desperate to find a wife? IMO he wanted to find the right girl and settle down, but he also had a wild side.

Hi Nat-I retired from arguing about all things a long time ago, lol. Sounds like you are newish to the case & forum, so I've tried to give you a heads up that you'll find in post-trials threads here literally hundreds of posts for each and every of virtually any topic relating to Travis, the , the murder, the case, and the trial you can possibly imagine.

(Tricia interviewed JM after his book was published, and many of us contributed questions for her to ask him...he literally broke into laughter when he realized from one question just how deep down rabbit holes we had delved ).

I know I'm not the only one who returns, sporadically at least, because of how top notch, insightful, and engaging those discussions were here, in no small part because of the amount of time and research so many folks invested in bringing their opinions to the table.

I've been around WS for a fairly long time and for me, this forum's posters & discussion have been the best and most thorough, friendly & respectful I've experienced, even when our disagreements became intense.

Back now into my long-term stand-by mode, waiting and watching and posting about the 's appellate process, which just maybe perhaps possibly is about to begin in earnest.

((PS- being a good Mormon meant getting married, and the age of 30 was an absolute deadline of sorts. Being Travis was more complicated than just being the good Mormon and human being he hoped to be, and in fact, in the many ways that IMO matter most, actually was).

 

[Steve44]

Astute observation! Long story short,,,the perp in the Pen, Travis is with the Trinity and men have God in our head and the devil in our pants.

Careers are built on the study of human sexuality and the differences between men and women, so while your statement may capture a facet of the truth it's insufficient to rest upon as a general principle. While men may be more inclined to use, or abuse, women for sex, and this is clear in the recent examples of men with social power and influence, women are also capable of employing sex to manipulate men. Neither behavior is universal, however, and it's not really useful to use so broad a brush that no allowance is made for individual principles and morality. While there are fundamental differences between the genders approach and attitudes about sex, which is probably an outgrowth of the differing physical consequences of the act to each, that is no excuse for immoral behavior from either side, and while these differing outcomes may incline one side to act more recklessly than the other, final arbitration must be given to individual choice and morality. In the case of Travis and Arias, there wasn't really any power differential and I don't see any point in using Travis' religious beliefs to judge him morally, since he was free to believe or disbelieve anything he wanted.

 

[Sidetrak]

Careers are built on the study of human sexuality and the differences between men and women, so while your statement may capture a facet of the truth it's insufficient to rest upon as a general principle. While men may be more inclined to use, or abuse, women for sex, and this is clear in the recent examples of men with social power and influence, women are also capable of employing sex to manipulate men. Neither behavior is universal, however, and it's not really useful to use so broad a brush that no allowance is made for individual principles and morality. While there are fundamental differences between the genders approach and attitudes about sex, which is probably an outgrowth of the differing physical consequences of the act to each, that is no excuse for immoral behavior from either side, and while these differing outcomes may incline one side to act more recklessly than the other, final arbitration must be given to individual choice and morality. In the case of Travis and Arias, there wasn't really any power differential and I don't see any point in using Travis' religious beliefs to judge him morally, since he was free to believe or disbelieve anything he wanted.

I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way. My Post was meant as a sincere compliment with no refutation of your assertions. My axiom of “head and pants” denotes no “universal” behavior of manipulation, morality, or religion, only a syllogism derived from “machination and choice” relative to the two parties. Lincoln’s predecessor at the Gettysburg dedication spoke for two hours. Lincoln’s address contained about 270 words, in the interest of brevity; your previous post hit “the nail on the head”. Peace

 

[Steve44]

I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way. My Post was meant as a sincere compliment with no refutation of your assertions. My axiom of “head and pants” denotes no “universal” behavior of manipulation, morality, or religion, only a syllogism derived from “machination and choice” relative to the two parties. Lincoln’s predecessor at the Gettysburg dedication spoke for two hours. Lincoln’s address contained about 270 words, in the interest of brevity; your previous post hit “the nail on the head”. Peace

I apologize as well because I didn't mean my post as a refutation of yours. As I said, there's a facet of truth to it, but more an expansion of the idea(s) behind it.