SIDEBAR #37 - Arias/Alexander forum

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.
Just bringing some items over from previous thread:

B5LGFHuCYAA9DZh.jpg


http://https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5LGFHuCYAA9DZh.jpg

Dec. 9th 2007 was when CMJA reported in her journal about TA watching for the "slasher" which is also around the 2 incidences. June '08 was when Lisa was contacted during the investigation of the murder about it. There is also a LE report for the December slashings.

I brought up the "stun gun" scenario because there was questions about how "little ol' CMJA' could have had the "drop" on "big ol' TA" in the shower during the first trial. One of those mysteries that may never be fully known. Doesn't have anything to with this trial, just one of those "what if" things that could explain some of "foggy" areas of the murder.

She denies slashing his tires but admits to stabbing Travis 29 times and cutting his throat. She says "tomatoe", I say "tomato". She's very adept with a knife.

BTW: Stun guns and Tasers were only available online and at Gun Stores in the mid 2000's. So where did CMJA get her stun gun? Doesn't effect this trial, but it may show that she had a bit more experience with "weapons" than she admitted too.

As far as showing TA in a negative light through her journals:

TA and JA were official for apprx. 5 months. (Feb-June 2007) TA was in mesa, CMJA was in Yrecka. CMJA moves to Mesa about a week after their "breakup".
Jan 2008: CMJA reports she's spent over a year cultivating their relationship.(whaaaaattt?) Travis is "cheating" on her. CMJA loves TA more now than when they were dating. She continually goes back and forth about wanting to marry TA and NOT wanting to.

CMJA is hanging around in Mesa as a "friend with benefits" or a "*advertiser censored** buddy"<-----seriously, that kind of arrangement has been going on for eons. Travis CAN'T be "cheating" on her because they are no longer "dating" as of June 2007. He is NOT having sex with anyone BUT CMJA. Not one ex-GF AFTER CMJA said they were in a sexual relationship with TA. If you had a "F w/B" relationship, you'd want, if not NEED to know if your "friend" was having sex with other people because of STD's. Maybe CMJA was insinuating to TA that that's what she WAS doing to make him angry?

Most women believe sex = love.
Many men believe sex = sex.

The defense has NEVER shown where CMJA got all this money she was "loaning" to TA. Wish someone would have pulled her W-2's for 2006/2007/2008. I don't think she had any real means of money other than scamming and "borrowing" money off others or the "kindness of strangers". If CMJA and TA HAD a joint account, I would imagine it was TA trying to help CMJA get financially on track.

PTSD? Ok, doc, what are her "triggers' and "anniversaries"? Anyone with PTSD has them: smells, dates, seasons, visuals, audio, specific people and environment........come on, Dr. Geff, you gave the diagnosis, follow through with it........................oh right, you can't because CMJA doesn't have it. :facepalm:

CMJA's journal sounds like the "Diary of a Mad Woman", ie. someone who *believes* there's a lot more to this relationship than there really is.

But does any of this have anything to do with "Mitigating Factors"? Uh, no. :thinking:

CMJA murders Travis 1 year after they have broken up. What kind of individual does that? I think the jury will see CMJA is incredibly jealous and manipulative (Go De Marte with the BPD!!!!), whether they give her Death, LWOP or hung......I don't think any of them will believe she ever belongs in society.:jail:

Juan will get this mitigation back on track, when ever that happens, oh say, in April 2015? If all he did was play the "48 Hour Mystery" episode and her post sentencing interview with Troy Hayden, the jury would feel insulted that CMJA and the DT tried to feed them a line of BS.

JMO.:truce:

BBM The defense is "showing"/trying to "show" that TA was manipulating poor, delicate , cuddly
dis-like-smiley.gif
missy:jail: - you know- the little virgin
baby2-smiley.gif


and therefore, abusing her (one of her new mitigation factors). Pfttt

1907448_714919428584202_4734013161500714067_n.png
 
[video=youtube;g7sYCoIqeqI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7sYCoIqeqI[/video]
 
Bernina- while I was going about doing the mundane things I do, I was thinking about the stun gun.
Everyone is in a tissy and making a big brouhaha about this stun gun. :blah::blah::blah:

You know what- I don't even believe she had stun gun, no matter what she said in her Book of Jodi journal.
Everything and anything that she says and writes is only as it appears in her delusional, warped mind and it's just fantasy, IMO.
bubble-smiley.gif
:hand:

I don't believe anything that missy:jail: says or writes anymore (it's a work of fiction, IMO). When someone lies like the "boy who cried
wolf", as she does, I don't even believe her name is Jodie Ann Arias (well- maybe I'll give her that).

The only things that I do believe are what comes out of JM's mouth now and if he didn't say it, show it, write it, etc., it's all fiction to me.

Is there any evidence that there was a stun gun? Sure you can say that they didn't find the gun and knife, but there's evidence, by poor Travis' autopsy, that there
was a gun and a knife.

All baloney, IMO.

ETA: Maybe she might have possibly had a stun gun as she did work as a waitress and might have needed it when
she left work late, but if I don't see it, I don't believe it- I need solid proof now after all the lies, not conjecture.

B5GRp6xCMAEXhtk.jpg

Link: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5GRp6xCMAEXhtk.jpg
 
dead-place-smiley.gif


Just something to think about :thinking: , if you're interested:

At this holiday time of year, many people become depressed because of many different reasons. One reason is that they do not have a significant other to share their life and love. I think of them and feel very sad. :(

Here's an interesting article that I thought some might like to read. It's a controversial theory that love is a "micro-moment of positivity resonance" - love can be shared with any number of people and possibly just for "micro-moments". Would this be enough for some people?

The other side of this idea is the "love myth" which is that " true love is passionate love that never fades"- an "unrealistic expectation"?

I don't see why a person can't have both theories at the same time or at different times in your life. After all, there are different kinds of love that you can feel- love for your child, partner, friends, pets, etc. or for any number of people that you encounter in your life.

I do like how Ms. Fredrickson, the author of this "radical" theory, states this tho'-
"My conception of love," she tells me, "gives hope to people who are single or divorced or widowed ... to find smaller ways to experience love."

Hope is always necessary in our lives, IMO, and I can see how lonely people might benefit from her ideas, but how do you go about accepting this theory in the world that we live in today- that you must find that special one to love, forever, or you are doomed to live your life in lonliness? That you need someone there to be happy and to validate that you are loved. What kind of love is sufficient to be happy?

The "smaller ways" sounds wonderful to me as that's the "love" I have for many different people and how I stay happy in my life. I may not have that passionate love anymore, but what I have/feel is enough for me. I think it's up to the person to know what kind of love they need in their life to be happy, IMO.

What do you think? :thinking:

Psychologist: Love Is Not What We Think It Is

http://www.businessinsider.com/psychologist-love-is-not-what-we-think-it-is-2014-12

Here's another article on love that gives different theories:

What is love? Five theories on the greatest emotion of all

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/what-is-love-five-theories
 
[video=youtube;oke4ZUhPDtw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oke4ZUhPDtw[/video]
 
Thanks YandN! Love the chocolate. Hopefully will take care of my cravings for a few more minutes


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
dead-place-smiley.gif


Just something to think about :thinking: , if you're interested:

At this holiday time of year, many people become depressed because of many different reasons. One reason is that they do not have a significant other to share their life and love. I think of them and feel very sad. :(

Here's an interesting article that I thought some might like to read. It's a controversial theory that love is a "micro-moment of positivity resonance" - love can be shared with any number of people and possibly just for "micro-moments". Would this be enough for some people?

The other side of this idea is the "love myth" which is that " true love is passionate love that never fades"- an "unrealistic expectation"?

I don't see why a person can't have both theories at the same time or at different times in your life. After all, there are different kinds of love that you can feel- love for your child, partner, friends, pets, etc. or for any number of people that you encounter in your life.

I do like how Ms. Fredrickson, the author of this "radical" theory, states this tho'-
"My conception of love," she tells me, "gives hope to people who are single or divorced or widowed ... to find smaller ways to experience love."

Hope is always necessary in our lives, IMO, and I can see how lonely people might benefit from her ideas, but how do you go about accepting this theory in the world that we live in today- that you must find that special one to love, forever, or you are doomed to live your life in lonliness? That you need someone there to be happy and to validate that you are loved. What kind of love is sufficient to be happy?

The "smaller ways" sounds wonderful to me as that's the "love" I have for many different people and how I stay happy in my life. I may not have that passionate love anymore, but what I have/feel is enough for me. I think it's up to the person to know what kind of love they need in their life to be happy, IMO.

What do you think? :thinking:

Psychologist: Love Is Not What We Think It Is

http://www.businessinsider.com/psychologist-love-is-not-what-we-think-it-is-2014-12

Here's another article on love that gives different theories:

What is love? Five theories on the greatest emotion of all

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/what-is-love-five-theories

What a beautiful post, YorN. I just love you. :hug:
 
I've been busy with my progeny but did manage to read all of the tweets plus Beth K.'s tweets (which form a sort of blog). Nobody who did not keep track yesterday missed anything. Willmott cherry picked journal entries, texts, and chats to fit the defense's narrative. They seem to have created a unique story to present to the jury. Honestly, the "joint bank account" and supposed marriage proposal from Travis seem very unlikely.

The DT is severely underestimating the intelligence of the jury.
 
:bdsurprise:


HAPPY BIRTHDAY, KENSIE!!

Hope you have a great quiet day as you wished. :loveyou:
 
It's your birthday Kensie?!
Well then, Wishing you a Happy Birthday !
:bdsong:
 
images

Link: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...jzg4gg9c7pWG2dNdExWGz1Fjqdk_etIfIeNxXN9Z5JGCg
-------------------------------

images

Link: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...zbTu4XJSykaY8IlwOtGDItkKcMNi3NOHH9HMLmvRp3sLw
---------------------------

12/18/14 (Retrial) Day 18- Jodi's Harlequin Book (note: bloody shower stall )

http://morbitbuzz.blogspot.com/2014/12/121814-retrial-day-18-jodis-harlequin.html
------------------------------

This is an old article, but still relevant to the retrial, IMO:

The Jodi Arias Trial, A Case Study in Experts, Witness …or Witless?

"While you know your expert is tops in their field, a jury only sees them briefly, when your expert witness may come across “witless.” ..."

http://www.a2lc.com/blog/bid/64719/The-Jodi-Arias-Trial-A-Case-Study-in-Experts-Witness-or-Witless
---------------------------

I found this article in my inbox and thought some might like to read it. (The Bad Seed is listed)

Very scary that some children can be evil (even in literature):

Bad to the Bone: The Worst Children in Literature

"Children can be innocent, inquisitive and the embodiment of hope. But those characteristics make for boring stories. Sometimes authors enjoy creating a fictional child that is just plain nasty....
While these books are fiction, and human evil-doing is prevalent in literature, there is something especially unnatural and disturbing when the perpetrator is a child, as if it represents the perversion of innocence itself. Be warned, some of these books have the potential to be distressing, particularly for parents...."

http://www.abebooks.com/books/lord-...Prpt01-h00-childrAM-123324GN-_-01cta&abersp=1
-------------------------------

images

Link: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...ruHoT8Vef5kN_XicwswbFsALZxpE1vF11CWN84haz2wbw

Only 2000 more journals to go :gaah:

booksingiantpile.jpeg

Link: http://www.gretchenrubin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/booksingiantpile.jpeg
 
[video=youtube;IirR7z_024Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IirR7z_024Q[/video]
 
Happy Birthday, Kensie! Do something nice for yourself!! :cake4u::balloons:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
1,441
Total visitors
1,533

Forum statistics

Threads
606,719
Messages
18,209,387
Members
233,943
Latest member
FindIreneFlemingWAState
Back
Top