trial day 51: REBUTTAL; #157

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.
I am heartbroken for this poor woman. OMG, she already atoned to the church. Why does she need to do it in front of the world?

He keeps on and on and on. This is outrageous!

JMHO
fran
 
I think JA is literally pissed hearing about this woman with HER Travis...
 
Oh FFS Nurmi how many times did they have sex???? Really? I hate him. Actually right now I hate everyone on the defense team, whoever thought of being on the defense team, anyone who might possibly consider joining the defense team. This is so #*&^*^ disgusting.
 
Oh come on Nurmi. Enough with sex. Has nothing to do with why your client killed Travis

Nurmi is as sick as his client..prolly getting off on it. Sickening to see him try to drag her through the mud. No low too low for this DT! UGGH!
 
This is really pizzing me off!!!

:furious: :furious:

Why is this even being allowed on cross? I don't remember JM asking about their sexual relationship.
 
I guess Mormanism is on trial today.

Nope, not Mormonism, still Travis on trial, and anyone associated with him who refutes JA fairy tale.

very sad. This is so beyond the scope. Disgusting tactics by disgusting people.

MOO
 
He is going to try and make it look like Travis had more to lose because JA wanted him to go to the Bishop and he didn't want to have to go for a second time.
 
Ok I don't care if I get a time out. Nurmi is a dirtbag *advertiser censored**hole!

I am so proud of Deanna for admitting this for her dear friend Travis. I know this must be hard for her.

Her personal business should not be asked by KN. This is live coverage and the talk shows will be talking about it non-stop. Deanna appears to
be a very nice woman. KN LEAVE DEANNA ALONE. Deanna should not be put through the ringer because JA killed Travis. Deanna has not done anything wrong. I am spitting nails.
 
I have so much respect for the way Deana is handling this. Bless her heart.
And to Nurmi~~~
makeitstop.jpg
 
Deanna and Travis had sex after both moving to AZ in 2005. They each went to their Bishops and lost their Temple privilege. The sexual relationship lasted about a year.
 
What is he going to call her a liar now? It's privileged remember?
 
I love this witness. Honorable, respectful and HONEST all the things the throat slashing, gun shooting defendant is NOT.
 
Mike may have cut out . . . .she wanted to get married when she was about 24 y/o in 2002.

this wasn't a shock to TA -they discussed marriage before - never engaged.
they talked about it.

did he ever tell you he wanted to marry you?
he didn't say it in that way - said she would be a good person to marry but he wasn't ready.

we were in love w/each other, liked each other, time together went by quickly - didn't feel pressure to get married ... eventually she felt like wanting to be married.

it was not overnight . . .. realized how much time had gone by that they dated - didn't see it going that direction - he was not ready @ that point.

that was enough fo you to say I am not hanging out anymore for you to get ready - right?
that is right

broke up with him 2004 - he moved to Mesa you moved to Phoenix
it was in 2005 broke up

move in 2004 still together . . . both moved to az in 2004 - boyfriend and girlfriend when both moved.

when you broke up with TA in2005 did you maintain relationship?
yes we did

period time you separated ?
yes a couple weeks we didn't speak and had time away from each other.

did you and TA have a sexual relationship?
yes we did - dating a long time - we were in love . . .something happens when people are in love - after we had moved to AZ.

this isn't question to judge . .. not what we are talking about . .. lifelong member of the church - sex is inconsistent with dictates of the church
yes
was the fact you having this relationship - kept between 2 of you
that was our private business - we didn't tell people about it

in terms of ramifications within church - did you or TA face ramificatons because of it
no people are just human - people make mistakes - go to Bishop which we did and talked about our relationship - in 2005.

this was in different wards .. . she lived in downtown mesa. . . .had different Bishops - each went individually.

she lost her temple recommend - so did TA

sexual relationship - people make mistakes . . . one time mistake or several times?
objection vaginal intercourse . . .what are we talking about?
sustained

you are familiar with law of chastity - not a vow . .. just rules we live by . . .sometimes we are human we mess up - sometimes people break rules that is what happened.

this law of chastity forbids oral sex, prohibit anal, penile/vaginal intercourse - any type of sexual contact.

one time or happened several times

objection- overruled

you and TA broke the law of chastity broke the law
more than one time - several times

sexual relationship lasted about a year.

talk to the bishop - went separately.
did so with TA's knowledge.
he did so with Deanna's knowledge

you and he had some sort of discussion about goin to see respective bishops in 2005

after broken up?
while still together

after went to bishop - had discussion did you and TA break law of chastity again subsequent to that?
no
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
1,418
Total visitors
1,577

Forum statistics

Threads
606,293
Messages
18,201,745
Members
233,801
Latest member
SoTX local
Back
Top