k, i want to try this again. i had been on earlier, and i wanted to comment on the convo...
i know someone posted earlier about his "pediphilia turn-ons," and felt it was an unfair assessment.
as i'm sure someone has already said, he never said anything to her about boys spiderman underpants...she CLAIMS he sent her a pair as a gift. she is supreme manipulator. she also posed with a another "gift." a t-shirt with the words "Travis Alexander's," which of course she loved b/c he was claiming her, announcing that she was his. funny thing though. if you look at his blog, he had those very t-shirts made up, and on the back was the name of his blog. in other words, the t-shirt states, "travis alexander's....blog"
this is what she does. this is how she twists things into her own reality.
i wanted to comment on this ...
i get it...i'm a mom with a 12 year old son and a 15 year old daughter...i get it..
but what i'm unsure of is why would you believe that a friend or acquaintance would make a comment about a 12 year old girl having an orgasm, and mean it in a sexual way? there would be no reason for someone to make any sort of comment like that, and if they did, you would be right to side-eye the hell out of them and want to exit stage left ASAP.
however, if you and your spouse were to record a sexual encounter, one or both of you would likely exclaim something that your friends just might find distasteful. but that's the thing about private sexual moments being made public.
moreover, if you recall, in an earlier text, JA was the one to insert the "school girl fantasy talk," and as chris hughs said in one of his interviews, "KY wasn't the only thing she introduced travis to."
the phone sex, which was clearly taped w/o travis's knowledge, was presented in court completely out of context. if you listen to the whole thing, the first 20 minutes or so are mundane chatter, and then she starts turning the convo into sex talk. and isn't it funny how anytime he says anything "incriminating," jodi asks him to repeat himself. interesting don't you think?
all i'm trying to say, is that all the deviancy that was discussed during this trial has been for the most part unsubstantiated. believe me, some of what was revealed, that we know actually happened b/c it took place in the form of texts, made me cringe. but again, those were private moments, twisted to fit the DTs agenda. what was even more outrageous was the DTs ability to hire experts that took the stand and repeated JAs allegations as if they were proven facts. and they weren't.
all i'm trying to say is i think that given the circumstances, i think its safe to cut travis some slack. he wasn't perfect, and some of his private moments can be viewed negatively...but god knows i think thats pretty much true of everyone.
MOO
(and i swear to god if this doesn't go through!!!!)
fftobed: We need a freakin' depressed smilie.
