Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5

[Hope4More]

He had less contact but IIRC on May 30 he tried to call her but she was at work. She texts back: just saw I missed your call. I'm at work. call me/you tonight?

They also text about pictures and random stuff...about 16-18 times after May 26. They very well could have spoken on the phone several times a day or none at all

Then

June 2nd
several calls between Arias and Alexander in the early morning hours:

Arias called Alexander four times between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.

These calls were all very short, the longest 17 seconds.

Alexander called Arias twice during the 3 a.m. hour:

The first call was just under 18 minutes, the second about 41 minutes.

Arias called Travis at 4:03 a.m. The call lasted 2 minutes, 48 seconds.

At 5:39 a.m. Arias bought $15 worth of gas outside of Yreka

By 8:04 she's renting the car in Redding

June 3

Monterey

Breakfast with Darryl
Then at WAMU depositing money at 10:15am

Arias called Alexander twice:

A 17-second call at 12:57 p.m.

A 2 minute 50 second call at 1:51pm


Pasadena, California

At 8:16 p.m., Arias calls Alexander. The call lasted 2 minutes, 9 seconds.

At 8:31 p.m., Arias goes to a CVS pharmacy.

At 8:34 p.m., Arias calls Alexander again and the call lasts 49 seconds

Between 8:42 and 8:46 p.m., Arias makes gas purchases at Arco.
She's gassed up and on her way to Mesa with a knife and a gun

Perfect example.

You assume he tried to call her on May 30. Based on what? The fact she texted him she'd missed his call? You've seen the texts,
you know she manufactured online stuff up the wazoo, know that she was intent on documenting the lie of TA still planning on visiting her, and yes, he texted her all of 20 words after May 26, early AM, which was significantly different for him. As were the terse one liners he responded to her with.

So why assume he actually called her?

Another example of context. 20 words distributed over those 15 or whatever texts. That already changes what might be inferred from the number of texts alone. Then add-- she initiated all the texts. Then add- the texts were almost all "clustered" into 2 exchanges on 2 days, neither exchange lasting longer than 10-20 minutes, max, iirc, and one of the 2 began with her sending one of her frigging "accidental" texts. I think his contribution to the latter game of hers was "no," "no, don't see it," and "no" or some such.

This is the perfect example and laying out of what I mean by context. Do I think my interpretation is the only accurate way to view this text record and what it means? Nope. But IMO the only grounded interpretations are those that take into account how sparse that text record was after May 22, really, but let's say after May 26, especially in comparison to other times, and especially times after the 2 had fought.

 

[TexMex]

Perfect example.

You assume he tried to call her on May 30. Based on what? The fact she texted him she'd missed his call?

So why assume he actually called her?.

Because of the overall, big picture, forest not trees, nature of the relationship.

Because was she going to say she thought someone else took his phone and dialed her number while she was at work?

Because this argument, like dozens before it, saw a cooling off period, followed by re establishing communication

Because he talked to her on the phone, including two long middle of the night calls initiated by him on June 2. After speaking with him for an hour she's confident enough to drive to Redding, plop down her dwindling money at Budget and head towards his house.

Because once she's in Mesa she winds up face down on his bed, the same position she's used to manipulate him for 20 months

Because his family, his friends and most importantly Travis himself say he was addicted. To Jodi.

 

[Deleted member 122533]

OMG, OMG, OMG, I do this, too!!! :loveyou:

I too have listened to the Arias trials and other material when working, ironing - even in the bath. :bath: The court proceedings fascinated me. I wonder how many other people have watched far more of Juan's sections than KN/JW? I have PTSD recalling the time it took for KN to formulate and state a question. I'm sure he doubled his salary just by talking slowly.

 

[TexMex]

I too have listened to the Arias trials and other material when working, ironing - even in the bath. :bath: The court proceedings fascinated me. I wonder how many other people have watched far more of Juan's sections than KN/JW? I have PTSD recalling the time it took for KN to formulate and state a question. I'm sure he doubled his salary just by talking slowly.

You iron? Dang...if I want something ironed I get a 'do it yourself'.
I enjoy trials. The strategy, timelines, the personalities, the piecing together of different kinds of evidence. Keeps my mind working. After watching my dad struggle with dementia I believe in always keeping your brain alert and active

 

[geevee]

I don't remember what show, Nancy Grace,48 Hours etc. that Stephen and Samantha in a interview said that Travis was addicted to Jodi sexually.


The pants color in the photo were because of process of retrieving the deleted photos. I can't recall if she said her pants didn't have zippers in her interrogation with Det. Flores.


Was it in Juan's book that said the bishop that Travis had already or would be talking to was Mimi Halls father?

One that has always had me puzzled were the sex photos being so crappy. Jodi said that she and Travis had a photo shoot where she wore his dress shirts, and something about it so she could see the monogram of his name in the cuffs? as she gave him a bj.

There are also a few photos of Jodi wearing a mans dress shirt (a light blue and dark blue), while laying on a brown leather and one the floor, facing the camera. In the light blue shirt photo, to the right you see a door cracked open, and a man with dark hair looking down. Jodi is again facing the camera. Who was the man behind the door? You know it wouldn't of been Travis.
I've have wondered if the man was Matt M., and they were making them to blackmail Travis. Her hair is still blonde, but has two inches of roots showing. So it was after she met Travis and before she left Mesa in April. Why such a difference in quality?

Can you post this picture, pretty please?

 

[Deleted member 122533]

I think some of us, while respecting your work on this, take issue that you are the only one who understands the CONTEXT and none of our thinking bears consideration. We have read the texts, journals, chats and books. We also listened to that repulsive sex tape more times than is healthy and watched and rewatched the testimony of the trial, the closing arguments the penalty phase and the penalty retrial

(...)

No matter what order the chat is read...backwards, forwards, in Spanish or Russian, with or without time stamps, in a box or with a fox...the fact is however she got into his house, he let her remain, took pictures of her on his bed and then tragically fell for her final manipulation of a Calvin Kleinesque photo shoot in the shower. So whatever the May 26 fight was about was a moot point on June 4. He either forgave her again for whatever the issue on May 26 was or fell for whatever manipulation tactic she dreamed up to pacify him.

Well said, Tex Mex. I absolutely agree with your points on context and the conclusions drawn from the May 26 chat. There is a vast well of collective knowledge on this forum. Using that, the evidence and a range of opinions has helped me form an overall view. Someone earlier mentioned the importance of totality. To disconnect the sexual aspects or suggest Travis was forced into sex with Arias on June 4 ignores their entire sexual background and his own words on addiction to Arias.

 

[Deleted member 122533]

You iron? Dang...if I want something ironed I get a 'do it yourself'.
I enjoy trials. The strategy, timelines, the personalities, the piecing together of different kinds of evidence. Keeps my mind working. After watching my dad struggle with dementia I believe in always keeping your brain alert and active

Practice makes perfect.

Interesting as I've seen other members make similar comments on keeping the mind working. Sorry about your dad. The puzzles can be intriguing, including how Sleuthers try to put them together. It's certainly a great test of memory.

 

[RickshawFan]

Just chiming in here, because I know you guys love hearing from the new gal (snort!). For me, at least, it's the totality of the circumstances that suggest Travis's addiction is sexual in nature. If we look at the gchat itself, TA admits openly how much he hates her, how selfish and horrible she is, and yet (as with MOST of their conversations) it gradually takes on a sexual tone. IF the addiction TA is referring to is NOT sexual, then what is it? We know he's not addicted to her sterling character.

Though, in all fairness, he could have been addicted to their toxic, chaotic cycle (not JUST the sex, but that in which sex played a major role). Again, all conjecture. But certainly not a random guess, either. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support his addiction was sexual in nature. I'll spare everyone from posting the quotes and links, etc. because they would be numerous.

And I would also like to say how much I appreciate everyone's differing views and opinions. Where else can we have an intelligent discussion on this topic? IRL, people just blink at me when I try to talk about this stuff. lol And none of this may matter in long run, but it's certainly great mental exercise. :c)

Kate

There has never been a sign to me that any addiction of any kind is going on. People bandy around the word "addiction" on a moment to moment basis as if it is meaningful. For instance, I'm really addicted to butter pecan ice cream. Has nothing to do with addiction, folks.

Being "addicted to someone" is an expression. Having a "sex addiction" is a newly-manufactured concept.

We didn't have "sex addiction" until a celebrity had to have something to be addicted to so he could "go into rehab" so he could be out of the public eye so he could seem to be contrite.

Now, every inconvenient jolly is being addictified. And "addiction" is thrown around all over the place.

For instance. Many people use the f-word a lot. Doesn't mean they're "addicted" to the f-word, or "addicted" to f--. But, next thing we know, we're going to have a celebrity in family dramas inconveniently caught in a rage binge disappearing for a while on the grounds that s/he is "addicted to the f-word".

TA often used words in not the technical definition. He was trying to "find his voice" for gosh sake! He had a new blog, a new book, a new camera, new points of view....These are all about "finding a voice", figuring out what his perspective on the world is and how to capture it.

TA could have said he kept getting snared in JA's dramas, but he doesn't use words like that. He's trying to figure out how it all works.

The word "addiction" is a total red-herring.

 

[Hope4More]

Because of the overall, big picture, forest not trees, nature of the relationship.

Because was she going to say she thought someone else took his phone and dialed her number while she was at work?

Because this argument, like dozens before it, saw a cooling off period, followed by re establishing communication

Because he talked to her on the phone, including two long middle of the night calls initiated by him on June 2. After speaking with him for an hour she's confident enough to drive to Redding, plop down her dwindling money at Budget and head towards his house.

Because once she's in Mesa she winds up face down on his bed, the same position she's used to manipulate him for 20 months

Because his family, his friends and most importantly Travis himself say he was addicted. To Jodi.

Reposting......



ALL KNOWN COMMUNICTION BETWEEN TRAVIS AND JA AFTER THE MAY 26 GCHAT

(all texts are paraphrased, and are from Beth Karas's On Crime subscription website).

May 26. No texts (after Gchat, which ended at 4:47 or 4:49AM).

The Hughes say she sent him an email after the chat, reasserting she did not slash his tires and that she was going to a lawyer on Monday. The email exists, then, but wasn’t entered into evidence.

May 27. No texts.
May 28. No texts.
May 29. No texts.

May 30. (5 texts, 4 from her, he replies to just one. Notice she asks him to call, not to text or email).

10:52AM. Hey, have about an hour today if you need any help.

12:23PM I was way off. Call me when yr done working.

12:24PM TA: Way off on what. (only reply).

1:46PM Had been looking at wrong calendar. Call me later.

3:30PM Missed your call. At work. Call me/you tonight?


May 31. (8 texts, one set of exchanges, between 10:11PM – 10:28PM, beginning with one of her un- accidental texts).


10:11. JA. Lame. Did u get it?

10:12. Get what. (one of 3 replies to her texts)

10:15. Whoops. Meant that to go to Angela, a pic. Didn’t hear from you today but I know how the day can go.

10:17. Yes that one is for you (has sent a pic).

10:21. No pic. (2 of 3 replies).

10:22. The one from earlier.

10:22 TA: yeah. Got that (last of 3 replies).

10:28PM. JA: Taken right after I sang national anthem.

June 1—early AM June 2. ( Eight texts, all related to her insistence TA call her. Not text, not email, only a call will do).

10:49PM. JA Call me. Something to tell you.

10:51PM JA Things, plural.

10:52PM. TA: what is it. (1st reply).

2:06AM, 2:12AM, 2:219AM… JA. Call Call. Call. Hurry up, getting sleepy. Stupid poem about TA, call.

2:26AM. TA--- Doing something, will call when I can. (2nd and last reply; he waited approx.. 30 minutes to call her).

2:27AM. JA: ok Tdogg. Like my poem?


JA also called him 4 times between 1 AM and 3AM: the longest call was 17 seconds.

TA called her twice, with a very brief break in between the two calls, total call length was just under an hour, from approx 3-4AM.

JA called one last time, at 4:03AM. The call lasted 2 minutes, 48 seconds; she may or may not have spoken to him. She’s packed and ready, leaves after the call.

June 2. No texts. (After 2:27AM).

June 3. No texts.

Calls by JA to TA on June 3:

12:57PM. 17 seconds

1:51PM. 2 minutes, 50 seconds

8:16PM. 2 minutes, 9 seconds.

8:34PM. 49 seconds


June 4. No texts.



ETA: He texted her a grand total of 20 words between 4:47AM May 26 and June 4.

 

[kmp3]

I too have listened to the Arias trials and other material when working, ironing - even in the bath. :bath: The court proceedings fascinated me. I wonder how many other people have watched far more of Juan's sections than KN/JW? I have PTSD recalling the time it took for KN to formulate and state a question. I'm sure he doubled his salary just by talking slowly.

I love Juan, but his constant "YES OR NO, MA'AM? ARE YOU HAVING MEMORY PROBLEMS?" during the trial was grating after the umpteenth time, so there are sections of his cross that I skip. And there's something about JW's voice, and girly mannerisms, that make me want to scream and claw at her face--so I hardly ever watch her questioning. :gaah:

 

[RickshawFan]

I truly believe whatever pattern they were in was broken after May 26.
I'm beginning to think she raped him on June 4th.
No, I don't think she said -if you don't have sex with me, I'll kill you -not like that though.

I think if they had sex on June 4th it was coercive as well. And if he had to—or did—go along with it under pressure, he would have been especially vulnerable in the shower, because he would have been filled with guilt and afraid. This is a lot more complicated than "I don't want JA to take photos, but I'll just get it over with and she'll go away."

 

[kmp3]

There has never been a sign to me that any addiction of any kind is going on. People bandy around the word "addiction" on a moment to moment basis as if it is meaningful. For instance, I'm really addicted to butter pecan ice cream. Has nothing to do with addiction, folks.

It's true that people can use the word flippantly. But in this case, TA suspected JA of hacking into his account, slashing his tires, emailing Lisa as someone else, stealing his ring, stealing his journals, stalking him...and yet, there are pics of them together on June 4. What is that, if not addiction? I'm still trying to understand how that doesn't fit the definition of the word. Couple that with the fact that TA admitted he was addicted in his own words. It's certainly wasn't a flippant, or casual conversation.

 

[RickshawFan]

I want to register my unhappiness that TA's outlook in the shower has to be rational or be patently obvious from the photos. And that his demeanor keeps getting spoken about this way on this forum.

He's a trauma "survivor", for gosh sake. Do you know any trauma survivors, especially ones that were traumatized as kids? They a) don't react like folks who haven't experienced trauma, especially a relevant one like being physically at a disadvantage (i.e. nude in a shower), b) frequently dissociate, c) freeze, d) get coerced e) look "fine" f) make jokes......

Trauma victims do a lot of "auto pilot" when they experience a hazard; the whole idea is to throw off an onlooker (or perpetrator) from reality.

Affect in a trauma survivor can't be evaluated as though it speaks the truth.

 

[Hope4More]

Because of the overall, big picture, forest not trees, nature of the relationship.


Because this argument, like dozens before it, saw a cooling off period, followed by re establishing communication

Because he talked to her on the phone, including two long middle of the night calls initiated by him on June 2. After speaking with him for an hour she's confident enough to drive to Redding, plop down her dwindling money at Budget and head towards his house.

Because once she's in Mesa she winds up face down on his bed, the same position she's used to manipulate him for 20 months

Because his family, his friends and most importantly Travis himself say he was addicted. To Jodi.

You're not gonna believe what I've reconsidered, thanks to you, Mister. But that's in the next post.

For this post....I really think the difference in how we see things is what occurred to me last night. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to take sex on June 4 as your starting point and base interpretations on that fact. He had sex with her on June 4 therefore he was addicted to her, he had sex with her on June 4 therefore whatever happened on May 26 or May 22 or May 21 or May 13-14 or any other date for that matter, is ultimately irrelevant, because no matter what was said or done, he still had sex with her on June 4.

Is that an accurate and fair summation?

The difference may be that I don't take sex on June 4 as a starting point, even if the sex was exactly what the pics showed and happened on June 4, and regardless of whether or not the timestamps are correct.

It matters to me to feel very confident that he did not know she was coming, and that her story of walking on in and watching videos with him can't be true, and the fact his journal was found on the floor of his car, suggesting she hid there until she thought his roommates left for the day, etc. Why? Because all of that suggests she knew he would NOT welcome her into his house.

My starting point is in the beginning. What their pattern of communication was, the lies and coercion and manipulation from their day one-and the fact he wasn't so addicted as to ask her to come live in Mesa, just to get the sex--that he in fact freaked. That he hated himself for whatever sexual contact they had in fall-winter 2007. That he tried to get her to leave in January 2008--if he was so addicted, wouldn't he want her to stay? How much he "tolerated" her endless BS from the moment she arrived in Mesa, but began losing patience as early as January. That he was glad she left. That there is little indication he was especially interested in her sexually after she did leave, or interested very much in her even as a friend. That he began expressing his anger towards her more freely after she left, and that his anger increased with each psycho incident of hers he had to deal with.

That there was, you're right, an absolute pattern of psycho act, anger, then apology by him (the "cycle")--the apology almost always immediately following the blowup, or by the next day. That he stopped apologizing after May 9th,if the May 9th apology is even to be believed. That he cut her off altogether on May 22, early AM, and NEVER after that initiated contact with her (not the same thing as replying after being harassed, etc). That he told Regan he was afraid of her, and thought that she might kill herself or him. That he tore her a new one for over 2 hours on May 26 and didn't let her manipulate him. That he didn't apologize. That he didn't contact her. That he told Taylor he was DONE. That his not contacting her supports the truth of that.

Done doesn't mean not replying to her alibi-establishing texts, IMO, worded with the intent to disguise the real break, and written with the goal of having Travis think she had something to tell him that related to whatever she had whacked him with on May 26. Done is still done. IMO there is little doubt that he in fact would have stayed done with her had she not murdered him. If what mattered more to him than marriage or whatever because he was so addicted to sex, then he had Brooke demonstrating just the kind of interest in him to fill that need, and she was funny and compatible and non-psycho to boot.

Same trees, a different forest? Same forest, different trees? In any case, if your perspective is that sex on June 4 is the bottomline, no matter any possible circumstances of that day, and that sex on that day cancels out everything he did or said up to that day that suggests sex and whatever else was coerced, then....what exactly is it that's of interest to you to discuss?

 

[Hope4More]

There has never been a sign to me that any addiction of any kind is going on. People bandy around the word "addiction" on a moment to moment basis as if it is meaningful. For instance, I'm really addicted to butter pecan ice cream. Has nothing to do with addiction, folks.

Being "addicted to someone" is an expression. Having a "sex addiction" is a newly-manufactured concept.

We didn't have "sex addiction" until a celebrity had to have something to be addicted to so he could "go into rehab" so he could be out of the public eye so he could seem to be contrite.

Now, every inconvenient jolly is being addictified. And "addiction" is thrown around all over the place.

For instance. Many people use the f-word a lot. Doesn't mean they're "addicted" to the f-word, or "addicted" to f--. But, next thing we know, we're going to have a celebrity in family dramas inconveniently caught in a rage binge disappearing for a while on the grounds that s/he is "addicted to the f-word".

TA often used words in not the technical definition. He was trying to "find his voice" for gosh sake! He had a new blog, a new book, a new camera, new points of view....These are all about "finding a voice", figuring out what his perspective on the world is and how to capture it.

TA could have said he kept getting snared in JA's dramas, but he doesn't use words like that. He's trying to figure out how it all works.

The word "addiction" is a total red-herring.

Not to mention he was trying to find the words to express his snarled up ball of feelings and thoughts accumulated over 2 years of having a sociopath gaslight and torment and play mind games with him.

He made plenty of kinda awkward word choices on May 26, but I am actually impressed with how well he nailed the essence of her sociopathic self, and of the dynamic that had kept him trapped in her warped cycle of manipulation. He really did see her quite clearly, IMO. And, in her opinion as well, methinks.

 

[Hope4More]

Psst...Mister. About what may have been going on in that chat. Changed my opinion. Again.

 

[TexMex]

Reposting......



ALL KNOWN COMMUNICTION BETWEEN TRAVIS AND JA AFTER THE MAY 26 GCHAT

(all texts are paraphrased, and are from Beth Karas's On Crime subscription website).

May 26. No texts (after Gchat, which ended at 4:47 or 4:49AM).

The Hughes say she sent him an email after the chat, reasserting she did not slash his tires and that she was going to a lawyer on Monday. The email exists, then, but wasn’t entered into evidence.

May 27. No texts.
May 28. No texts.
May 29. No texts.

May 30. (5 texts, 4 from her, he replies to just one. Notice she asks him to call, not to text or email).

10:52AM. Hey, have about an hour today if you need any help.

12:23PM I was way off. Call me when yr done working.

12:24PM TA: Way off on what. (only reply).

1:46PM Had been looking at wrong calendar. Call me later.

3:30PM Missed your call. At work. Call me/you tonight?


May 31. (8 texts, one set of exchanges, between 10:11PM – 10:28PM, beginning with one of her un- accidental texts).


10:11. JA. Lame. Did u get it?

10:12. Get what. (one of 3 replies to her texts)

10:15. Whoops. Meant that to go to Angela, a pic. Didn’t hear from you today but I know how the day can go.

10:17. Yes that one is for you (has sent a pic).

10:21. No pic. (2 of 3 replies).

10:22. The one from earlier.

10:22 TA: yeah. Got that (last of 3 replies).

10:28PM. JA: Taken right after I sang national anthem.

June 1—early AM June 2. ( Eight texts, all related to her insistence TA call her. Not text, not email, only a call will do).

10:49PM. JA Call me. Something to tell you.

10:51PM JA Things, plural.

10:52PM. TA: what is it. (1st reply).

2:06AM, 2:12AM, 2:219AM… JA. Call Call. Call. Hurry up, getting sleepy. Stupid poem about TA, call.

2:26AM. TA--- Doing something, will call when I can. (2nd and last reply; he waited approx.. 30 minutes to call her).

2:27AM. JA: ok Tdogg. Like my poem?


JA also called him 4 times between 1 AM and 3AM: the longest call was 17 seconds.

TA called her twice, with a very brief break in between the two calls, total call length was just under an hour, from approx 3-4AM.

JA called one last time, at 4:03AM. The call lasted 2 minutes, 48 seconds; she may or may not have spoken to him. She’s packed and ready, leaves after the call.

June 2. No texts. (After 2:27AM).

June 3. No texts.

Calls by JA to TA on June 3:

12:57PM. 17 seconds

1:51PM. 2 minutes, 50 seconds

8:16PM. 2 minutes, 9 seconds.

8:34PM. 49 seconds


June 4. No texts.



ETA: He texted her a grand total of 20 words between 4:47AM May 26 and June 4.

IMO the number of words is not the point. She is manipulating him.
Has to tell him something. Things.
Oops an accidental text
He doesn't have to reply yet he does...one word or not
The re establishing communication then leads to thawing on his part
We don't know how often they spoke by phone during this period
By June 2nd they speak for an hour then she heads towards his house

 

[Hope4More]

I love Juan, but his constant "YES OR NO, MA'AM? ARE YOU HAVING MEMORY PROBLEMS?" during the trial was grating after the umpteenth time, so there are sections of his cross that I skip. And there's something about JW's voice, and girly mannerisms, that make me want to scream and claw at her face--so I hardly ever watch her questioning. :gaah:

Really about JM and grating? Had the opposite affect on me--I cheered him everytime. Love me those YES or NO's. Like many around these parts, iirc, even took to applying some of that binary question-posing on the home front for a time.

 

[TexMex]

You're not gonna believe what I've reconsidered, thanks to you, Mister. But that's in the next post.

For this post....I really think the difference in how we see things is what occurred to me last night. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to take sex on June 4 as your starting point and base interpretations on that fact. He had sex with her on June 4 therefore he was addicted to her, he had sex with her on June 4 therefore whatever happened on May 26 or May 22 or May 21 or May 13-14 or any other date for that matter, is ultimately irrelevant, because no matter what was said or done, he still had sex with her on June 4.

Is that an accurate and fair summation?

The difference may be that I don't take sex on June 4 as a starting point, even if the sex was exactly what the pics showed and happened on June 4, and regardless of whether or not the timestamps are correct.

It matters to me to feel very confident that he did not know she was coming, and that her story of walking on in and watching videos with him can't be true, and the fact his journal was found on the floor of his car, suggesting she hid there until she thought his roommates left for the day, etc. Why? Because all of that suggests she knew he would NOT welcome her into his house.

My starting point is in the beginning. What their pattern of communication was, the lies and coercion and manipulation from their day one-and the fact he wasn't so addicted as to ask her to come live in Mesa, just to get the sex--that he in fact freaked. That he hated himself for whatever sexual contact they had in fall-winter 2007. That he tried to get her to leave in January 2008--if he was so addicted, wouldn't he want her to stay? How much he "tolerated" her endless BS from the moment she arrived in Mesa, but began losing patience as early as January. That he was glad she left. That there is little indication he was especially interested in her sexually after she did leave, or interested very much in her even as a friend. That he began expressing his anger towards her more freely after she left, and that his anger increased with each psycho incident of hers he had to deal with.

That there was, you're right, an absolute pattern of psycho act, anger, then apology by him (the "cycle")--the apology almost always immediately following the blowup, or by the next day. That he stopped apologizing after May 9th,if the May 9th apology is even to be believed. That he cut her off altogether on May 22, early AM, and NEVER after that initiated contact with her (not the same thing as replying after being harassed, etc). That he told Regan he was afraid of her, and thought that she might kill herself or him. That he tore her a new one for over 2 hours on May 26 and didn't let her manipulate him. That he didn't apologize. That he didn't contact her. That he told Taylor he was DONE. That his not contacting her supports the truth of that.

Done doesn't mean not replying to her alibi-establishing texts, IMO, worded with the intent to disguise the real break, and written with the goal of having Travis think she had something to tell him that related to whatever she had whacked him with on May 26. Done is still done. IMO there is little doubt that he in fact would have stayed done with her had she not murdered him. If what mattered more to him than marriage or whatever because he was so addicted to sex, then he had Brooke demonstrating just the kind of interest in him to fill that need, and she was funny and compatible and non-psycho to boot.

Same trees, a different forest? Same forest, different trees? In any case, if your perspective is that sex on June 4 is the bottomline, no matter any possible circumstances of that day, and that sex on that day cancels out everything he did or said up to that day that suggests sex and whatever else was coerced, then....what exactly is it that's of interest to you to discuss?

I'm not working backwards...I'm just not stopping at May 26th. She continued the manipulation and eventually manipulated her way back into his home and his bed giving her access to kill him

 

[kmp3]

That there was, you're right, an absolute pattern of psycho act, anger, then apology by him (the "cycle")--the apology almost always immediately following the blowup, or by the next day. That he stopped apologizing after May 9th,if the May 9th apology is even to be believed. That he cut her off altogether on May 22, early AM, and NEVER after that initiated contact with her (not the same thing as replying after being harassed, etc). That he told Regan he was afraid of her, and thought that she might kill herself or him. That he tore her a new one for over 2 hours on May 26 and didn't let her manipulate him. That he didn't apologize. That he didn't contact her. That he told Taylor he was DONE. That his not contacting her supports the truth of that.

These are great points, and I would agree with this assessment if not for the sex on June 4. Like most addicts, I'm sure he wanted to be completely done with her--I don't think anyone can dispute that. What defines an addict is wanting to end a certain behavior, and being unable to do so. The sex on June 4 is evidence that he was unable to cut things off with her, despite his attempts to do so.

Had he not been brutally murdered, I suspect eventually, he would have moved on. There were certainly signs of that as you mention above. He was making a real effort to cut things off with her. Ultimately, he failed. Like being addicted to anything--it's not impossible to quit, but it's difficult.

I won't speak for Tex, but in my case, at least, the sex on June 4 isn't where my addiction assertion BEGINS--it's the culmination of months and months of trying to break things off with her and ultimately being unable to. That, to me, fits the disruption of someone who is addicted. TA used the word and his friends and family also used it to describe this toxic thing between JA and TA. Even if they didn't know everything going on in his life, they knew TA's character better than any of us ever will--which is significant, imo.