Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is my final analysis on the location of exhibit 162 based on the new image in Juan's book. After the making of the video I also can determine with certainty that the two large pools in front of the linen closet are not there.

[video=youtube;2FZsNR4sLmU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FZsNR4sLmU[/video]

This is outstanding in detail and covers the new, much clearer photo from Juan's book. There have been so many theories around the old photograph - the poor quality made it especially hard to analyse in detail.

Please would you help with one pic that has been the subject of debate here? One of the contributors posted this pic taken from Detective Flores monitor in court - suggesting toes and a bare foot are seen in the from the dragging scene:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=90563&d=1457966318

I posted the new pic from Juan's book as it is much clearer and wider. There are no toes - or a bare foot visible in this dragging scene photo. I suggested that what was being seen was a reflection - of fingers and a gold ring - from Detective Flores' desk. Would you agree with this?

Also interesting is that you have changed from a shoe to a sock. I see why people thought it may have been a shoe before because of the quality of the old image. It looks much more like a sock now - in line with an experiment done by FinallyRegistered.

Thanks for sharing.
 
(...) I agree and I am not sure I would even use the word addict at all in this context.

Thanks for an insightful post, Hatfield. I agree that the religious aspects were a factor. Travis himself used the word addicted - repeatedly. In the same conversation, Arias detailed how the addicting the sex was. As I don't think Travis wanted a serious relationship with Arias - the addiction Travis referred to seems physical. Perfectly normal to have a physical relationship with a partner - for most people - unless complicated by chastity aims.
 
Can you see it better here? I can also see the blur of her toes on the tile below this spot but I'll leave that discussion a few pages back.

View attachment 90545

There's also a shadow from the floor upwards that I think is her hair, haven't done the visual mechanics to figure in the strap or no strap on that shadow but it's clearly there.

View attachment 90544

Geevee have you seen this? It's based on the new photo from Juan Martinez' book that I posted in relation to the 'toe pic' before.

https://youtu.be/2FZsNR4sLmU

No sign of any bare toes or a bare foot of Arias' whatsoever.
 
Also interesting is that you have changed from a shoe to a sock. I see why people thought it may have been a shoe before because of the quality of the old image. It looks much more like a sock now - in line with an experiment done by FinallyRegistered.

Thanks for sharing.

A sock over a shoe. The toe area is too tall and not enough taper for a socked foot. You can even see the indentations for eyelets and laces on the instep.
 
I agree and I am not sure I would even use the word addict at all in this context.

Sure he may have liked the sex that she offered but I don't think I would go so far as to use the word addict.

I think it was more like if she came over then they both knew they would likely end up having sex. Which is not too different than a lot of girlfrend/boyfriend couples.

I think the only real difference than other people his age is his religioun and church friends made their relationship seem more taboo to them. So it became more of a big deal to TA and his other friends.

Had it not been for the religoun then others may not have batted an eye about it. Im thinking back to young friends I knew where it was expected they would have sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend practically every time they met up.

It was actually rather normal what TA+JA were doing. The only thing that made it stand out was the religion made it somewhat taboo to them and also that we the public ended up finding out about their hookups.

The Hughes also report that when Travis would try to distance himself from Jodi during the relationship she would cry and remind/guilt him how he had brought her into the Mormon church and how he had baptized her himself
 
Thanks for an insightful post, Hatfield. I agree that the religious aspects were a factor. Travis himself used the word addicted - repeatedly. In the same conversation, Arias detailed how the addicting the sex was. As I don't think Travis wanted a serious relationship with Arias - the addiction Travis referred to seems physical. Perfectly normal to have a physical relationship with a partner - for most people - unless complicated by chastity aims.

It is being assumed that the word "addiction" is being used in the technical sense. I too am an addict: I'm addicted to maple creamees. I am seriously addicted. I mean, I can't go through a day without one. I try to give it up, but I get reeled back in. I feel manipulated by the signage, the wondrous taste, the creaminess on my tongue. The cycle of addiction: the craving, the gotta have it. Evil.

This is not an addiction in the technical sense, folks, no matter what label I randomly put on it.

Furthermore, there is a human need to be touched and engage in sexual activity. You might construe this as an addiction in the sense that it can be a craving. You might construe it that way especially if you have been taught that physical intimacy—or cravings of any kind—is deemed abhorrent by your church or caused problems when you were a child.
 
A sock over a shoe. The toe area is too tall and not enough taper for a socked foot. You can even see the indentations for eyelets and laces on the instep.

Where can you see it on the video below?

https://youtu.be/2FZsNR4sLmU

Or the new photograph which Juan published in his book?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=90555&d=1457951352

From the old pic, if I squinted, I could see why people thought it was a shoe. The quality of the photo is a problem.

Grayhuze video shoes a sock more clearly now. Previously, the video illustrated a show. Can you confirm if you are basing your opinion on the old pic or all three sources including the above? Thanks.
 
It is being assumed that the word "addiction" is being used in the technical sense. I too am an addict: I'm addicted to maple creamees. I am seriously addicted. I mean, I can't go through a day without one. I try to give it up, but I get reeled back in. I feel manipulated by the signage, the wondrous taste, the creaminess on my tongue. The cycle of addiction: the craving, the gotta have it. Evil.

This is not an addiction in the technical sense, folks, no matter what label I randomly put on it.

Furthermore, there is a human need to be touched and engage in sexual activity. You might construe this as an addiction in the sense that it can be a craving. You might construe it that way especially if you have been taught that physical intimacy—or cravings of any kind—is deemed abhorrent by your church or caused problems when you were a child.

I'm thinking by addiction he's saying that even when he tries to stay away, if she's available (and she's always available), he's going to relapse into the familiar pattern. A text from her, hearing her voice even

May 26
I tried to stay away this time.
But you called
And you made sure I heard your voice
U knew that would be enough
 
It is being assumed that the word "addiction" is being used in the technical sense. (...)

Travis repeated that he was addicted to Arias. No one that I have seen is claiming that Travis was a sex addict or offering any 'technical' explanation. If you are assuming that, fair enough. Travis and Arias sexual behaviour was discussed in the G-Chat - she found the sex addicting. He claimed addiction to Arias and used the word addiction at least five times. Family and friends describe a drug-like dependency - using addiction analogies. Outside clinical definitions, people use the word addiction in a range of ways. Perhaps defining the parameters of that earlier on would have been useful for the purpose of discussion.
 
Travis repeated that he was addicted to Arias. No one that I have seen is claiming that Travis was a sex addict or offering any 'technical' explanation. If you are assuming that, fair enough. Travis and Arias sexual behaviour was discussed in the G-Chat - she found the sex addicting. He claimed addiction to Arias and used the word addiction at least five times. Family and friends describe a drug-like dependency - using addiction analogies. Outside clinical definitions, people use the word addiction in a range of ways. Perhaps defining the parameters of that earlier on would have been useful for the purpose of discussion.

"Analogy" is another good term in that TA+JA used the term "addicted" as a sort of analogy to why they kept wanting to have sex together.
Similar to a drug addiction where even when you want to stop you cant.
Some craving brings you back to do another dose or take another hit.

I realize Travis and JA used the term "addiction" themselves. Its just I think they were being too hard on themselves and if not for the religion making it taboo mostly to Travis then I am not sure it would have even been brought up as a problem.

Travis felt it was a problem because of his religion and also because towards the end he wanted to break up with her. The desire or craving to have sex again was too strong.

So in that context them using the word "addiction" is a good analogy. Its just I think he was being too hard on himself and using too strong a word because like mentioned before it really was quite normal for a lot of other boyfriend/girlfriend relationships like they were having.
 
It is being assumed that the word "addiction" is being used in the technical sense. I too am an addict: I'm addicted to maple creamees. I am seriously addicted. I mean, I can't go through a day without one. I try to give it up, but I get reeled back in. I feel manipulated by the signage, the wondrous taste, the creaminess on my tongue. The cycle of addiction: the craving, the gotta have it. Evil.

This is not an addiction in the technical sense, folks, no matter what label I randomly put on it.

Furthermore, there is a human need to be touched and engage in sexual activity. You might construe this as an addiction in the sense that it can be a craving. You might construe it that way especially if you have been taught that physical intimacy—or cravings of any kind—is deemed abhorrent by your church or caused problems when you were a child.

Mmmm...maple creamees. I feel your pain. The fight is real.

I think what separates craving from addiction is the desire to stop a certain behavior, but being unable to do that (whether it be psychological or physical, or both).


Dr. Drew had an interesting view point on this (which I agree with), wherein he also uses the word addicted in relation to Travis, and he explains a little bit how TA’s background may have contributed to that.


Here it is if you want to see it (addiction comments start 13:55):
[video=youtube;4HUWpA2dnwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HUWpA2dnwg[/video]
 
"Analogy" is another good term in that TA+JA used the term "addicted" as a sort of analogy to why they kept wanting to have sex together.
Similar to a drug addiction where even when you want to stop you cant.
Some craving brings you back to do another dose or take another hit.

I realize Travis and JA used the term "addiction" themselves. Its just I think they were being too hard on themselves and if not for the religion making it taboo mostly to Travis then I am not sure it would have even been brought up as a problem.

Travis felt it was a problem because of his religion and also because towards the end he wanted to break up with her. The desire or craving to have sex again was too strong.

So in that context them using the word "addiction" is a good analogy. Its just I think he was being too hard on himself and using too strong a word because like mentioned before it really was quite normal for a lot of other boyfriend/girlfriend relationships like they were having.

I completely agree that normal behaviour between adults - in the sexual sense - became something that was a burden. When I first watched the interview conducted by Detective Flores, how sad it was that Travis had to deal with the guilt and religious turmoil ; when it was abundantly clear how loved he was by so many people. Interviews with his religious friends showed compassion and understanding and sadness that Travis felt alone in this. Arias tried to play the sex and guilt angle but the lovely Detective Flores burst her bubble immediately.
 
Hi! :wave:

Hope4More said:
snipped by me...
Interesting that he repeated how difficult it was for him to handle the May 26 chat. And that the chat seemed to be about Travis trying to get her to stop lying "about something she'd done." :)

Maybe you should send him your results! :D

TexMex said:
Spybot also activated on June 10 while Travis was dead and Jodi was serving pot roast at the Purple Plum

Sorry, but I have to :laughcry: on this! Good one!

okay... on to the next page... :pcguru:
 
Geevee-

I forgot to post my little bit of phone info for you, sorry. TA’s phone service in 2008, Verizon, had default setting (could be modified) for how many seconds a phone would ring before going to VM. Verizon also set the interlude time between rings (could not be modified).

1. The default setting for how long a phone would ring before being transferred to VM was 32 seconds, or 8 rings.

2. Verizon set the between ring time of 4 seconds.

3. So, again the 4 calls the 🤬🤬🤬 made on June 3:



Calls by JA to TA on June 3, ordered by duration.



12:57PM. 17 seconds (TA didn’t answer, the phone rang under 5 times, didn’t go to VM.


8:34PM. 49 seconds (If TA answered it was with a FU and hangup). If the call went to VM the recorded message was less than 17 seconds, given his message would have least begun to play before it was bypassed, if that was even possible on T’s phone.


8:16PM. 2 minutes, 9 seconds. One of 2 calls where it’s even possible they spoke. If he didn’t answer the call, the VM she left was no longer than 97 seconds, one minute and 37 seconds, minus the time to listen to or bypass his recorded message.


1:51PM. 2 minutes, 50 seconds . 2 of 2 calls where it’s even possible they spoke. If he didn’t answer the call, the VM she left was no longer than 138 seconds, 2 minutes and 18 seconds, minus the time to listen to or bypass his recorded message.


I checked out the BK transcript for recorded VM’s on TA’s phone, but the log doesn’t include message duration.

I read out the psycho VM she left him that night to time it. I typically speak very rapidly, but sped up a wee bit to err on the side of a shorter rather longer message, and I did not allocate time to her many “um” pause. I came up with a time of just under one and a half minutes, 90 odd seconds, but the actual time is probably closer to 2 minutes.


Just as you thought, that’s roughly the same amount of time as the 2 calls on the 3rd. Time enough for one very short breathless VM, or time enough for the phone to ring a few times and go to VM before TA picked up, or time enough for the phone to ring a few times, for TA to pick up, and for them to have a conversation where they each spoke for a whole approx. one minute apiece.


There are no VM’s from her on his phone other than her post-slaughter psycho call. Based on the gaps in the VM transcript, though, there’s very little doubt she went into his phone and deleted VM’s. (IIRC, Mr. Phone’s testimony was that she had the access to do that).



(hugs, and you’re welcome). 
 
Geevee-

I forgot to post my little bit of phone info for you, sorry. TA’s phone service in 2008, Verizon, had default setting (could be modified) for how many seconds a phone would ring before going to VM. Verizon also set the interlude time between rings (could not be modified).

1. The default setting for how long a phone would ring before being transferred to VM was 32 seconds, or 8 rings.

2. Verizon set the between ring time of 4 seconds.

3. So, again the 4 calls the 🤬🤬🤬 made on June 3:



Calls by JA to TA on June 3, ordered by duration.



12:57PM. 17 seconds (TA didn’t answer, the phone rang under 5 times, didn’t go to VM.


8:34PM. 49 seconds (If TA answered it was with a FU and hangup). If the call went to VM the recorded message was less than 17 seconds, given his message would have least begun to play before it was bypassed, if that was even possible on T’s phone.


8:16PM. 2 minutes, 9 seconds. One of 2 calls where it’s even possible they spoke. If he didn’t answer the call, the VM she left was no longer than 97 seconds, one minute and 37 seconds, minus the time to listen to or bypass his recorded message.


1:51PM. 2 minutes, 50 seconds . 2 of 2 calls where it’s even possible they spoke. If he didn’t answer the call, the VM she left was no longer than 138 seconds, 2 minutes and 18 seconds, minus the time to listen to or bypass his recorded message.


I checked out the BK transcript for recorded VM’s on TA’s phone, but the log doesn’t include message duration.

I read out the psycho VM she left him that night to time it. I typically speak very rapidly, but sped up a wee bit to err on the side of a shorter rather longer message, and I did not allocate time to her many “um” pause. I came up with a time of just under one and a half minutes, 90 odd seconds, but the actual time is probably closer to 2 minutes.


Just as you thought, that’s roughly the same amount of time as the 2 calls on the 3rd. Time enough for one very short breathless VM, or time enough for the phone to ring a few times and go to VM before TA picked up, or time enough for the phone to ring a few times, for TA to pick up, and for them to have a conversation where they each spoke for a whole approx. one minute apiece.


There are no VM’s from her on his phone other than her post-slaughter psycho call. Based on the gaps in the VM transcript, though, there’s very little doubt she went into his phone and deleted VM’s. (IIRC, Mr. Phone’s testimony was that she had the access to do that).



(hugs, and you’re welcome). 



It is very much appreciated for all the time and effort you have put into this case Hope. I don't know how you do it friend, I have made a file from just your work and I will treasure it. Big hugs!!!
 
I have tons of photographs of the crime scene. In fact when you watch the video you can see the pattern on the tile before I put the black over the squiggly mark. I was able to see every tile that could possible by the one and only those three worked.

g
The one thing that does not make sense to me- why was she dragging him away from the bathroom, down the hallway towards the bedroom?? I thought she wanted him back in the shower and he was trying to escape out the bedroom door???:waitasec:
 
"Analogy" is another good term in that TA+JA used the term "addicted" as a sort of analogy to why they kept wanting to have sex together.
Similar to a drug addiction where even when you want to stop you cant.
Some craving brings you back to do another dose or take another hit.

I realize Travis and JA used the term "addiction" themselves. Its just I think they were being too hard on themselves and if not for the religion making it taboo mostly to Travis then I am not sure it would have even been brought up as a problem.

Travis felt it was a problem because of his religion and also because towards the end he wanted to break up with her. The desire or craving to have sex again was too strong.

So in that context them using the word "addiction" is a good analogy. Its just I think he was being too hard on himself and using too strong a word because like mentioned before it really was quite normal for a lot of other boyfriend/girlfriend relationships like they were having.


Yeah, they also misused the word "sociopath" early on when Travis was at the Hughes's. One of them called him that in relation to his treatment of Jodi. Little did they know who was the real sociopath!
 
(...)


Dr. Drew had an interesting view point on this (which I agree with), wherein he also uses the word addicted in relation to Travis, and he explains a little bit how TA’s background may have contributed to that.


Here it is if you want to see it (addiction comments start 13:55):
[video=youtube;4HUWpA2dnwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HUWpA2dnwg[/video]

Thanks for posting. I watched a bit more than the section you recommended. The bit about how the sex tape was not remotely hot - I've yet to see anyone disagree with that. Arias' faking is comedy gold though. May she be mocked forever.
 
Where can you see it on the video below?

https://youtu.be/2FZsNR4sLmU

Or the new photograph which Juan published in his book?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=90555&d=1457951352

From the old pic, if I squinted, I could see why people thought it was a shoe. The quality of the photo is a problem.

Grayhuze video shoes a sock more clearly now. Previously, the video illustrated a show. Can you confirm if you are basing your opinion on the old pic or all three sources including the above? Thanks.

The pic in JM's book. I am also around footwear a lot in my work, so I pay attention to shoe profiles, foot shape, arches, socks, etc
 
The pic in JM's book. I am also around footwear a lot in my work, so I pay attention to shoe profiles, foot shape, arches, socks, etc

Thanks.

The typos above, I couldn't edit as I spotted too late. It should have read:

"Grayhuze video shows a sock more clearly now. Previously, the video illustrated a shoe. Can you confirm if you are basing your opinion on the old pic or all three sources including the above? Thanks."

In video Grayhuze shows Travis' foot and toes. The doorstop was what was making their shape look odd. I can't remember if it was you or Geevee who highlighted this before. Interesting detail on the blinds being drawn and the much better light level from Juan Martinez' book pic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
400
Total visitors
522

Forum statistics

Threads
625,732
Messages
18,508,891
Members
240,837
Latest member
TikiTiki
Back
Top