Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[RickshawFan]

I forget who mentioned that for some reason ' prior ex's stuck around even after break up.

That puzzles me, too. However, it's also true that none of them offered mitigation for , and that was seemingly the case way back when with her original attorneys and mitigation specialist.

Even her "we bought a house together" ex, although he originally showed up for mitigation—until the reality of a first degree judgment set in—was a) evidently very ambivalent, and b) couldn't bring himself to offer mitigation in the second sentencing trial. And he wasn't on the first mitigation specialist's list of witnesses, either.

had to have had some hold on them that wasn't about a benign feelings. No matter what heinous thing she'd done to them.

Also, none of her Travis-era flings were evidently available for mitigation. No ex-roommates, no one in her Mormon circle (such as it was beyond Travis), no temporary flirtations from a convention or workshop, the surfer dudes she horned in on...

And definitely, not a single woman. Except LaVi.

Ideas why?

 

[RickshawFan]

There is no such thing as a "stupid" evaluation.

Thanks, thanks, thanks for underlining this fact.

 

[pocketaccent]

I've come to believe there was sex on June 4th. (Geevee and Rickshaw, I know you don't agree and that's ok) Just want to come clean with you guys lol.

Reasons why I think sex took place:

-Hope's May analyses (especially Post #1549 and 1550) provide deep understanding of what Travis was all about that month. Coming clean was the theme. The fact that he had lied to Lisa troubled him, almost to the point of being agitated most of that month. (He had a conscience.) He came clean with Lisa finally and felt happy as a lark. On May 26, he pleaded and begged the to do the same, to come clean. We know she didn't.

And all through May, Travis was abused, stalked, and manipulated by the . The continual abuse and gaslighting left him vulnerable.

I think all she had do for Travis to forgive her one more time was to tell him that she came by to come clean and as a proof, gave back his journals, all of other stolen goods and 2 bottles of Neutrogena sunscreen, one for him, one for his Cancun guest, then partially came clean (She probably still denied slashing the tires).

-The nude photos were taken, deleted, then overwritten by next photos. If the nudes were planted as alibi (sex was the reason for the visit alibi) then deleting the alibi doesn't make too much sense.

- While I was digging in April-May texts for the pre or post- murder pedo argument, I once again was reminded how extremely manipulative she was. Even JM mentions in his book several times that he had to be extra alert and on his toes because she was so good at making up lies on the spot and able to turn any negative situation into something else altogether.

I still believe the real June 4th timeline is very different from her testimony during trial.
What I would love to know is WHY was she taking the shower photos? So much easier to kill without distraction of having to snap photos, right?
Only if I know the why, and I don't believe one word about that Calvin Klein or Cancun-ready body story, I can almost guess what really happened that day.

 

[Hope4More]

I've come to believe there was sex on June 4th. (Geevee and Rickshaw, I know you don't agree and that's ok) Just want to come clean with you guys lol.

Reasons why I think sex took place:

-Hope's May analyses (especially Post #1549 and 1550) provide deep understanding of what Travis was all about that month. Coming clean was the theme. The fact that he had lied to Lisa troubled him, almost to the point of being agitated most of that month. (He had a conscience.) He came clean with Lisa finally and felt happy as a lark. On May 26, he pleaded and begged the to do the same, to come clean. We know she didn't.

And all through May, Travis was abused, stalked, and manipulated by the . The continual abuse and gaslighting left him vulnerable.

I think all she had do for Travis to forgive her one more time was to tell him that she came by to come clean and as a proof, gave back his journals, all of other stolen goods and 2 bottles of Neutrogena sunscreen, one for him, one for his Cancun guest, then partially came clean (She probably still denied slashing the tires).

-The nude photos were taken, deleted, then overwritten by next photos. If the nudes were planted as alibi (sex was the reason for the visit alibi) then deleting the alibi doesn't make too much sense.

- While I was digging in April-May texts for the pre or post- murder pedo argument, I once again was reminded how extremely manipulative she was. Even JM mentions in his book several times that he had to be extra alert and on his toes because she was so good at making up lies on the spot and able to turn any negative situation into something else altogether.

I still believe the real June 4th timeline is very different from her testimony during trial.
What I would love to know is WHY was she taking the shower photos? So much easier to kill without distraction of having to snap photos, right?
Only if I know the why, and I don't believe one word about that Calvin Klein or Cancun-ready body story, I can almost guess what really happened that day.

Pocket: I'll come back (soon-ish) to re-post that May explanation, because it has an error in the timeline. A significant one, actually, but that's what I get for rushing to finish it up.

May for Travis was definitely about being haunted by the loss of Lisa, his feeling that he'd made a terrible mistake in "throwing" Lisa away, and his beginning to face the (partial) truth that he had broken off with Lisa because of the .

Underlying those realizations was the deeper, most unbearable fact, that he had lied to Lisa, and really, not just about the , but about the reason why he had broken up with her, which in turn had not just hurt her terribly, but also made her unwilling to be around him, even in a crowd of mutual friends.

The mistake in timing I made was misremembering that Travis had already come clean with Lisa by May 26 and his confrontation with the . He had not.

The fact that Travis had not yet come clean himself makes the psychology of his rage on the 26 even more understandable.

And sadly, it also makes it clear how and why he would have been even more vulnerable to her manipulation AFTER May 26, and after he did speak with Lisa.

Lisa forgave Travis, and she forgave him for lies that had cost her dearly. How must it have felt to her to hear that Travis had covered up for someone who had stalked her, slashed her tires, and (I imagine she realized) sent her that incredibly hateful email?

Yet, she forgave him. Yes, your scenario is IMO the most likely, that the told Travis she wanted to come clean. He could not possibly have refused to listen, and to express that forgiveness.

I imagine she laid that groundwork in her call to him right before she left Yreka. I don't believe extending forgiveness, though, meant he wanted anything more to do with her. His unwillingness to reply to her repeated attempts to reach him as she travelled towards Mesa indicate that he didn't want any such thing. He WAS done with her.

But ..she didn't need for Travis to be reeled back in. She just needed him to be enough off guard when she surprised him in Mesa that she could take the next step in manipulating him that day, then the next.

I still don't believe he gave her permission to take photos of him in the shower. I also still believe Travis delayed getting in the shower for hours, for the simple reason that he did not trust her, and he was waiting for her to leave before he made himself vulnerable that way.


Whether or not they had sex that day? I haven't changed my mind about that either, about what for me was always the bottom line: whatever sex they had that day, if they did, had nothing to do with an "addiction," (he was referring on May 26 to a cycle of psychological abuse, not sex), nor his wanting one last romp with a person he may have forgiven, but neither liked or trusted.

I've always believed the photos (supposedly) taken that day by him reveal both hostility and contempt; the photos aren't of a person he cared about, but of a "3 hole wonder."

(PS: why take the shower photos? She wouldn't have, if her plan was to shoot him in the shower. She didn't want to shoot him. She wanted to cause Travis the most pain she could, and she wanted him to be looking at her while she inflicted that pain. With a knife. Which required Travis to be sitting down in the shower, something he would never have done on his own. Or willingly, IMO, given his extreme aversion to germs.

PS. Remember on May 26 Travis accused the of deleting an email in his computer he had written to Lisa?

How worried would the have been to read a come clean letter in which Travis told Lisa he knew the had slashed her tires? And no doubt a much longer lists of intrusions & psycho acts?

 

[RickshawFan]

H4M....in your last paragraph, why does the need to make TA suffer to his face require that use a knife rather than a gun? She couldn’t have achieved the same effect with a gun?

 

[Hope4More]

H4M....in your last paragraph, why does the need to make TA suffer to his face require that use a knife rather than a gun? She couldn’t have achieved the same effect with a gun?

PAIN.

 

[RickshawFan]

PAIN.

That might be the sickest aspect of the entire crime. In that case, she might have wanted to drag it out, too. It may be incorrect to assume she didn’t anticipate how much TA would fight back. TA was a fighter, and even she must have known that he would do anything except acknowledge she’d betray him to that degree. By the day of the murder, judging from your notes and comments on their interaction (e.g. at the OKC convention), H4M, he recognized she was trouble, at least for him. That seems to be as far as it went: it speaks to the reality, including in their subsequent exchanges, that he didn’t figure out who she was. He couldn’t go there. He likely could never have gone there. To have gone there may well have been to acknowledge the truth of his own childhood past in some untenable way.

He’d have fought that knowledge tooth and nail. And, terribly, his life depended on the fight, on resistance to the scale of evil he was met with on that terrible day. She was counting on that.

 

[Hope4More]

That might be the sickest aspect of the entire crime. In that case, she might have wanted to drag it out, too. It may be incorrect to assume she didn’t anticipate how much TA would fight back. TA was a fighter, and even she must have known that he would do anything except acknowledge she’d betray him to that degree. By the day of the murder, judging from your notes and comments on their interaction (e.g. at the OKC convention), H4M, he recognized she was trouble, at least for him. That seems to be as far as it went: it speaks to the reality, including in their subsequent exchanges, that he didn’t figure out who she was. He couldn’t go there. He likely could never have gone there. To have gone there may well have been to acknowledge the truth of his own childhood past in some untenable way.

He’d have fought that knowledge tooth and nail. And, terribly, his life depended on the fight, on resistance to the scale of evil he was met with on that terrible day. She was counting on that.

He had a conscience, she did not. In many ways, it really is that simple.

BTW have you heard from Geevee lately?

 

[pocketaccent]

Pocket: I'll come back (soon-ish) to re-post that May explanation, because it has an error in the timeline. A significant one, actually, but that's what I get for rushing to finish it up.

May for Travis was definitely about being haunted by the loss of Lisa, his feeling that he'd made a terrible mistake in "throwing" Lisa away, and his beginning to face the (partial) truth that he had broken off with Lisa because of the .

Underlying those realizations was the deeper, most unbearable fact, that he had lied to Lisa, and really, not just about the , but about the reason why he had broken up with her, which in turn had not just hurt her terribly, but also made her unwilling to be around him, even in a crowd of mutual friends.

The mistake in timing I made was misremembering that Travis had already come clean with Lisa by May 26 and his confrontation with the . He had not.

The fact that Travis had not yet come clean himself makes the psychology of his rage on the 26 even more understandable.

And sadly, it also makes it clear how and why he would have been even more vulnerable to her manipulation AFTER May 26, and after he did speak with Lisa.

Lisa forgave Travis, and she forgave him for lies that had cost her dearly. How must it have felt to her to hear that Travis had covered up for someone who had stalked her, slashed her tires, and (I imagine she realized) sent her that incredibly hateful email?

Yet, she forgave him. Yes, your scenario is IMO the most likely, that the told Travis she wanted to come clean. He could not possibly have refused to listen, and to express that forgiveness.

I imagine she laid that groundwork in her call to him right before she left Yreka. I don't believe extending forgiveness, though, meant he wanted anything more to do with her. His unwillingness to reply to her repeated attempts to reach him as she travelled towards Mesa indicate that he didn't want any such thing. He WAS done with her.

But ..she didn't need for Travis to be reeled back in. She just needed him to be enough off guard when she surprised him in Mesa that she could take the next step in manipulating him that day, then the next.

I still don't believe he gave her permission to take photos of him in the shower. I also still believe Travis delayed getting in the shower for hours, for the simple reason that he did not trust her, and he was waiting for her to leave before he made himself vulnerable that way.


Whether or not they had sex that day? I haven't changed my mind about that either, about what for me was always the bottom line: whatever sex they had that day, if they did, had nothing to do with an "addiction," (he was referring on May 26 to a cycle of psychological abuse, not sex), nor his wanting one last romp with a person he may have forgiven, but neither liked or trusted.

I've always believed the photos (supposedly) taken that day by him reveal both hostility and contempt; the photos aren't of a person he cared about, but of a "3 hole wonder."

(PS: why take the shower photos? She wouldn't have, if her plan was to shoot him in the shower. She didn't want to shoot him. She wanted to cause Travis the most pain she could, and she wanted him to be looking at her while she inflicted that pain. With a knife. Which required Travis to be sitting down in the shower, something he would never have done on his own. Or willingly, IMO, given his extreme aversion to germs.

PS. Remember on May 26 Travis accused the of deleting an email in his computer he had written to Lisa?

How worried would the have been to read a come clean letter in which Travis told Lisa he knew the had slashed her tires? And no doubt a much longer lists of intrusions & psycho acts?

I didn't mean to bring you back from your much needed vacation so soon, Hope. Sorry.

Yes, I agree, not yet cleaned himself to Lisa makes his rage on May 26 even more understandable.

And yes, absolutely that the addiction he shouted over and over referred to a cycle of psychological abuse. 'you called , you made sure I heard your voice', 'I keep taking you back' and such- He wasn't saying he was addicted to her in any kind of sexual way. He was talking about the cycle she purposely pushed him into.

I agree with everything else you said, and we are on the same wavelength on most, but a couple things that we may need to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure if I want to try to construct a timeline, though. Still too many unknowns, so I think it's pointless.

In any case, if anyone is interested, here are some items I was going to incorporate into the timeline:

-She only knew Zach was there (interrogation)

-She arrived some time after Travis had moved furnitures to clean the floor. (interrogation-she didn't know when that happened)

- testified she woke up at 12:30, Travis woke up at 1:00, yet we know Travis (almost certainly) texted Chris @ 12:13. (If JM later confronts her about Chris' text, all she had to say (lie) was - 'I didn't know Travis was up texting. When I woke up, he was asleep by me.')
Reason she woke up at 12:30 was probably to hide what she must have had done- Snooping Travis' computer prior to 12:30.

-Travis doesn't take shower for 4 hours after sex? Very very difficult to believe.

-I think she manipulated the camera time. I don't know why. what was the purpose of taking the shower photos?

-If the shower followed soon after sex, then she is the one who laundered the bedding. She did 2 loads that afternoon.

-She reiterates again and again that 'they' were in the office most of the afternoon.

-I do not believe she had not yet finished killing him at 5:33 pm then was able to phone Ryan by 9:30 -10 pm, 45 miles north of Kingman.

-The last computer usage was 4:54 pm.

-I think, for now, that the time on camera was correctly set by Travis. Why wouldn't he? He set the year, month, day correctly. (Wing ding)

 

[Hope4More]

I didn't mean to bring you back from your much needed vacation so soon, Hope. Sorry.

Yes, I agree, not yet cleaned himself to Lisa makes his rage on May 26 even more understandable.

And yes, absolutely that the addiction he shouted over and over referred to a cycle of psychological abuse. 'you called , you made sure I heard your voice', 'I keep taking you back' and such- He wasn't saying he was addicted to her in any kind of sexual way. He was talking about the cycle she purposely pushed him into.

I agree with everything else you said, and we are on the same wavelength on most, but a couple things that we may need to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure if I want to try to construct a timeline, though. Still too many unknowns, so I think it's pointless.

In any case, if anyone is interested, here are some items I was going to incorporate into the timeline:

-She only knew Zach was there (interrogation)

-She arrived some time after Travis had moved furnitures to clean the floor. (interrogation-she didn't know when that happened)

- testified she woke up at 12:30, Travis woke up at 1:00, yet we know Travis (almost certainly) texted Chris @ 12:13. (If JM later confronts her about Chris' text, all she had to say (lie) was - 'I didn't know Travis was up texting. When I woke up, he was asleep by me.')
Reason she woke up at 12:30 was probably to hide what she must have had done- Snooping Travis' computer prior to 12:30.

-Travis doesn't take shower for 4 hours after sex? Very very difficult to believe.

-I think she manipulated the camera time. I don't know why. what was the purpose of taking the shower photos?

-If the shower followed soon after sex, then she is the one who laundered the bedding. She did 2 loads that afternoon.

-She reiterates again and again that 'they' were in the office most of the afternoon.

-I do not believe she had not yet finished killing him at 5:33 pm then was able to phone Ryan by 9:30 -10 pm, 45 miles north of Kingman.

-The last computer usage was 4:54 pm.

-I think, for now, that the time on camera was correctly set by Travis. Why wouldn't he? He set the year, month, day correctly. (Wing ding)

No worries- you didn't bring me back from vacation. I'm still on one, which is why I skimmed right through your list of points in search of a timeline, and didn't ponder a single one.

That I had misremembered the Lisa come clean sequence struck me after I had unpacked my vacation bags and was about to lay into some frosty-rimmed Pina coladas. Your post saved me from writing an even longer post than my reply to you.

Now, back to those Pina coladas.

 

[pocketaccent]

No worries- you didn't bring me back from vacation. I'm still on one, which is why I skimmed right through your list of points in search of a timeline, and didn't ponder a single one.

That I had misremembered the Lisa come clean sequence struck me after I had unpacked my vacation bags and was about to lay into some frosty-rimmed Pina coladas. Your post saved me from writing an even longer post than my reply to you.

Now, back to those Pina coladas.

Yay! Enjoy your Pina coladas!

 

[RickshawFan]

He had a conscience, she did not. In many ways, it really is that simple.

BTW have you heard from Geevee lately?

LOL my account says “Geevee was last seen a moment ago.”

I’m thinking it wasn’t as simple as TA had a conscience and she didn’t. She turned that into his Achilles heel. That’s a dimension of evil he would never have guessed at. I can’t fathom it either.

 

[RickshawFan]

My dominant thought about the shower photos, turning everything on its head.... only took them because the camera was there.... she got mesmerized by the shiny new toy and willy nilly last minute added it to her plot. Any planning in advance would have told her that she’d have needed at least 3 hands to hold a camera and use a knife or gun. And, indeed, she does seem to have dropped the camera at some point.

No doubt she was drawn to the shiny new plaything, but also enamored of her “professional” photography skills. She felt so brilliant, so confident, so drawn, so mesmerized, the camera would be her coup de grâce.

The camera would invade his private space.

And so, her thoughts galloped along.

That very day, TA could have told her to leave the camera alone. The ultimate rejection. Yet one more reason to finish him off with it.

She could have come across the camera by chance sitting on top of something, like a letter to Lisa, a letter that would have been destroyed along with other evidence.

Ergo, I say the camera stuff was an afterthought. It seduced her. It messed her up.

 

[RickshawFan]

Now that H4M introduced so many more psychological angles, I’m spinning off a thousand more speculations!

 

[salberg7]

I think the used the camera to distract him. If she was using the flash that brightness would have cause Travis to have a vision deficit. After the flash, boom-the shot to the head occurred. The shot was supposed for to incapacitated him and she had her

 

[salberg7]

Wow let me finish my thought there...I think I fell asleep (Sunday nap, lol).
The shot was supposed to incapacitate him and he was supposed to die in the shower. But Einstein didn’t realize the shot didn’t kill him & she had to think fast. I am not sure where the knife was...but I am thinking it’s the same one she used to slash his tires.
The knife had to be close...just enough time for poor Travis to get to the sink & stand up. I can’t imagine Travis’ terror standing there seeing her reflection in the mirror, knife in hand.
But I am conflicted too about whether she delivered the shot and the stab to his aorta at the same time. Travis’ sitting in the shower was a perfect position for that stab to have occurred. That’s why I still waver between the shot being first or last. The trajectory of the bullet, that it entered on the right and downward into his left cheek...how else could that shot have happened (Except if she shot him last as he was dying on the ground) as he had to be lower to the ground than with that bullet entry angle. I envision standing above him in the shower, holding camera in her right hand, shooting with her left. is left handed. But...the autopsy report reflected that there was minimal bleeding in the wound tract from the bullet wound, thus delivered post mortem. I still am about 90/10 sure that in my mind the bullet was first but it’s hard to argue with the Medical Examiner..

 

[Hope4More]

APPEALS UPDATE

(I’m posting this in the Appeals thread as well, and will be posting all future appeals updates in that thread only)

On June 14, the State filed a reply to the ’s second motion to file their opening brief under seal. They are (again) asked the COA to deny her request (I received a copy of their full reply).

The ’s attorneys have until June 20 to respond to the State’s arguments laid out in this second reply.

---

Of note: The COA DENIED the ’s first motion to file briefs under seal, and to have the entire appellate record sealed until the COA finally rules on her appeal.


What the COA instructed her attorneys to do was to make their case as to why individual PORTIONS of their brief needed to be sealed.


Her attorneys ignored that instruction. What they seem to have done is to have filed a Motion to Reconsider (the COA’s original denial); again demanding that their entire opening brief “OB”, and all subsequent briefs, be filed under seal. Given the State’s reply, they seem to have repeated the same arguments the COA has already rejected.

-----------------------------

A paraphrased summary (and direct quotes) of the State’s reply (the use of the defendant’s name is a legal convention –the is not, of course, making these arguments herself).



1. Arias has failed (again) to explain how OB contents would pose a specific and immediate threat to anyone. It is difficult to respond any more specifically to “likely” arguments they may make in their brief, since they have not provided a brief to the Court.


“Arias apparently intends to argue that pervasive media coverage denied her a fair trial.”


But…”they haven’t explained how this argument, based on media coverage of 5 years ago, would lead specific people to engage in acts of violence or harassment today.”


Arias states that she intends to describe threats made against trial counsel in some detail. Even if those threats are somehow legally relevant, “Arias apparently presumes that the mere mention of past, incompleted threats would inevitably lead to future, completed threats.” That argument is speculative at best & insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.


2. Arias also apparently intends to argue prosecutorial misconduct., “and she expects this to upset people who hold him (JM) in high regard.” To assume those individuals will necessarily respond with violence towards specific people is speculative at best & insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.



3. Media attention as reason for sealing…there will be media attention whether or not the briefs are sealed. Even if there was a link between media coverage and danger ton the public, she fails to show that a public brief would garner more attention (and supposed danger) than a secret one.


“Ultimately Aris betrays the speculative nature of her claim by urging “it is appropriate to err on the side of caution.” No. Precaution doesn’t meet the standard of “clear and present danger,” and doesn’t suffice to overcome the presumption of public access.


4. Arias fails to demonstrate the absence of practical alternatives to sealing (redactions, etc.).


Even if the contents of brief could endanger TRIAL EXPERT WITNESSES AND COUNSEL,

she can anonymize the names of persons she thinks are susceptible to harassment, and paraphrase the threats (allegedly) made against them.


“Especially in the absence of a proposed opening brief to review, this Court should not accept her speculative, self-serving assurance that such drafting measures would be ineffective. “


4. “Arias’ proposed remedy undermines her claim that a public brief would cause irreparable harm.”


If the contents of their brief truly represented an immediate danger, that risk will be just as great after the COA renders a decision on her appeal, when media attention will likely peak.



5. The Court shouldn’t seal briefs and the record just because portions of the original trial record were sealed. The COA’s administrative order (NOTE: I’ve referenced this before) expressly contemplates that parties may file public briefs that refer to sealed portions of the record. That the trial court sealed records years ago does not compel this court to automatically seal all records, including opening briefs.


6. “ Arias’ position primarily relies on the extensive media coverage surrounding the trial, the strong opinion of observers, and threats and harassment by a few members of the public.

All of these things happen in most high-profile cases.


Sealing based on these circumstances that are typical, not unique, would set a bad precedent. It “would also create a moral hazard—allowing a small number of citizens to exercise a heckler’s veto on the public’s right to open court proceedings."


“ This is too high a price to pay for speculative precaution.”

 

[salberg7]

Yay! Hope they rule to unseal!

 

[Hope4More]

Mini update in Appeals thread (motion by 's attys).

 

[Pasasana]

This has become ridiculous. the court waits til the princess is good and ready with her brief.