He may have felt he could handle her and even if he felt afraid at times, he might have tried, in a macho way, to ignore the little voice telling him she was dangerous. I had a stalker for 8 years. But I wasn't really afraid and I didn't really think, in all that time, that he was capable of seriously harming me until the end. I laughed him off. Then, after he started following me and showing up unannounced again, I went to the police to find out what I could do. A nice guy at the desk turned his computer around so i could see what he wasn't allowed to actually tell me. The stalker (who was a guy I briefly dated at age 16), had lied about his age and was much, much older. He had a long record and had engaged in a situation involving the police in which he refused to come out, was surrounded and threatened to do harm. (which explains his absence for awhile from stalking me. He was in jail.).
It was only after that that I began to realize what he might really be capable of.
At the end.
Yes, but, reading some posts here, I am afraid that some juror will equate Travis less than perfect conduct with their own, past heartbreak and secretly find jodi at least a little bit justified.
The defense has not begun to open the door to a self defense claim but they might get a juror who never got over a past break up or who hates men and strike gold just by
-shaming Travis.
I know you sincerely believe there is something up with those letters. But I think you are misunderstanding something. During the prosecutorial misconduct hearing, they were not entered into evidence. They were referenced in an attempt to impeach him. The defense was not attempting to enter the letters or the supposed expert statement into evidence. They were trying to show that Chris Hughes was lying about how he had felt and had been influenced by the prosecution. So nothing regarding the actual veracity of the letters was being determined. I know that's confusing based on what Nurmi said to Chris Hughes about the expert, but I promise you, whether or not the letters were really fake or whether or not the defense paid an expert to state they seemed real, was not at issue.
The fact is, the letters were excluded in a pre-trial motion. If the defense presented an expert opinion, clearly it was not enough to overcome the FBI expert who determined they were forgeries. Or, there was another reason not to admit them.
But make no mistake. This judge is stellar, fair and impartial. She is not going to do a thing to cause an appeal. And excluding authentic, even remotely exculpatory evidence, like a letter from Travis in which he admits to being a pedophile or an abuser, would never happen without a very, very good reason (like they are fake).
There is nothing to these letters except the fact that jodi arias is desperate to come up with anything that can set her free.
