The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #19 *ADULT CONTENT*

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #781
Hey Katie :) Do you see TA's Sister Allie there? I have not seen her in any of the camera shots of the family.

Is she the one who is pregnant?
I heard some TH say she was there on the first day but hasn't been due to her pregnancy. I think they said she is pretty far along.
 
  • #782
I understand what you are saying and you obviously see it differently than I do, which is fine. For everyone else's benefit, I will address my view of what you said, understanding it is my view and appreciating your own as well.

The men do hold the priesthood. That is different than in other faiths. In other faiths, that would imply that all the men are the leaders of the congregation. At 12 years old, a young man can be eligible to hold the priesthood. In priesthood, they are taught to serve. As they get older, they can baptize and giving blessings and help others. Women do not baptize in our faith and they do not give blessings. So, when I am very sick, I can ask my husband if he will give me a blessing. Much like a special prayer for me. It has been a great benefit for me in my life not only when sick, but also when concerned or worried. Sometimes before a big case, I will ask him for a blessing to help clear my mind. Last week, I was very sick with Influenza A and he gave me a blessing of comfort.

On the other hand, when my husband is sick, I cannot give him blessings. Priesthood is the role of the man in the church. It is service. My husband cannot give himself a blessing or obviously, baptize himself. But, he can do those things for me and my children. I can, of course, pray for my husband, but, if he wants a blessing, he needs to go ask for that service from another priesthood holder.

Similarly, in our faith, we regard motherhood as the highest calling. Not that a woman is burdened with the duty to have kids, but that mothers who sacrifice their time, bodies, and talents to be mothers should be revered. Granted, not all men do this the way they should. But, in our home, my children are taught that my calling as a mother is divine. It is given only to women.

Comparing the two, women are naturally made mothers by God (generally speaking). In our faith, the priesthood arm of the church is to give men a like service mentality to be giving for others. It is not ever to be used to gain advantage or power over someone else. Although, I will sadly admit some men (just like in the rest of the world) do not honor their priesthood as they should. I am grateful to be married to a man who sees his priesthood as service for our family and others.

It is true that the priesthood leads meetings and that priesthood members can be bishops, etc. For instance, right now, my husband is serving as stake president in our area. A bishop is over one ward (or about 300-400 people) and then six (give or take) wards make a stake. My husband is over the stake of about six wards. Our boundaries (things are done by geological boundaries) are about four hours across, both ways. Our clergy are not paid. They hold regular full time jobs. So, as priesthood holder and stake president, my husband travels over 4000 miles per year to go visit and serve the various wards. The money comes from his own pocket, his own car, his own time. He is not paid at all. He spends his Sundays from pre-dawn until dark, visiting congregations, serving families, and administering the church needs. Then, he attends phone meetings per week. We always joke in our house that anyone who seeks to be the bishop or stake president doesn't know what its like.

So as a "stake president" widow who often doesn't see her husband due to his service for others, I never see it as a patriarchal thing or male dominated thing for a man to hold the priesthood. In motherhood, I naturally serve. My husband, through the priesthood, has been taught to serve others - none for his own benefit. Far as I can tell, the only benefit (besides blessings) is that he gets to sit on the stand during meetings (up front) where there are cushier chairs than on the pew benches. :)

And, just to add to my perspective, alot of my friends wish they had a husband who would go serve or get out of the work life and care about family and faith. In our faith, the priesthood encourages a man to do just that. For me, that has been a HUGE blessing in training my sons to be good marriage partners that way.

So, in the end, this is likely more than anyone cares to know. I just share it because I was not skirting the issue in my mind. I truly see the priesthood as God's way of making men as service oriented and loving as women (if I can be so bold - grin!). And, I am grateful for it. I have never seen a man bless himself with it.

Having said that, I don't seek to denigrate, in any way, the other poster. Her experience is obviously different than mine. I would explain the difference in that men in the church are expected to be what I described, but, unfortunately, as in all things, there are some who do not live up to that and see any leadership as an opportunity - not to serve - but to dominate. That is not what it is intended for.
So interesting! Thanks for sharing it with us! :)
 
  • #783
Meaning no disrespect Mormon Atty but I think you skirted the question . . . . Women can hold "leadership positions" like being the president of the Relief Society (the Women's group) or a "Primary Teacher" (pre-school sunday school teacher) but they do NOT HOLD PRIESTHOOD!!!! Women cannot attain the Celestial Kingdom without a Man's coat tails to hang onto! The LDS religion is a very Patriarichal religion and always has been . . . they have made some major changes over the years to comply with "Man's Laws" (ie: getting rid of polygamy/polygeny; allowing Men of Color to hold Priesthood"; no longer referring to people of Color carrying the "Mark of Cain or the Mark of the Beast"; attempting to be more open to people who Smoke/Drink, etc . . .) but the basic tenants of the original church are still overriding . . . .In my experience growing up in the Mormon religion.

The "semantics" used by the LDS people (again in my experience) are often a way out of answering direct questions and that is why I believe that TA used semantics to convince himself that anal and oral sex was okay but vaginal sex was a sin.

I am not trying to bash the LDS faith here - just to note some of the questions that have been brought up and tell others about my experience.

Maybe we should remember that old saying about religion and politics and just stick to the sex. :great:
 
  • #784
This issue is timing. It was completely out of place when he did it, and unnecessary at that specific point in the trial.

With all due respect, it might have seemed unnecessary to you. However, JM is the person who is fighting for Travis and he obviously felt it was necessary.
 
  • #785
Flirting with the waitress and saying they were not together...

may have been TA way of starting a conversation about what their relationship was or ever could be. Many men, especially young men, don't seem to know how to express their feelings and thoughts about their relationships, they want to avoid hurting the woman's feelings so they may not know how to talk to the woman they are dating.

IF JA didn't say anything to TA about what he had said to the waitress, it makes me feel like she didn't want to go there either. I think she didn't want to have that conversation for fear the relationship would be over if they actually talked about where they were going in the relationship.

Something similar happened to me years ago. The man made a comment about a friend of his who would really like an item we saw. I wanted to say, I would really like that item too, too bad you aren't thinking of me. I did not say anything as I really feared where the conversation would go. We liked each other, but it wasn't necessarily going anywhere. It's too bad we were just having a relationship and not the conversation, cause I wasted a lot of time on this man. Of course I did not stab him 29 times, slash his throat and shoot him in the head. Jodi = evil in my opinion.

Good first post... and Welcome to WS Rosebutter! :seeya:
 
  • #786
Where is this information coming from re: interlocutory appeal?
 
  • #787
Honestly are people going nuts with all these shootings? WTtruck?

Im thinking now that the publicity invovled encourages it---but do go with people going nuts...:waitasec:
 
  • #788
  • #789
Is anyone else using the azfamily link having some weird things going on? Mine keeps rewinding or that is what it seems like it is doing.
 
  • #790
Where is this information coming from re: interlocutory appeal?

It was denied because that court did not have jurisdiction over it.
 
  • #791
The claim of being psychologically abused is a tough claim to make unmistakably credible.
The victim of such abuse can speak about terror and manipulation but here we are dealing with the mental state of the observer of behavior that on the face might be NOT threatening. The claim hinges on perceptions.
What is viewed as stupid boorish behavior by one person may be viewed as menacing to another.
Anybody therefore can claim as having been psychologically abused for dubious reasons. Any less than “kind” behavior is interpreted as unjustified and cruel. It is probably the case that people with diminished ego function and those who suffer from poor self-esteem are susceptible to being “abused”.
While conceding that psychological abuse was operative in a relationship it would still be hard to partition blame in the event of violent confrontation. The problem with a defense of “psychological abuse” is that the claim winds up after careful scrutiny to be vacuous. This is because any behavior perceived as abusive is supposed to be taken seriously at face value. And indeed it is impossible to falsify the claim of psychological abuse since the abused is able to define what constituted abusive behavior.
This the difficulty in the JA claim. All JA’s outward behavior would suggest she is culprit and the predator in the TA / JA relationship. JA can and probably will maintain that all or much of TA verbal behavior was manipulative and that JA fell into his thrall with little hope of escape.
The question would arise: “ what TA behavior could have been exhibited against which JA could not have plausibly claimed to have been abusive or manipulative?” What evidentiary details would have to be submitted to falsify JA’s claim of being psychologically abused?
There is no independent evidence that TA was physically or psychologically abusive. It is likely that no evidence of such behavior will be proffered. Hence it will become a matter of
How do we know that TA was abusive? Because JA said so.
That she lived hundreds of miles away – doesn’t matter.
She called him – doesn’t matter.
She drove to him – doesn’t matter.
She stalked him – doesn’t matter.
She writes crazed text messages to rivals – doesn’t matter.
She engaged in kinky sex with him – doesn’t matter.
She took weapons with her – doesn’t matter
She sought to be invisible and undetected while in Mesa – doesn’t matter.
She rented a white vehicle and altered the license plates – doesn’t matter.
She assiduously and studiously lied to the police on multiple occasions – doesn’t matter.
She left a post mortem voice message with TA that normally appears like setting up an alibi – doesn’t matter.
The bloody clothes and murder weapons have been discarded and never found – doesn’t matter.
Bloody palm prints – especially doesn’t matter.
Excessive overkill of TA – not only does that not matter but it actually speaks to the veracity of being abused.
 
  • #792
Well time to fire up the BBQ and catch up later, have fun!

I know you will since adnoid is here lol
 
  • #793
On HLN Vinnie asks his guests to describe in one word, Martinez showing the photo of Travis in court yesterday

Jane: interception
Ryan: foolish
Jean: selfish

:great: Go Jane!!!

He was trying to get the focus back to the reason we are all her. Clearly it was effective, it's the ONE THING everybody keeps talking about!!
 
  • #794
  • #795
Can you explain further why you feel that way? Not the three hole wonder one, I get that one.

Sure. As far as photos go, Jodi took zillions of self portraits. It is assumed Travis took the "graphic" body parts pics of Jodi.. I am not going to assume that, especially considering Jodi's character and track record. It would be great if Prosecution explored TA's computer for any evidence that he took those types of pics, or viewed them.. and then checked Jodi's.

As far as bondage and "kinky" sex being Travis' thing... so far, the source always seems to be Jodi's insinuations and her apologists. She also stated that "they shared online passwords because of mutual distrust"... REALLY? Shall I take her word for it? More likely that SHE is a liar and trespassed all boundaries.. in MANY ways.

I am not saying Travis was a virgin... nor that consensual sex games are wrong.. just that I am not going w/ the subtle innuendos that have been bandied about. Unless I am convinced fairly otherwise. So far.. lies, lies and forged letters, for example. Also, Jodi shows up w/ braided pigtails... and I should assume? that this is Travis' sexual fantasy? Doubt that. Furthermore, maybe she thought she'd lose less hair in the struggle to follow (and that Travis wouldn't find a hair net sexy). Also, don't think she snapped at all, but was very methodical.
 
  • #796
Do you supposes when TA told the waitress that he and JA were not together was in reference to how the meal would be billed on the ticket?
 
  • #797
A little levity . . . .

The famous words of Brigham Young . . . .

I don't care how you bring 'em
Just Bring 'Em Young!

(Rodney Dangerfield)
 
  • #798
uote:
Originally Posted by Chanler
Hi, Wishbone. We don't know in what tone "three-hole wonder" was delivered or, in fact, who said it first. And Jodi might not have taken it as an insult. After all, they did apparently have repeated sex romps and take nude pictures of one another; something I have never even thought of doing with any girlfriend. Jodi was hot to trot and I suspect that whatever his second thoughts, Travis was experiencing his first full discovery of erotic adventure.

....Unfortunately, it helped get him killed.

For all we know it was a pet-name she coined herself, FOR HERSELF!!! Maybe he was being snarky saying it back to her! Yeah, I like that scenario!!

Hi, Sleuth13. You're right. Lacking context, we don't know who coined it and in what spirit it was delivered. Certainly, Travis did not seem adverse to taking a picture of the naked hind quarters of Jodi on the very last day of his life. And, apparently, anal sex was not something that she first experienced at the hands of Travis.

Jodi loved sex. (I would be surprised if she's still not practicing it behind bars.) Who else among could initiate sex just days after witnessing a savage, gory homicide scene?

(And I can't resist mentioning that my niece has more than once horrified holiday gatherings with her graphic nicknames for her erotic practices.)
 
  • #799
So, it was to influence the emotions of the jury. If it was already in evidence, they have a chance to review it whenever they want. It was a stunt by the prosecution to elicit an emotional response. That's all it was.

Okay then. Well praise God for the prosecution!!!!!!
 
  • #800
Originally Posted by TigerBalm
Anyone?
Is this the same place Vicki of RHOA would go and party all the time??

you watch that show too???????:fence:



I'm not proud to "admit" this but aren't you talking about RHOOC?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
3,242
Total visitors
3,330

Forum statistics

Threads
632,609
Messages
18,628,951
Members
243,213
Latest member
bleuuu_
Back
Top