Arias Mitigation Witness One

Because of an alleged fear to testify,   multiple witnesses for Arias were allowed to present affidavits in lieu of live testimony.   Perhaps some did so out of fear,  but can this be true for witness #1 (MMc)?    MMc has been very vocal about his support for Jodi Arias prior to ever becoming mitigation witness #1.   Quotes by this witness can be easily found on social media,  so his support for Jodi Arias is not new knowledge to the masses.    His pedophilia allegations were made known on social media prior to the testimony,  so nothing he would state in his testimony would be new. MMc lives far away overseas so there would be no direct threat if he testified. His willingness to freely state his views and his location makes many believe the only reason MMc does not want to testify is because he knows JM will make him look like a liar.  However,  what MMc doesn't realize is his own words have done that already.  Both his claims about Deanna Reid being abused and his 'discovery'  of Travis' alleged pedophilia image can easily be picked apart.

MMc'S ALLEGATION ABOUT THE DEANNA REID ABUSE

MMc alleged he witnessed a violent episode towards Deanna Reid on the part of Travis Alexander.
MMc's claim:

• "On  or about January 18, 2001, he walked in after an argument and discovered Travis restraining Deanna's wrists. Travis pushed her onto the couch with his knee in her stomach and yelled, "Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."   MMc confronted Travis, and he ran off.  MMc's wife wrapped Deanna's wrists in cool wash cloths and comforted her over an hour."

IDIOT SAVANT?

If what MMc stated was true,  is it something that he would even remember in such detail 13 years after it happened?   Who was Deanna to MMc?   She was not his sister,  not his mother, not his cousin,  and not even his friend.  She was just some girl he knew about.  The fact is,  Deanna held little importance in MMc's life.  He didn't even know that in November of 2001 Deanna and Travis were broken up, and she was not talking to Travis.  Perhaps if he did,  he would have picked a different date to change his testimony to after the first one was debunked.If  Deanna held little importance to MMc,  why would a detailed memory of the minor thing that he alleged happened to her remain in his mind 4,750 days later?     Although all physical violence is bad,  the incident MMc described  was relatively low on the domestic violence scale. It was not the type of incident that leaves a detailed permanent scar on the memory of those who witnessed it unless the witness leads an extremely sheltered life. What MMc described was allegedly seeing Travis holding on to Deanna's wrists and pushing her down on the couch.   MMc might remember something like that occurred 13 years after it did,  but would he have remembered the exact date it occurred?  "This happened on or about January 18th, 2001." Would he have remembered it in enough detail to describe where Travis' knee was at the time? "His knee was on her stomach/ lap." Would he have remembered it in enough detail to describe what his wife did for an insignificant injury?  "Wife wrapped cold washcloths around DR's wrists." And, would he remember what Travis yelled at Deanna?  "Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."      Unless MMc is an idiot savant,  the answer is most likely he would not.  The event was minor, and Deanna held no special importance to MMc.   After 13 years, it is not something a person retains in such  detail he can cite on or about the exact date it occurred.  But, MMc did. And he was even wrong about that.  

MMc was under the belief that the more details he provided,  the more he would be believed.  It backfired with the date he initially alleged the incident occurred.  What he claimed could not have happened on or about January 19th, 2001. Deanna was not even in the country.   

IMPROBABLE TO IMPOSSIBLE

Deanna Reid was not in the country on January 18th, 2001.  She was in Costa Rica for 18 months. She left in June of 2000 and returned in November of 2001.  When the DT told this to MMc,  his story changed.   If one is telling the truth,  one does not have to change their story when evidence is provided which makes their story impossible. However, MMc changed his: 

• MMc stated
• he knew she was on a mission,  so he was surprised to have seen her there the night of the alleged incident
• On the night of the alleged incident,  Deanna told him she had just returned from her mission and only had been home a few days.  
• Only two possibilities exist in regards to the alleged incident
• 1) Deanna was on a break from her mission
• NOT POSSIBLE
• 2) He made an honest error in the time frame and it was later in 2001;  it was a few days after Deanna returned from her mission.
• HIGHLY IMPROBABLE TO IMPOSSIBLE
• MMc also stated he knew that it was Deanna who Travis had abused. He maintained there was no case of mistaken identity
• Travis was not even dating Deanna in November 2001.  He was dating a woman named Linda.

1)  On a break from the mission

• Deanna testified that  there was limited communication between her and Travis during her 18 months in Costa Rica.  She stated the only way they could communicate was through letters.   She added that at no time during a year and a half did they see each other in person.    These statements were made prior to MMc's allegations. 

"It doesn't work that way.  Once you are there for our church, you stay there the whole time. And you don't have visitors coming in and out. Your just focusing on the work that's there"

•  MMc's allegation that Deanna might have been home on a leave when this happened is an impossibility. She was in Costa Rica the entire time.  

2) He made an honest error in the time frame, and it was later in 2001;  it was a few days after Deanna returned from her mission.

• Deanna left for her mission in June of 2000 and returned in November of 2001
• When Deanna returned from her mission in November 2001,  it was a couple of weeks before she first saw Travis and several weeks before she even spoke to him.  There was no opportunity for Travis to have physically attacked Deanna in November 2001 because they were not ever together. They were not even talking.  
• It's too late for MMc to claim another date now.  He sealed the time frame by claiming Deanna told him she had only been home for a few days.  This places the alleged attack in November 2001

MARRIAGE?

In his allegation about the abuse,  MMc implied that it involved Deanna wanting Travis to commit to marriage.  He alleged he overheard Travis state "Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."   This was supposed to be within a few days from when Deanna returned from her mission.    Obviously,  MMc did not listen to both parts of her testimony, or he could have thought up a more solid lie.  Deanna met Travis in 1998, but they were only friends.  She did not start dating him until 2000, and she only dated him a couple of months prior to leaving for Costa Rica. They did discuss the future and marriage,  but Deanna knew she would be gone for a year and a half so she was not really sure if marriage was even a possibility.

On her mission,  Deanna was only able to communicate with Travis through letters.  She did not get to see him,  email him, or call him on the phone during her mission.  Deanna was roughly a year into her mission when the lack of communication started to interfere with her and Travis' relationship.   In the summer of 2001 while Deanna was still in Costa Rica,  Travis wrote her and told her he wanted to start seeing other people.  This signified a break-up between the two of them.  A brief couple of months of physical closeness dwindled down to a year of limited communication and then an ultimate break-up.   However, the break-up did not come to a surprise to Deanna. She didn't expect him to wait a year and a half for her.  Regardless,  she was still hurt.  She only had 3-4 months left on her mission, and during this time communication between the two of them was almost non-existent.  She knew Travis was moving on.    

When Deanna returned home in November,  there was no relationship between the two of them which would support the belief Deanna was pressuring Travis to marry her.  And, without the marriage pressure there can be no attack with Travis yelling ""Get it through your fucking head. I'm not going to marry you."    The lack of the type of relationship in which marriage would be considered is another factor that indicates MMc's allegation is unfounded. 
Travis and Deanna did eventually get back together,  but this was not until 2002. And, even though they occasionally discussed it,   Deanna did not seriously think about marriage until 2005 when she started feeling the social pressure to get married.  MMc was long out of the picture before then.  He moved out of state in July of 2002, so he was not even around when the serious marriage issues came about.
By the end of 2005,  Deanna was ready to get married, and Travis would not commit.  So,  she broke up with him.  According to Deanna,  when she told Travis that she needed to move on,  he started to cry.  She broke his heart, and he only cried. 

 She was asked if he became physically violent with her for breaking his heart:

"Absolutely not"

She was asked if he cursed at her in any way for breaking his heart:

"No,  he did not"

She was asked if he raised his voice in any way for breaking his heart:

"No,  he never raised his voice to me"

Deanna was leaving Travis for his failure to commit to her.  It broke his heart and all he did was cry.  It is not the action of a man who would attack a woman for pressuring him to marry her. 

DEANNA DENIED ABUSE SEVERAL TIMES

During her testimony,  Deanna was asked several times if Travis showed signs of abuse towards her. Unlike MMc's statement,  her answer remained the same.

Deanna was asked if she and Travis ever had arguments.  She answered yes, and they were normal disagreements. She was asked if Travis ever cursed at her:

"NO,  Never"

Deanna was asked if Travis ever physically advanced on her or inflicted any physical violence on her during the time they dated:

"No, Never"

Deanna and Travis stayed friends after she broke up with him.  She was asked if Travis ever screamed at her when he got angry with her. 

"No, he wouldn't"

She was asked if he ever called her names out of anger during that time.

"No"

Deanna was asked if Travis every violently touched her during that time.

"No, he would never do that to me"

"DID he ever scream obscenities at you?"
"No, our relationship was not like that"

"Did he ever physically touch you inappropriate in any way, for example striking you?"

"NO"

"Did he ever curse at you during that time you left in May of 2008?"
"No he didn't"

To believe MMc's affidavit,  one has to believe Deanna Reid lied.  This means yet another person must be added to the long list of those who conspired against Jodi Arias to get her convicted.   The majority of Deanna's testimony would have to be a lie in order to make MMc's affidavit true.   She would have had to be lying about:

The multiple times she said no physical abuse
The multiple times she said he did not curse at her
The multiple times she said he did not raise his voice at her
Only dating him a couple of months before she left on her mission

Staying in Costa Rica the entire time during her mission
Travis breaking up with her before her mission
Not talking to Travis for several weeks after returning from her mission
 Marriage pressure not felt until 2005.

Deanna Reid did not know what MMc's affidavit would show because her testimony came first.  She had no idea what he was going to say in the future.  And,  without knowing what MMc would be claiming,  how could Deanna invent lies which would so perfectly debunk his allegations?   The fact is,  Deanna was telling the truth.  MMc was lying.  Travis never physically abused Deanna Reid.

The DT had to know that MMc was lying.  Previous testimony showed Deanna Reid was in Costa Rica from June 2000 to November 2001.  The DT knew this when MMc initially stated he witnessed abuse on January 18th, 2001 yet they let that fly.  They were willing to present testimony that per prior evidence they knew had to be a lie.   When the prosecutor pointed out the fact in the hearing on January 9th,   MMc's allegation changed.

There were other issues the DT asked Deanna Reid directly and they  accepted it as truth:

Travis and Deanna broke up Summer 2001

Deanna first physically saw Travis a week or so later (but she did not talk to him until much later)
Deanna did not start dating Travis again until 2002
Deanna did not seriously consider marriage until 2005

In fact,  the DT attempted to imply Travis treated Deanna a lot better than he ever treated Arias.  Nurmi even stated (which was striken)
"Must have had a different relationship than he did with Ms. Arias, correct?"
The defense believed then, and they wanted the jury to believe as well,  Travis was only abusive to Jodi.  

If they considered those issues as fact then,  how can they present testimony now from MMc that stated  Travis was abusive to Deanna in November 2001 over an issue related to her pressure for marriage?  They knew she was neither talking to him nor ready to marry him because a relationship did not exist at the time.. It's the promotion of a lie and the DT has a duty of candor to not present that which they know is a lie.  

MMc'S ALLEGATION ABOUT THE CHILD PORN

MMc's credibility is severely damaged due to his false allegation about Travis being abusive to Deanna.   That alone should debunk what MMc claimed about the child porn.  However,  there are things about his child porn allegation that makes the allegation incredibly suspicious. 

If the claim were true,  MMc would have held the information about the child porn prior to Arias ever going to trial.  He was vocal on social media during and after the trial,  but never said one word until early 2014. In one conversation provided  by The Travesties page in October 2014,  MMc is discussing the issue why he didn't bring it up prior to the verdict coming down.  MMc's stated:

 "I did not realize what I knew until Jodi took the stand and was nearly finished. I was under a completely different belief of the situation until that point.  Then she said it and I remembered. and I am not going into details right now."   

• Jodi took the stand and discussed the alleged child porn issues on trial day 16, This was on February 11th, 2013  There was plenty of time for the information MMc alleged to know to be introduced.  Her trial was still going on in April of 2013. It gave MMc plenty of time to contact the DT and present the new evidence which could have been entered in surrebuttal phase to argue against the claim there was no kiddie porn ever found on the computer.  Surrebuttal did not begin until May 1, 2013 which was more than 75 days after Jodi's testimony about her alleged discovery Travis had an attraction to children ended.  MMc's claim there was not enough time is like his allegation Deanna was abused -unfounded.

Even if MMc did not testify,  why has he been so quiet about his claims until recently?  He was well aware many people stated over and over Jodi had no proof of child porn,  and no proof was provided by the DT.    However, he claims he had his "proof"  at his fingertips which he could have shared via multiple outlets prior to the verdict.   And now he  wants the public to believe he kept it to himself until March 2014 when he finally decided to share it with the defense?   Nothing stopped MMc from sharing his "proof"  on social media. In fact,  around March-April 2014 he did.

• MMc provided details about his alleged discovery, and it spread across social media.
• "Allegedly,  in January 2001, when Travis lived in Riverside, California with several Mormon friends, one of the friends discovered a file on a shared computer that contained images of children in questionable poses.  The friend confronted Travis and a discussion ensued into the wee hours of the night. Travis allegedly confessed to his own sexual molestation as a child and gave an example of an incident that occurred on a camping trip. Travis also admitted to a friend that he had an addiction to pornography.  This information along with corroborating supporting evidence was given to Jodi Arias defense team in March.  However, because of the time constraints and logistical obstacles, the friend was not able to appear in court."  

MMc alleged the pedophilia claim happened in January 2001.  This is the same time he initially claimed Travis physically assaulted Deanna Reid in Costa Rica all the way from California.   Like Jodi,  the man seems to like to use similarities in his lies.

However, the big question is not when,  but why.   Why would Travis allegedly share such damning information with someone who was not a close friend?    The information Travis allegedly shared with MMc could have landed him in jail and scarred him for life at the young age of 22. It is a situation that makes a permanent black mark on the record of anyone and is public knowledge for all.  If true and found out,  it meant Travis would have had to register as a sex offender with crimes against children for the rest of his life.   It would have effected any future hopes and dreams of a well-paying job. And,  it would have had a huge negative impact on his dating life and any future Mormon wife he wanted to find.  If the allegation was true,  why would Travis risk all those things and confess to a man he really did not have a tight relationship with?

An interview with one of Travis' real friends indicates that MMc was not even that close of a friend to Travis.  More about this can be found on  http://www.courtchatter.com/2014/12/jodi-arias-another-mystery-witness.html

"He also notes that Travis and Marc were never that close, and he has always doubted the conversation ever took place in the car that day"

If MMc was not a good friend of Travis',  why would he confess when there was another way out?  The computer was a communal computer with multiple users. Any of those users could have downloaded a picture of child porn.  No matter what MMc implied, in reality there would be no definite link to who did it.    

MMc knew he lacked the closeness to Travis to be his confidant.  He also knew if Travis were really a pedophile,  he would never have confessed so easily when there were so many other people who could have downloaded the child porn.    So,  he tailored his affidavit to attempt to provide an excuse as to how he found out and implicate it was definitely Travis who downloaded the porn.   However,  if a person understands a bit about computers,  they can understand why his story is not reasonable.

• MMc was attempting to open a downloads folder on the communal computer owned by the Bishop.   The Bishop had taken some photos of MMc's wedding, and he wanted to see them.  When MMc opened the folder,  child porn popped up on the screen.  He was surprised. The folder had Travis' name on it and the date the file was created.

MMc's story is a lie like no other.  And it shows the MMc doesn't know enough about the way things are downloaded into the download file to use it in his lie.   

  Have you ever downloaded an image from the internet?  If you have and paid attention,  you know why MMc's claim is not reasonable.When downloading an image, it can be saved one of two ways.  The first is under the name the file maker applied to it.  This is automatic, and the user has to do nothing but hit "save." It is how many people save images on their computer.   The second is under the name the user decided to give the file.   For example,  here are two duplicate downloads of puppies from the internet.  I named one and saved it,  and the other I saved under the file maker's tag for the image.  You get one guess which is which.

In order for a downloaded child pornographic image to have Travis' name on it,  Travis would have had to purposely wrote a big "Travis Alexander"  right across the picture of child porn and saved it on a computer that multiple people had access to.   Putting his name on child porn would have been an unbelievable self-incriminating action for an individual to do on a computer with so many users.  It would be like Travis having a scrapbook with his name on it,  putting multiple pictures of child porn in it,  and then leaving it out on the coffee table for anyone in the house to see.   It's not reasonable for anyone with any sense of reason in their head to believe someone would purposely do.   If Travis were a pedophile,  he would do what all pedophiles do; they go to great lengths to hide their secret. They do not purposely put their name on child porn and display it on a computer that has multiple users accessing the downloads file.   There are  ONLY  two ways for Travis' name to get on the alleged image MMc claimed to have discovered.  The first is if Travis put it there himself;  the second is if someone downloaded the image and saved it under Travis' name.   And, if that were the case Travis would have to had confess  a felony he did not commit to a man he did not know that well.  Neither situation is reasonable to believe.  The unreasonableness of MMc's claims indicates that he just was not being truthful.  

MMc did not know Jodi Arias.  However,  like all witnesses he is subject to the same scrutiny and tools to judge whether he is being honest or not.   His stories need to be examined to determine if they could be true and how likely they are to be true.    And,  his stories did not pass the test.

Deanna Reid was not in the country in January 2001 - she could not have been attacked in 1-2001
Deanna Reid was not talking to Travis for several weeks after she returned home in 11-2001 - she could not have been attacked in 11-2001
Deanna Reid had no desire to marry Travis in 11-2001 -- she could not have been attacked for insisting he marry her
Deanna Reid said multiple times Travis never got physical with her -- she could not have been attacked by Travis
Deanna Reid said multiple times Travis never cursed at her or raised his voice -- Travis could not have said "Get it through your fucking head" to DR
Travis was not close friends with MMc -  he would not have told MMc about alleged pedophilia
Travis would have had to write his name on a picture of child porn and not care if all the other multiple users saw it
Travis would have had to confess to using child porn even though there was no definite way to link it to him because of all the other users on the computer.


In the end,  MMc's claims may end up helping the prosecution get their death penalty.   His allegations  are so outrageous in nature and so easily debunked that the jury may associate them to being just another lie told by Arias.   The jury may see the ongoing child porn claims as continued attempts to destroy the reputation of her victim,  and that will not make Arias appear remorseful for her act in the jury's eyes.   It's a very dangerous path the DT is walking because they need to make the jury belief she is remorseful if they want them to spare her life.  And, continuing to lie about pedophilia is far from remorseful.

UPDATE FROM TRIAL DAYS 21 & 22

JM may not have had the opportunity to directly cross-examine MMc (too bad, would have loved to see it),   but he did successfully highlight MMc's inconsistencies in his statements.   MMc had a pre-trial phone interview on 2/27/14 with a member of Robert Geffner's staff,  Stephanie Platt.   MMc wrote his affidavit in 1/2015.  

The Contradictions

2/27/14  "Travis admitted to the pictures"  vs "Travis denied the pictures".  

• MMC stated in his 1/15 affidavit  Travis confirmed possession of child porn: "In the affidavit, MMc says he put a note on the computer to advise Travis to contact him; that the computer crashed. TA woke him up at 2 am. They talked and TA admitted ownership of the pictures"
• In an interview MMc gave on 2/27/14 MMc stated "Travis denied it, despite it being from his screen name from AOL and on the computer itself." At no time in his 2/27/14  interview did MMc claim Travis ever admitted ownership of the pictures

"Deanna Reid was abused in November 2001"vs "Deanna Reid was abused while my wife was living with Bishop Parker"

• Due to the contradiction of DR being out of the country at the time,  MMc changed his allegation and wrote a letter on 1/17/15: "He says it was an error (the 1-18-01 date) and that it could have happened in Nov. or Dec. 2001.  MMc knew that Deanna was home from her mission for only a few days."  Fact ---Deanna Reid was out of the country from June 2000 until she returned in November 2001.  MMc's new words placed the alleged abuse time frame in November 2001  
• MMc stated his soon-to-be wife was living with Bishop Parker when the alleged abuse incident happen (MMc's computer story lie supports this was sometime between 12/2000 and 3/10/2001.).  MMc's old words placed the alleged abuse time frame between January 2001 and 3/2001

MMc's allegations are nothing but lies made-up to give Jodi the corroborating evidence to support her false allegation of abuse and pedophilia.    If he made up the lies of finding the child porn,  one has to consider just how sick this man's mind must be in order to invent the details of the alleged child porn pictures he saw.

• "#1 (MMc) describes the images in detail with approximate ages (10-13 for the boys) and the blonde girl is about 8 years old.One performed oral sex, another was penetrated." 
• What kind of sick SOB can sit there, make up, and describe such images in details in order to promote a lie?  

ARIAS CONTRADICTIONS

Arias' testimony "I walked in and Travis was on the bed masturbating................  I was heading towards the dresser and I stopped.......he started grabbing at something on the bed.  I realized they were papers.   One went sailing off the bed and it landed face up near my feet.  It was a little boy of about 5 in his underwear."


On 2/03/10  Psychologist #1 (ALV) took hand-written notes during her forensic interview she had with Arias.  In the notes,  Arias said the child porn was on the computer,  " Child porn pictures of little boys--she walked in on him viewing this on the internet."

On 4/29/10  Jodi wrote a statement.  - "pictures were spread out on his bed & he was on his knees masturbating"



We all must work together to right a wrong when a wrong is being committed. These are snips posted on "Understanding the Travesties of Unexpected Murder Trials."    They clearly demonstrate what kind of man MMc is.  

https://www.facebook.com/BestNewsSiteCoveringtheAriasTrial?ref=stream

A previous message per MMc - He stated he never saw Travis getting physical with a woman.  MMc is a liar. 

Transcript of Deanna Reid's testimony (part involving Costa Rica and breakup)

J When did you meet him
D In 1998
J How did you meet him
D We met through mutual friends
J After meeting him did you immediately become involved, just friends?  Describe the relationship you and he had in the beginning
D We were friends at first and began dating in 2000
J Describe for me the relationship in the year 2000 once you and he began dating
D We started dating in the year 2000 and then I left for Costa Rica for a year and a half
J How long were you and he dating before you left to go to Costa Rica?
D Just for a couple of months.
J When did you go to Costa Ricca - if you could give me a month and a year?
D In June 2001

J and how long was your stint in Costa Rica?
D for a year and a half

J When did you return?
D I returned in November of 2001

J Was this Costa Rica trip for pleasure or something else
D I was serving  a mission for my church

J And your church is what?
D the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints

J and what are the rules of contact let's say with a boyfriend while you are serving a mission - what is allowed and required of you in terms of contact with a boyfriend?
D when I left on my mission there was to be no communication like telephone calls. At that time they did not allow emails. The only way we could communicate was thru letters.

J And,  would he write you?
D Yes
J And, did you write him back?
D Yes,  I did.


J at anytime during that year and a half did you have occasion to fly up and see him?
D NO
J and did he ever fly down there to see you?
D  NO.  It doesn't work that way.  Once your there on the mission for our church,  you stay there the whole time and you don't have visitors coming in and out, your just focusing on the work that's there.  

J and during that time you were there towards the end were there problems that developed in the relationship?
D Yes

J And what were those problems and approximately when?
D It was towards the end of my mission.  It just had been a long time to not see someone your dating  face to face and be able to like talk to them and hear their voice.

J  How old were you when you went on your mission?
D  I was 21 years old.

J and how old was Travis?
D He's a year older than me, He was 22.

J  What were the problems I interupted you....
D It just became difficult not being able to communicate with each other besides the letters,  so he wanted to start dating other people. So he wrote me a letter letting me know that so it wouldn't be as if he was being unfaithful to me.

J so before he did this he let you know via a letter?
D correct

J About how long before you returned did he let you know he wanted to date other people?
D  I believe it was in the summer of 2001

J had he started dating people earlier would there of been anyway you could have found out?
D No

J So, when he told you this is that the time you broke up?
D  Yes it is

J What year and month did you return?
D I returned in November of 2001

J And when you returned - what city were you living in back then?
D I was living in Riverside Ca

J Where was TA living?
D He was also living in Riverside Ca.

J when you came back did you have occasion to start meeting with him, seeing him,  talking to him or anything like that?
D Yes, several weeks after I had been home from my mission we started talking again and I would see him at church so we began talking and being friends again.

J And did it become more than a friendship?
D It did,  we began dating again.

J When?
D  In the beginning of 2002

J Was it exclusive,  did you talk about it?
D At that time we were exclusive when we started dating again in 2002

KN how did that friendship turn into a dating relationship
D We just starting hanging out and spending more time with each other on a regular basis and got to know each other better. We liked each other and started dating.

K Was marriage brought up between the two of you before Costa Rica
D It was brought up but I knew I would be leaving for a long period of time and the possibility of that happening ... I just wasn't sure that would really happen or not

K Did he propose prior to you leaving for your mission?
D No

K Did he encourage you to not go on this mission?
D No

K Did he express a preference that you stay with him and get married as opposed to going on this mission
D No

K you said you were gone about a year and a half, right?
D yes

K and the only mode of communication that was available to you based on the dictates of your mission was that you could only right letters.  Is that correct
D That's correct.

K is this letter writing for family or friends or are there different boundaries or rules?
D It applies to everyone.  I was allowed to telephone my family twice a year on Mother's day and on Christmas.

K So you were not allowed any phone contact with TA in these 18 months?
D Just the letters.

K and he wrote you a letter expressing a desire to see other people, correct?
D yes

K When you received the letter it was a pretty significant moment, correct?
D I don't know what you mean by significant

K Well, when you left you were thinking you might marry this man.
D I really didn't expect him to wait for me the entire time.

K So this letter you received then,  it was no big deal?
D I wouldn't say that it wasn't a big deal

K How long was it into your mission was it that you received this letter?
D It was well into my mission.  I was to be returning home in just a few months.

K Did this letter state who he wanted to date?
D  No, it didn't

K Did you have a change to respond to that letter before you returned?
D Yes, I did

K How many letters did you exchange after that, do you know?
D I don't know

K When you received that letter,  you weren't upset, you weren't heartbroken?
D  I was sad

K Heartbroken?
D I wouldn't say heartbroken at that time.

K Where you in love with him at that time?
D I was in love with him. But I was so busy with what I was doing there it was a good distraction to be there and doing what I was doing.  I wasn't focused on our relationship.  I was focused on the work I was doing in Costa Rica

K would it be fair to say you were hurt but you had other outlets to help you deal with that hurt?
D Yes

K How long was it before you saw TA?
D  Before I SAW him for the first time?  It was about two weeks I would say ... a week or so.

K how come it took so long?
D Because I figured he was moving on with his live and we were just in different places.  I had a lot of family stuff going on at that time.  And so I figured I would call him when I was ready.

K Did you know him to be dating anyone in particular when you got back?
D I didn't know

K Are you familiar with a person named Linda Balid?
D yes I am

K And who was she to Travis?
D She was the person he was dating at that time


K Did you meet her?
D Yes I did.

K Did you know her before you left for Costa Rica?
D No, I didn't

K What was your impression of the seriousness of the relationship b/t Travis and Linda?
D I didn't know the level of seriousness of their relationship.

K When you began to see him again after these few weeks passed,  did you see him as friends or did you begin dating again?
D  I saw him as friends

K And you started dating in again in 2002,  right?
D right.