FreeJodi Wordpress - "Sexual Attraction to Children" debunked

George Barwood's "evidence' that Travis had a sexual interest in children can be debunked as the weak piece of crap it is.   His evidence is based on the words of two liars and he presents their statements as if they were "facts."  Sorry, Barwood, two juries and the majority of the world have already determined these two witnesses had no credibility.  It was only Jodi's mental illness that saved her ass in the end.  Juror 17 felt Jodi was not "normal" so she couldn't in good conscience sentence her to death.

George believes just because someone made a claim it can be used as "evidence" to corroborate someone else's claim. IE: A LIAR SUPPORTING A LIAR. Barwood has forgotten to consider all the evidence and common sense in his article.    For example:  No woman would say she wanted to help a pedophile get better and then use kids' underwear she "knew" he associated with sex with children to arouse him so he would have sex with her after he declined the offer.

The evidence GB could stretch to work in his favor was so few that he had to include evidence unrelated to pedophilia to make his article longer.  AND,  he had to regurgitate "Tweets"  to serve as official "Sources" to try to make his article appear credible.  Sorry, repeating the tweet that repeated the words of a man repeating the lies of another does not a fact or source make.  Try again, George.




THE ARTICLE:  SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN

"This is a summary of the evidence corroborating Jodi's testimony that Travis Alexander had a sexual attraction to children."  FACT:  A person cannot corroborate their claim by making another one.

1.   Travis referred to a 12 year old girl in a sexual way.
• INCORRECT.  Travis was not referring to a 12-year old girl.  He was referring to a 27- year old waitress who was moaning in a little girl voice.  He was expressing the fact JODI was hot sounding like that; not that he wanted to boink a 12-year old.
  Jodi's response?  She giggled and moaned exactly the same way later on. According to Jodi, she was faking it. She could have changed her voice, right?  
• What would it say of Jodi if she knew he was a pedophile, was associating her tone of moaning with child-sex, and she didn't try to change it even though she was "faking"?
  
2. "Spiderman" underwear that Travis gave Jodi as a Valentine's present. Note, the existence of this was corroborated by a text message. (The one where Jodi used the Spidey's to try to convince Travis to have sex with her after he said no.)
• INCORRECT:  The text message corroborated the Spidey's existed, but they did not corroborate Travis gave them to Jodi.   His choice of phrasing is an attempt to make it appear like both Travis giving them to Jodi and their existence was corroborated.  Repeating Jodi's testimony (Travis gave them to her) cannot corroborate her own claim.  AND, just because Jodi said it, does not make it fact.  It does not mean Jodi is to be automatically believed. 
• Travis HATED Spiderman - FACT
• Jodi LIKE Spiderman - FACT
• Who is more likely to buy Spiderman underwear?  Jodi or someone who hates it?
•   According to the "pedo letter",  Jodi would have known the spidey's were allegedly a symbol to fulfill child-sex fantasies.  
• Jodi kept the underwear and used them for sex even though she "knew"
• A month after she allegedly "caught him in the act",  she used the Spideys to try to convince Travis to have sex with her after he disappointed her by canceling their planned sex romp
• What does it say of a woman who would be willing to encourage pedophilia just to fulfill her own sexual needs?
  
3. Pornographic videos found on Travis' computer.
• INCORRECT:  They were videos of adults engaging in a popular sexual fantasy that Jodi and Travis practice.  
• George has to try to "fool" the audience by making it seem like there were child-porn videos discovered.
• It's the stretch of a desperate man without a leg to stand on when he tries to turn adult porn into child porn.
  
4. A witness caught Travis downloading child porn in Jan 2001.
• INCORRECT;  This is not "FACT" that corroborates Jodi's story. It's an allegation in an affidavit by a man too afraid to face cross examination.  Affidavits are not considered strong evidence because they prevent cross-examination, making it easier for the writer to lie in them.
• The "witness" changed his story.
• Part of the "witness'" claim was challenged by another person not afraid to face cross.
• The owner of the computer stated there was only adult porn on it 
• The computer was taken to a shop to remove the adult porn.  No child porn was found.
  
5. The letter was proof.
• INCORRECT:  There was not any proof the letter was authentic.  In fact, anyone with common sense can tell the letter was fake.
• It could easily be created by taking Travis' written word, cutting them out, pasting them together, and photocopying
• JA had access to both TA's handwritten copy of his book and his journals. 
• The letter was a set of many that, if admitted, would support Jodi's claims.  
• Jodi claimed f not admitted, it was detrimental to her case.
• Jodi was informed the originals were needed
• She said someone else had them.
• Jodi was asked for this witnesses name.
• She refused to give it.
• Her case was not known at the time.
• Jodi refusal to either produce the originals or name the witness meant there was no chance the "life-saving" evidence could be considered.
• The letter was dated one year to the date prior to the alleged incident.
• Comparing Jodi's story and the phone call history, only 44 minutes would have passed between the time she allegedly caught him and called him to tell him she would talk about it.
• Why would Travis write, date and sign a letter detailing a felony that would ruin his life forever if the letter fell in the wrong hands when he knew she was going to talk to him?
• According to Jodi,  he talked and she listened for over an hour that night, she forgave him, and they had anal sex.
• Why would Travis write, date, and sign a felony confession that would stigmatize him forever and give it to Jodi if he explained it face-to-face and she forgave him?  -- Especially when she had lied and violated his privacy countless times before.
• According to the letter,  he raped little boys and anal sex was related to his desire for little boys.
• After reading the letter, why would she have anal sex with him if she knew he raped little boys and he associated anal sex with raping little boys?
• How would engaging in an act that an alleged pedophile is supposed to associate with child sex help him?
• According to the letter,  he raped little boys and the purpose of the boy's underwear was so he could fantasize Jodi was a little boy.
• Why would Jodi keep them, continue to wear them for sex, and then use them to get him to change his mind and have sex with her?

George Barwood's details regarding (1)

• Travis referred to Jodi as a porn star and used porn terms like "cream pie".
• THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA.
• One month after she allegedly learned of his perversion, Jodi told the alleged pedophile the following when he canceled their sexual liaison
• Fuck her like a horny school girl
• give her ass a good pounding (anal, like in the letter relating it to child fantasy)
• she shaved her pussy to be nice and smooth
• she was putting a school girl outfit together with the spideys (the ones allegedly purposed for child sex fantasies)
• She was very upset, sad, and disappointed when he canceled their sexual liaison and used guilt and sexual innuendo involving anal and kids underwear to get him to give in to her needs.
• During a casual text conversation about looking at emails, Jodi said the following to the alleged pedophile
• Would you rather I say my fingers are in my pussy? That I am a horny little girl who need immediate alleviation.
• Travis directed the conversation back to a civil one.
• During a casual text conversation about pictures,  the following happened
• TA: (Pics) you look like a beautiful adventurous, successful, photo journalist but not trying to hard.
• JA:  Thanks, That is what I was going for.
• TA: You nailed it.
• JA:  I got something you could nail..... kidding, sort of.
• TA redirected it back to a civil one.

George Barwood's details (3) 

• Nurmi said Travis had Jodi dressed in braids and video showed girl teen in braids having sex w/ teacher.
• "NURMI SAID" does not make it fact
• No proof Travis had Jodi dress in braids.
• Jodi liked braids, she thought they were "hot"
• In her own words, sex tape
• Jodi wore braids with other people, not just Travis
• Many adult women wear braids.
• The teacher/ student is a fantasy many adults have IE:
• "Fuck me like a horny little school girl"
• "I was putting together a school girl outfit"
• When Travis told her no sex.

George Barwood details (4)

• Dr Geffner testified a witness told him....
• Notes show the witness made contradicting statements to Geffner.
• The witness changed his story when he learned it didn't work.
• COMMON SENSE
• Witness said file w/ child porn in it and TA name on it popped up
• Why would someone put their name on such a file?
• Said TA admitted it to him and that he was abused at age 12 as a child
• The computer was a communal computer used by many which means it would be unlikely for any pedophile to admit it when they had a way out. Especially when they barely knew the accuser.
• Neither the child porn nor the file were found when the computer was taken in to remove all the porn.  Deleting files does not remove them forever. It would had been found.
• He also said he saw TA holding DR down and saying "get into your fucking head I am not marrying you.'
• THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA
• DR denied it ever happened.
• DR was not in the country on the date the witness claimed this happened.
• Witness changed his dates when he found out even though he claimed he used his wife's DATED journal as corroboration.  Said it happened when she returned.
• When DR arrived back, she and TA were not dating or really talking because they were broke up.  She was NOT expecting marriage.

USING TWEETS AS 'SOURCES' DOES NOT MAKE THEM TRUE

"On 21 Jan 2015, it was established that the couch incident happened on 18 Jan 2001"

FALSE:  It was never "established" the "couch incident' even happened.  A witness affidavit is not convincing evidence when the witness refuses to face cross-examination.  

The same witness previously posted that he never saw Travis Alexander being violent towards any woman. Pushing a woman down on a couch and holding her wrists so tightly that cool cloths had to be put on them after would be "violent" if it happened.  So, according to the witness' first statement, it never happened because he never saw TA being violent to a woman.