This aspect of the case is fascinating to me. I only became aware of this case a couple of weeks ago having heard, and I paraphrase: Attractive woman viciously slays boyfriend in Mormon community. Controversial DP ruling expected, i.e. first pretty woman ever to get DP.
I read about it online in an English/Irish newspaper. It's seems the level of attractiveness does not dictate the crime but, perhaps, the sentence.
Throughout her life, it appears that Jodi may have relied on her looks to get what she wanted and to manipulate. Given that, I doubt it's been easy for her to get her head around her current reality and until recently was still standing tall on her self-made pedestel.
She has lost that 'attractiveness' I first saw when I read that article. She looked the part yesterday, appearing quite frightening and evil looking in court. Some of the looks she threw at the jurors - and particularly - Mr Martinez, were very ugly. I think since the Murder 1 verdict, she is now very aware of her public image. She didn't appear to have this awareness during the post-verdict interview, imagining a 50/50 split. I think that her own perceived image is now more aligned with her actual public image. It shows on her face. Enter Jodi the monster to the courtroom in Aggravation Phase.
Every human alive shows bias. A well-known study (2004) on infants show that even newborns show a preference for faces that are deemed attractive. Despite the fact that an attractive face happens to represent the prototype for a human face, this preference appears to be hardwired at birth.
A face is a record of a life lived. I think Jodi's has really begun to show on hers.
uke:
