Armchair Psych discussion of Jodi Arias

[MeeBee]

I also came to the trial late and I strongly suggest you take a look at the first two weeks' testimony. If you're struggling to form an opinion it would be only fair if you saw the prosecution's case presented, medical examiners, detectives, Travis's ex-girlfriend's testifying. You can find it on YouTube - Jodi Arias Trial Day # Part 1/2/3.

Also, I agree with you that Travis was not very nice to Jodi. I certainly would not have dated him. However, you have to look at *many* factors in Travis's life that help explain things. He had a terrible upbringing early on. He was conflicted between his religion (which was especially important to him because it was important to people who saved him from his upbringing - his grandparents) and his natural desires. To me, he simply seemed a bit immature, more like a high school teenager than a 30 year old man, but perhaps it was due to the fact that he had to focus on other things (escaping the poverty) and did not have the time to achieve the emotional maturity. (I hope this doesn't cross the line into being victim-unfriendly, if yes, I apologize).

Finally, even if he was verbally abusive to JA, the bottom line is the evidence clearly shows 1) premeditation, 2) cruelty, 3) coverup from the beginning to end, 4) absolute lack of remorse. If Jodi had been a prone-to-anger person who had snapped and killed him after a fight, and called 911 in tears admitting what she had done, I would not judge her as harshly. (She'd be guilty of murder 2, but not of murder 1).

In my view there's absolutely no conflict here, it simply does not matter if Travis had some flaws. The entire defense is built on character assassination - the pedophile letters (you mentioned you just became aware of them) were forged by Jodi to support her claims. It's very clear from the texts that nothing happened on the day she supposedly discovered the pedophile photo. She claimed that this is what triggered the physical violence (the broken finger) and clearly that is a lie as well. Everything is built on that day and everything falls apart like a house of cards if you examine the lack of logic behind her story. She and the defense team are absolutely vile IMHO to accuse Travis of the worst things they could come up :furious: and to me by the way it would serve as an aggravating factor when sentencing - someone who is capable of this on the stand is probably capable of a lot more behind the scenes. Because of these vile accusations it's very natural that many people are skeptical and very defensive about even the slightest accusation against him and I can absolutely understand that.

And here is why I feel it in my soul that it was actually the one pressuring Travis for sex when they met:

You have Jodi, who two men, at least have described sexually aggressive, assertive. You have one who says she pushed him up against a car and basically started making out and grinding him on their first date in front of people.

You have Travis, who a past girlfriend says never pressured her for sex. Never asked for it. Was respectful of her and listened to her when she said she didn't like him grabbing her butt. He was slow to anger and they parted on good terms.

So now, we are expected to believe that the night she meets Travis, all of a sudden, the roles change and Travis is the one pressuring Jodi for sex upon meeting her and she just goes along with it because she likes him and doesn't want to disappoint him? Does this even follow these individual's character patterns? If one person from Travis' past had come up and said, yes, he was too aggressive, he made me uncomfortable, etc. etc. I could believe what Jodi is saying. But it just doesn't jive.

You have Jodi on direct acting ashamed of the sex they had and almost representing it as rape. You have Jodi on cross talking confidently of the sex with a little self satisfied smile on her face as she her self admits that the sex was ALWAYS consensual, it was ALWAYS enjoyable, and any time she said stop or that she didn't want it(if she ever did), TRAVIS COMPLIED. She presents things a way to make her look like this passive victim. But once the truth, from her mouth, from her texts and emails, come out, we get the full picture.

 

[SMK]

You should see my sister's *advertiser censored*. Maybe that'll restore you faith :floorlaugh: JK!

Great! There are normal women out there!:great:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Here is a link from an Arizona newspaper that further discusses the emails between the Hugheses and TA. The emails were discussed in a previous hearing.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...r-celebrity-becomes-issue.html?nclick_check=1

For fear of having to "duck and cover" I just left the link rather than describe the content of the emails.

Thank you for the link.
What TA stated about himself, is something I've pondered. Interesting.

Also, it's incredible to read that both LE and the prosecution tried to avoid turning TA's emails (8,000) over to the defense. How's that even possible?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

 

[Cate49]

Well it matters to me. She has been able to slaughter Travis again with lies of abuse and pedophile allegations. These accusations should be considered in sentencing.

 

[MeeBee]

Thank you for the link.
What TA stated about himself, is something I've pondered. Interesting.

Also, it's incredible to read that both LE and the prosecution tried to avoid turning TA's emails (8,000) over to the defense. How's that even possible?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

This is pretty standard. Allowing the emails of a dead man would be hearsay as he is not here to interpret them. Allowing the shady DT to interpret them for him would be dangerous. The only reason the ones we have seen have come into the trial is because they were to Jodi.

 

[Hammy]

So now, we are expected to believe that the night she meets Travis, all of a sudden, the roles change and Travis is the one pressuring Jodi for sex upon meeting her and she just goes along with it because she likes him and doesn't want to disappoint him? Does this even follow these individual's character patterns? If one person from Travis' past had come up and said, yes, he was too aggressive, he made me uncomfortable, etc. etc. I could believe what Jodi is saying. But it just doesn't jive.

You have Jodi on direct acting ashamed of the sex they had and almost representing it as rape. You have Jodi on cross talking confidently of the sex with a little self satisfied smile on her face as she her self admits that the sex was ALWAYS consensual, it was ALWAYS enjoyable, and any time she said stop or that she didn't want it(if she ever did), TRAVIS COMPLIED. She presents things a way to make her look like this passive victim. But once the truth, from her mouth, from her texts and emails, come out, we get the full picture.

I absolutely agree with you. For me her entire testimony about their first sexual experiences rang false from the beginning. I just do not believe that a sexually inexperienced guy meets a girl for the first time and then a week later he goes down on her while at a friend's house. It's a very bold move and it just does not ring true. If I had to make a guess as to what rings true, she probably went down on him, certainly not against his will, but probably surprising him.

For me personally, it became crystal clear that she was the experienced one and the person who initiated things after hearing the sex tape. I actually thought that Travis was more experienced and had sex with others prior and possibly during his relationship with her and was absolutely floored by how inexperienced he sounded.

Moreover, something really stood out to me after that tape was played and that something clearly demonstrated to me how she operates. The very next day in trial after the tape was played, she says (paraphrasing) - "well obviously his problem was getting worse, he was fantasizing about raping 12 year old girls". I was SHOCKED... we all heard the tape... and yet she sat there and without a hint of shame twisted something that we all heard! That really takes a lot of nerve and I really hope some of the jurors caught that.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Or that Travis was standing up for himself and had enough. Face it- if the victim were a woman and the killer a male no one would be even asking about the killer abusing a victim. Imagine if Travis were your brother or friend or loved one, how would you feel? That's what gets me, a woman stalks a man and slaughters him and here we are debating whether or not he's an abusive pedofile or a potential rapist. Jodi Arias is deadly and if you don't believe me look at the crime scene photos. She did that. Want to know what she did after? Hooked up with another guy and sent Travis's grandma flowers. Travis is the victim not Jodi.

Yes, TA is the ultimate victim. As far as the psychology goes surrounding the circumstances of the killing, it seems as if he was almost asking for it though. His friend asked him something along the lines of if he feared he may be inviting retaliation from JA after sending her a scathing email. I guess TA didn't care even though JA allegedly had been stalking him, intruding into his personal spaces, damaging his belongings while all his friends sensed something was weird about JA. Does TA's behavior make any sense considering the warnings others seemed to be picking up on?

Imo JA will be sentenced to prison.

 

[lil_buddy]

OMG. It's time to break out the ignore list.

 

[Cate49]

Will there really be justice for travis? I don't think that her execution is enough. His character has been ripped to shreds.

 

[MeeBee]

OMG. It's time to break out the ignore list.

I can't believe it either. I'm trying to be understanding but I can't.

It's like saying a rape victim deserves it because she dresses provocatively and acts like a *advertiser censored*.

Yes, because he had the gall to call out Jodi for "scamming" and "hurting" him, he was "asking for it."

What?!?!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

This is pretty standard. Allowing the emails of a dead man would be hearsay as he is not here to interpret them. Allowing the shady DT to interpret them for him would be dangerous. The only reason the ones we have seen have come into the trial is because they were to Jodi.

I'm going out of order in responding but I wondered about the prosecution's objections 'hearsay' yesterday during the trial.

Why are emails considered hearsay? Aren't they direct communications between party A and party B? I thought hearsay was third party recollection of what somebody else told them, as in she told me he said this or that.

 

[slanda]

In my opinion, it doesn't always help us as a human race to say, "That person is psychotic" ...and that's it. Ok, so maybe they are psychotic, but why?

Sometimes, I think, if we gloss over specific and distinct personality disorders and the effects of them, we lose the chance at understanding the signs and symptoms they present for future knowledge.

By no means does saying that JA had/has Personality Disorders excuse her of what she did. I think thats where people get confused. It's always been in my nature to ask, why?

She obviously had a motive and other glaring issues and to me, and I'm just sorting them out here, but I am not saying that JA isn't at fault, obviously. I want to know why she killed him 3x over. I am not equivocating between JA & TA. I don't think anyone is actually. No one is saying that she's the victim and he's not.

Personally, I absolutely think they had a toxic relationship and there's probably still things no one knows. Do I think TA is a pedophile? Absolutely not. Do I think she was obsessed with him? Yes. Do I think he knew she was? Yes.

To me, there's just a lot about this entire case to work through and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[MeeBee]

I absolutely agree with you. For me her entire testimony about their first sexual experiences rang false from the beginning. I just do not believe that a sexually inexperienced guy meets a girl for the first time and then a week later he goes down on her while at a friend's house. It's a very bold move and it just does not ring true. If I had to make a guess as to what rings true, she probably went down on him, certainly not against his will, but probably surprising him.

For me personally, it became crystal clear that she was the experienced one and the person who initiated things after hearing the sex tape. I actually thought that Travis was more experienced and had sex with others prior and possibly during his relationship with her and was absolutely floored by how inexperienced he sounded.

Moreover, something really stood out to me after that tape was played and that something clearly demonstrated to me how she operates. The very next day in trial after the tape was played, she says (paraphrasing) - "well obviously his problem was getting worse, he was fantasizing about raping 12 year old girls". I was SHOCKED... we all heard the tape... and yet she sat there and without a hint of shame twisted something that we all heard! That really takes a lot of nerve and I really hope some of the jurors caught that.

Well, said.

I think it's truly and deeply unfair to judge a man based on what he said in a sex phone conversation in which he clearly is unaware he is being recorded. You should hear some of the nasty things my husband has said to me during phone sex.

I agree, also, that he did sound so inexperienced. And that she is the one who lured him into a sexual conversation. Why would she do this? What was she planning on doing with the tape?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

OMG. It's time to break out the ignore list.

The rule on websleuths is don't threaten, just do it.

 

[lil_buddy]

I can't believe it either. I'm trying to be understanding but I can't.

It's like saying a rape victim deserves it because she dresses provocatively and acts like a *advertiser censored*.

Yes, because he had the gall to call out Jodi for "scamming" and "hurting" him, he was "asking for it."

What?!?!

and it's coming from someone who said they were blamed for their own stupid missteps by the police when they were victimized.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm going out of order in responding but I wondered about the prosecution's objections 'hearsay' yesterday during the trial.

Why are emails considered hearsay? Aren't they direct communications between party A and party B? I thought hearsay was third party recollection of what somebody else told them, as in she told me he said this or that.

Yes, it is hearsay. They are communications between party A and B. And if neither party A or B is the one talking about what was going on in the conversation, it is hearsay.

Isn't it interesting that in all the thousands of correspondence between Jodi and Travis, that the only time his words from him to her can even remotely be construed as "mean," was when he was clearly hurt and pizzed with her? Isn't that telling that this is all the defense has?

 

[justice be served]

Yes, TA is the ultimate victim. As far as the psychology goes surrounding the circumstances of the killing, it seems as if he was almost asking for it though. His friend asked him something along the lines of if he feared he may be inviting retaliation from JA after sending her a scathing email. I guess TA didn't care even though JA allegedly had been stalking him, intruding into his personal spaces, damaging his belongings while all his friends sensed something was weird about JA. Does TA's behavior make any sense considering the warnings others seemed to be picking up on?

Imo JA will be sentenced to prison.

Oh sure, I think Travis was asking for it. I guess it's time for me to shut down my computerbefore I get a time out. :furious:

 

[Hammy]

In my opinion, it doesn't always help us as a human race to say, "That person is psychotic" ...and that's it. Ok, so maybe they are psychotic, but why?
...
By no means does saying that JA had/has Personality Disorders excuse her of what she did. I think thats where people get confused. It's always been in my nature to ask, why?
...
I want to know why she killed him 3x over.

There are various reasons why people develop personality disorders, partially genetic, partially due to their environment. There's nothing to suggest in this case that Travis's behavior somehow triggered her antisocial personality disorder, there were clear signs of it prior to the relationship.

Regarding why she killed him 3x times over - she was angry at him for not wanting to be with her and wanted to punish him. People with antisocial personality disorder do not feel empathy for others so she did not care about the pain and suffering that she would inflict on him. The reason why it was such an overkill, in my opinion, is that she really wanted to make sure he was dead, and did not stop stabbing until he stopped moving.

All the reasons for this crime can be found within Jodi. Travis has very little to do with it, basically you could say that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone else could have very easily been in his place. IMHO.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

There are levels of domestic abuse. How do we determine what is an exeptable response to the experience of the victim. Harsh words are said during times of anger that could be classified as verbal abuse. This is common (IMO) in relationships. When does it become forgivable to kill an abuser?

Wait, is this a trick question?
That's up to the person who is being or was abused. I've witnessed a parent whose child was murdered offer mercy and forgiveness to the child's killer. Only God can enable grace like that in someone's heart. Obviously, a person who has been killed is no longer here to forgive their killer.

I've posted that I can't forgive easily for lesser crimes committed against my person. I've often wondered if someone actually asked me to forgive them, if I could/would. I'm pretty sure the answer is 'yes'. But then they never have asked so screw them.

My two examples of abuse didn't involve harsh words, only harsh actions. We should keep in mind that, when we say harsh words to a person we claim to care about, they can never be unheard. Even if the person forgives you when you ask them to, your words have already been spoken.

 

[slanda]

There are various reasons why people develop personality disorders, partially genetic, partially due to their environment. There's nothing to suggest in this case that Travis's behavior somehow triggered her antisocial personality disorder, there were clear signs of it prior to the relationship.

Regarding why she killed him 3x times over - she was angry at him for not wanting to be with her and wanted to punish him. People with antisocial personality disorder do not feel empathy for others so she did not care about the pain and suffering that she would inflict on him. The reason why it was such an overkill, in my opinion, is that she really wanted to make sure he was dead, and did not stop stabbing until he stopped moving.

All the reasons for this crime can be found within Jodi. Travis has very little to do with it, basically you could say that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone else could have very easily been in his place. IMHO.

I absolutely agree. Yet, she doesn't "fit" into contemporary psychiatric PD's. She has shades of at least two, but, as with ASPDs she hasn't been incarcerated, no hx of severe violence or depravity, or stealing, etc......

She was obsessed. Clearly. She did have boundary problems, and as I've said before seems to melt herself into the person she likes. She morphs her religious views and herself rather quickly.

She has a hx of confronting other lovers and or their girlfriends. NPD? Yes, I think so.

I think, the scientific community has much to learn from these "people"

Brain scans of people who suffer from Schizophrenia, or who are Anti-social, or who have sustained reoccurring head trauma, ETC... are proven to be different than the rest of us.

I have no reason to defend or equivocate. Yet, that is why Personality Theory & Abnormal Psychology is so difficult, because some believe that to be the case. :blushing: