Poll for the Armchair Psychologists

[pinkie60]

I think she had behavior that was so malignant and detrimental to her family, that they had tried everything in the parental jurisdiction to control her, but could not.

Many times parents last resort is to call the police if they feel their child might have issues with drugs and wreckless behavior and refuses to seek help/treatment.

The courts many times will self youth to rehab centers or mental health facilities if they believe the youth could benefit.

So who in the system looked at Jodi and thought - "eh just give her some time and send her on her way" ? Probably doesn't matter who, bc the antisocial PD can manipulate very early on how others perceive them in order to get out of trouble. I'm sure she played victim.

Trying to discipline/help an ASPD teen as a parent is seen as an all out betrayal in the mind of the ASPD. Essentially she felt like her parents betrayed and tattled on her, when in reality calling state authorities was the last resort to put some sense in her mind that her behavior was wrong.

she can't stand people holding her accountable for her negative behavior. It is an affront to her antisocial motivations/nature.

IMHO

thanks for explaining it. now it mqkes sense.

 

[bettybaby00]

I thought I knew everything about the case, but no. I can't believe this diary entry from 08/02/07 that did not get into evidence, I don't think. What kind of person goes from thinking "Gosh, I love him so much" to "extinguish HIM" (not the love) in one sentence?

Here's the text:

"I love him. I could not possibly love him not, though I wish I could stop. Turn it off like a lightswitch. Duct tape it down so it can't turn back on. Or better yet, just cut the circuit. Cut off its life source. Make it dead in a second. Lifeless. A meaningless network of wires that do and mean nothing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=6gPP2dMxQGY

Whoa.....how was this not used!!!!??? Wonder what ALV thought of that entry?? :banghead::banghead:

 

[Gecko100]

Whoa.....how was this not used!!!!??? Wonder what ALV thought of that entry?? :banghead::banghead:

Maybe it is only meaningful if you take it literally and not metaphorically. She does not strike me as a linear thinker.

 

[Gecko100]

Yet TA turned out fine and overcame the difficulty. Situations do not define people[/QUOTE


I agree, situations do not define people especially if they are fleeting.
Ongoing sexual physical emotional and neglectful terror does though.
Especially if it lasts for 6 years, and you have a tiny little growing brain.
He is a victim of war domestic war, and he had no reason to think that his parents cared about him at all.
That just doesn't go away by itself, and all of the research that has ever been done on the topic of child abuse would agree with me, and so would 100% of psychiatrists psychologists social workers et al.

His primary childhood emotional and physical needs have never been met. Neither has the primary psychological milestone of trust vs mistrust. (Erickson)
Erickson stages of individuation, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Piaget, Kholberg's theories of moral development, Jung, Freud, John Bowlby Alice Miller
just off the top of my head, would without a single doubt in my mind would agree with me too.

I would be mightily impressed if you can find something to refute it.

Anyone who has experienced any terrorising war situations for 6 years will tell you that. And he and his siblings did not turn out 'fine', they turned out to be extremely damaged individuals, who are still not over their childhood experiences and there is no possible way TA was either.
It takes years of work to unravel that damage, assuming they can even bear to open up to those years of horror. That's when denial creeps in and turns it off and hides it from us. So memories become very distant and compartmentalised to the point that we don't understand why we do what we do.
It's impossible to think that you were so unlovable. Look at the children in Romanian Orphanages and tell me it does no damage.
Perhaps someone can explain it to me because all of my training knowledge and university life work life and personal experiences seems to have been lying to me.
Childhood experience is the single most defining 'situation' of our whole lives, it makes us who we are. It defines personality.
Personality is a mixture of our parents until we develop our own through a series of individuation processes as suggested above. If the parental mixture is damaged as TA's parental mixture was, his will be and so will his siblings.
His parent's never unravelled their damaged, they numbed it with self medication.
Their children do too, all of them.
If current knowledge is anything to go by I have no reason to think anything has changed.
Except Travis, who as far as we know did not do drugs or alcohol.
Why might that be?
I am exceptionally clear about what happened to him. It's psychology 101.
It is extremely influential information when considering JA's pathology.
Because they met each other with all this simmering unmet childhood needs stuff.
His siblings express their unmet needs in quite visible ways, it must be so horrible for them with all of this exposure. I can only imagine that this level of personal pressure will be incredibly damaging to them all. People like to keep some stuff private.
I'm sure we will see more damage play out, if not now while feeling a bit supported, then definitely later. They are under intense scrutiny and press invasion. It's really not what they need.
I have often heard the victims of highly publicised murder trials say that they felt that they had lost their loved one again, not because of the trial, but because the 'public' took them.

 

[renah]

Gecko100, I so appreciate the fact that your point of view comes from a place of compassion, vs one of demonization. Thank you so much!

( Can you please be MY mother?)
J/K

 

[Gecko100]

Gecko100, I so appreciate the fact that your point of view comes from a place of compassion, vs one of demonization. Thank you so much!

( Can you please be MY mother?)
J/K

Dear Darling Daughter Renah no problem

 

[SMK]

Yet TA turned out fine and overcame the difficulty. Situations do not define people[/QUOTE


I agree, situations do not define people especially if they are fleeting.
Ongoing sexual physical emotional and neglectful terror does though.
Especially if it lasts for 6 years, and you have a tiny little growing brain.
He is a victim of war domestic war, and he had no reason to think that his parents cared about him at all.
That just doesn't go away by itself, and all of the research that has ever been done on the topic of child abuse would agree with me, and so would 100% of psychiatrists psychologists social workers et al.

His primary childhood emotional and physical needs have never been met. Neither has the primary psychological milestone of trust vs mistrust. (Erickson)
Erickson stages of individuation, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Piaget, Kholberg's theories of moral development, Jung, Freud, John Bowlby Alice Miller
just off the top of my head, would without a single doubt in my mind would agree with me too.

I would be mightily impressed if you can find something to refute it.

Anyone who has experienced any terrorising war situations for 6 years will tell you that. And he and his siblings did not turn out 'fine', they turned out to be extremely damaged individuals, who are still not over their childhood experiences and there is no possible way TA was either.
It takes years of work to unravel that damage, assuming they can even bear to open up to those years of horror. That's when denial creeps in and turns it off and hides it from us. So memories become very distant and compartmentalised to the point that we don't understand why we do what we do.
It's impossible to think that you were so unlovable. Look at the children in Romanian Orphanages and tell me it does no damage.
Perhaps someone can explain it to me because all of my training knowledge and university life work life and personal experiences seems to have been lying to me.
Childhood experience is the single most defining 'situation' of our whole lives, it makes us who we are. It defines personality.
Personality is a mixture of our parents until we develop our own through a series of individuation processes as suggested above. If the parental mixture is damaged as TA's parental mixture was, his will be and so will his siblings.
His parent's never unravelled their damaged, they numbed it with self medication.
Their children do too, all of them.
If current knowledge is anything to go by I have no reason to think anything has changed.
Except Travis, who as far as we know did not do drugs or alcohol.
Why might that be?
I am exceptionally clear about what happened to him. It's psychology 101.
It is extremely influential information when considering JA's pathology.
Because they met each other with all this simmering unmet childhood needs stuff.
His siblings express their unmet needs in quite visible ways, it must be so horrible for them with all of this exposure. I can only imagine that this level of personal pressure will be incredibly damaging to them all. People like to keep some stuff private.
I'm sure we will see more damage play out, if not now while feeling a bit supported, then definitely later. They are under intense scrutiny and press invasion. It's really not what they need.
I have often heard the victims of highly publicised murder trials say that they felt that they had lost their loved one again, not because of the trial, but because the 'public' took them.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[human]

Yet TA turned out fine and overcame the difficulty. Situations do not define people[/QUOTE


I agree, situations do not define people especially if they are fleeting.
Ongoing sexual physical emotional and neglectful terror does though.
Especially if it lasts for 6 years, and you have a tiny little growing brain.
He is a victim of war domestic war, and he had no reason to think that his parents cared about him at all.
That just doesn't go away by itself, and all of the research that has ever been done on the topic of child abuse would agree with me, and so would 100% of psychiatrists psychologists social workers et al.

His primary childhood emotional and physical needs have never been met. Neither has the primary psychological milestone of trust vs mistrust. (Erickson)
Erickson stages of individuation, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Piaget, Kholberg's theories of moral development, Jung, Freud, John Bowlby Alice Miller
just off the top of my head, would without a single doubt in my mind would agree with me too.

I would be mightily impressed if you can find something to refute it.

Anyone who has experienced any terrorising war situations for 6 years will tell you that. And he and his siblings did not turn out 'fine', they turned out to be extremely damaged individuals, who are still not over their childhood experiences and there is no possible way TA was either.
It takes years of work to unravel that damage, assuming they can even bear to open up to those years of horror. That's when denial creeps in and turns it off and hides it from us. So memories become very distant and compartmentalised to the point that we don't understand why we do what we do.
It's impossible to think that you were so unlovable. Look at the children in Romanian Orphanages and tell me it does no damage.
Perhaps someone can explain it to me because all of my training knowledge and university life work life and personal experiences seems to have been lying to me.
Childhood experience is the single most defining 'situation' of our whole lives, it makes us who we are. It defines personality.
Personality is a mixture of our parents until we develop our own through a series of individuation processes as suggested above. If the parental mixture is damaged as TA's parental mixture was, his will be and so will his siblings.
His parent's never unravelled their damaged, they numbed it with self medication.
Their children do too, all of them.
If current knowledge is anything to go by I have no reason to think anything has changed.
Except Travis, who as far as we know did not do drugs or alcohol.
Why might that be?
I am exceptionally clear about what happened to him. It's psychology 101.
It is extremely influential information when considering JA's pathology.
Because they met each other with all this simmering unmet childhood needs stuff.
His siblings express their unmet needs in quite visible ways, it must be so horrible for them with all of this exposure. I can only imagine that this level of personal pressure will be incredibly damaging to them all. People like to keep some stuff private.
I'm sure we will see more damage play out, if not now while feeling a bit supported, then definitely later. They are under intense scrutiny and press invasion. It's really not what they need.
I have often heard the victims of highly publicised murder trials say that they felt that they had lost their loved one again, not because of the trial, but because the 'public' took them.

Yes! A million times yes!

People can overcome their issues. First of all, they have to admit and realize that growing up in a toxic environment has affected them.

Then, one has to find out in what ways s/he has been affected. Then, the person can start to deal with and unlearn dysfunctional behavior.

There is NO WAY that Travis was not scarred by his upbringing.

His focus on materialism to get him happiness is a sign of how his poverty affected him.

His need to hide his sexuality speaks of shame, for whatever reason.

He was attracted to Jodi because of whatever issues he had. His friends saw the pathology that he did not.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

:banghead: Travis is the person that experienced abuse in childhood according to record, NOT JODI.

Identifying with Jodi's victim act and to appease it based off of punch drunk assumption really is the very snag that Travis caught his foot in.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Yes! A million times yes!

People can overcome their issues. First of all, they have to admit and realize that growing up in a toxic environment has affected them.

Then, one has to find out in what ways s/he has been affected. Then, the person can start to deal with and unlearn dysfunctional behavior.

There is NO WAY that Travis was not scarred by his upbringing.

His focus on materialism to get him happiness is a sign of how his poverty affected him.

His need to hide his sexuality speaks of shame, for whatever reason.

He was attracted to Jodi because of whatever issues he had. His friends saw the pathology that he did not.

Yes, Travis had baggage bc of his past with abuse. And Jodi took advantage of that. Even when it seems like Travis is in control during sex, she ultimately is in control bc she knows how to manipulate his need for sexual dominance - said need he probably felt guilty for liking.

Due to his guilt/shame about being sexually dominant with her, he would give her more leeway emotionally. I also think he had a problem mistaking lust for love and was confused about the difference. But Jodi KNEW this about him. Having sex with him before she killed him was her last ditch effort to use sex to emotionally confuse him about the seriousness/sincerity of their courtship.

 

[SMK]

That TA was so quick to become absorbed in Jodi's "sexual games" was to my thinking an indication of a hunger or desperation within him, stemming back to unmet needs in early childhood. Bringing in Erik Erikson's "trust vs mistrust" one can see all too well the horror he experienced at betrayal by Arias that surely was an echo of the same betrayal by his original caregivers.

His materialism and his exhibitionism (the motivational speaking and the costumes and the jokes) seemed a compensation for not having counted as a child - in short, there was clearly some co-dependent thing at work with Arias and Alexander, with both having reached an apex near age 30 and the complexes owing their origins to the same causes .

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

That TA was so quick to become absorbed in Jodi's "sexual games" was to my thinking an indication of a hunger or desperation within him, stemming back to unmet needs in early childhood. Bringing in Erik Erikson's "trust vs mistrust" one can see all too well the horror he experienced at betrayal by Arias that surely was an echo of the same betrayal by his original caregivers.

His materialism and his exhibitionism (the motivational speaking and the costumes and the jokes) seemed a compensation for not having counted as a child - in short, there was clearly some co-dependent thing at work with Arias and Alexander, with both having reached an apex near age 30 and the complexes owing their origins to the same causes .

I completely agree that's an awesome explanation!

but also important to note, Travis's codependent aspects were caused by abuse and neglect by others while Jodi's codependency was caused by inherent psychological disorder not dependent upon an extensive background of continued abuses.

One thing I don't understand: owning their origin to the same causes? You mean origin being codependency for both, not childhood abuse for both, Right? Just want to make sure I'm following correct.

 

[SMK]

I completely agree that's an awesome explanation!

but also important to note, Travis's codependent aspects were caused by abuse and neglect by others while Jodi's codependency was caused by inherent psychological disorder not dependent upon an extensive background of continued abuses.

One thing I don't understand: owning their origin to the same causes? You mean origin being codependency for both, not childhood abuse for both, Right? Just want to make sure I'm following correct.

Yes, by "owing their origins to the same causes" I was referring generally to psychological deficits, no matter the kind or etiology.

I would agree that there may be disorders which do not depend on extensive or continued abuse, and I certainly don't want to project my own past onto Arias, yet something struck me as very "off" about her parents:

I cannot help wondering what may have actually gone on in her early childhood which as I have said before would not necessarily be part of her conscious outlook today.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Yes, by "owing their origins to the same causes" I was referring generally to psychological deficits, no matter the kind or etiology.

I would agree that there may be disorders which do not depend on extensive or continued abuse, and I certainly don't want to project my own past onto Arias, yet something struck me as very "off" about her parents:

I cannot help wondering what may have actually gone on in her early childhood which as I have said before would not necessarily be part of her conscious outlook today.

Does anyone have a source on Jodi's family or parents? Specifically any dysfunction in the family or any psych disorders in the Arias background (siblings, parents, Grandparents)?

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Body language expert on Jodi's mother and her behavior in court.

http://drlillianglassbodylanguagebl...-in-the-courtroom-and-hostility-towards-jodi/

Jodi Arias’s mother sits each day in the courtroom with another woman who looks similar to her. The reason they look so similar is that they are twin sisters.

But what these twins are doing in the courtroom is not helping Jodi. They are laughing and chucking with one another as though they are sharing inside jokes. This is very disrespectful *and is not helping Jodi in terms of jury perception.

The rest of the time her mother is looking non reactive or hostile as she gazes ahead to look at Jodi. Juries do look at family members. They see how family members react , if they are present , and how they behave.

The mother doesn’t look over at Jodi with any loving look. When there are salacious sexual details out of Jodi’s mouth as the camera pans to her, there is no emotional reaction. It is a though she is watching paint dry on a wall.

The only emotional reaction is when she is laughing with her sister. Does she think this trial is a big jok?. Or is she secretly happy Jodi finally got what she deserved for *possibly being such a bad daughter in her view. Ther eis clearly some deep seated hostility between them.

There does not seem to be any love lost between the two of them. Perhaps *her mother is angry for Jodi for either revealing the family* beating secrets or *for lying about* being beaten by her mother.

In the courtroom* Jodi said how she was severely beaten as a child by *both her mother and father as she said “ Life was ideal up until I was aged seven. Parents would spank us and around seven-years old it started getting more intense.”

Just as a note most abusive parents dont start spanking at age 7. They do it way before that time, so this statement seems like a lie to me.

Then Jodi continues, ‘My dad started using a belt.My mom began to carry a wooden spoon on her purse.”It was a wooden kitchen spoon and if we misbehaved she would use it on my brother and I, she would hit us hard with it.’It left welts on my body.“Dad didn’t leave welts as often as my mom – she also used a belt. “

In my view this last statement was way too much information about her dad and the welts which also make me question how truthful she was being. Also belts leave welts so one again she appears to me to be lying.

Then Jodi adds,*My dad was quite intimidating so didn’t need to use strength to get his point across. My mother did.’

Now here is where it is very revealing concerning Jodi and her mother’s relationship. Jodi was asked in court if she loved her*mother, She *took a pause and quietly responded, ‘yes’.

That quiet yes, and the pause says it all. It shows *ambivalence. It wasn’t a loud yes or a yes that could be heard but a quiet yes. It spoke *loud volumes about their relationship.

Jodi a;sp talked at length about the relationship she had with her parents growing up and claimed she was subjected to beatings.

‘They were intense and increased in frequency as I got older,’ Jodi *said. ‘I don’t recall how many times a week but it could be any thing from four times a week to once every two weeks.‘I didn’t like being hit so I would squirm around a little but the more we did the harder we would get hit.

*’My mother broke my brother’s hand once when he tried to block one of her blows. As I got into a teenager, my dad would get rougher and rougher.‘

So here is where she contradicts herself regarding the beatings. First she says her dad was just intimidating anf didn’t need to use strength to get his point across and then she says he got rougher and rougher.

She added: ‘When I was younger I remember feeling betrayed and confused that my mother was beating me.’As I got older it made me mad and I didn’t get why she was punishing me. I was mad at her and it hurt. I loved her but it put a strain on our relationship.” etc... Click link for more

 

[SMK]

Body language expert on Jodi's mother and her behavior in court.

http://drlillianglassbodylanguagebl...-in-the-courtroom-and-hostility-towards-jodi/

Jodi Arias’s mother sits each day in the courtroom with another woman who looks similar to her. The reason they look so similar is that they are twin sisters.

But what these twins are doing in the courtroom is not helping Jodi. They are laughing and chucking with one another as though they are sharing inside jokes. This is very disrespectful *and is not helping Jodi in terms of jury perception.

The rest of the time her mother is looking non reactive or hostile as she gazes ahead to look at Jodi. Juries do look at family members. They see how family members react , if they are present , and how they behave.

The mother doesn’t look over at Jodi with any loving look. When there are salacious sexual details out of Jodi’s mouth as the camera pans to her, there is no emotional reaction. It is a though she is watching paint dry on a wall.

The only emotional reaction is when she is laughing with her sister. Does she think this trial is a big jok?. Or is she secretly happy Jodi finally got what she deserved for *possibly being such a bad daughter in her view. Ther eis clearly some deep seated hostility between them.

There does not seem to be any love lost between the two of them. Perhaps *her mother is angry for Jodi for either revealing the family* beating secrets or *for lying about* being beaten by her mother.

In the courtroom* Jodi said how she was severely beaten as a child by *both her mother and father as she said “ Life was ideal up until I was aged seven. Parents would spank us and around seven-years old it started getting more intense.”

Just as a note most abusive parents dont start spanking at age 7. They do it way before that time, so this statement seems like a lie to me.

Then Jodi continues, ‘My dad started using a belt.My mom began to carry a wooden spoon on her purse.”It was a wooden kitchen spoon and if we misbehaved she would use it on my brother and I, she would hit us hard with it.’It left welts on my body.“Dad didn’t leave welts as often as my mom – she also used a belt. “

In my view this last statement was way too much information about her dad and the welts which also make me question how truthful she was being. Also belts leave welts so one again she appears to me to be lying.

Then Jodi adds,*My dad was quite intimidating so didn’t need to use strength to get his point across. My mother did.’

Now here is where it is very revealing concerning Jodi and her mother’s relationship. Jodi was asked in court if she loved her*mother, She *took a pause and quietly responded, ‘yes’.

That quiet yes, and the pause says it all. It shows *ambivalence. It wasn’t a loud yes or a yes that could be heard but a quiet yes. It spoke *loud volumes about their relationship.

Jodi a;sp talked at length about the relationship she had with her parents growing up and claimed she was subjected to beatings.

‘They were intense and increased in frequency as I got older,’ Jodi *said. ‘I don’t recall how many times a week but it could be any thing from four times a week to once every two weeks.‘I didn’t like being hit so I would squirm around a little but the more we did the harder we would get hit.

*’My mother broke my brother’s hand once when he tried to block one of her blows. As I got into a teenager, my dad would get rougher and rougher.‘

So here is where she contradicts herself regarding the beatings. First she says her dad was just intimidating anf didn’t need to use strength to get his point across and then she says he got rougher and rougher.

She added: ‘When I was younger I remember feeling betrayed and confused that my mother was beating me.’As I got older it made me mad and I didn’t get why she was punishing me. I was mad at her and it hurt. I loved her but it put a strain on our relationship.” etc... Click link for more

A lot of grist for the mill here. The fact that she gives conflicting versions does nothing to discredit the authenticity: This was part of my own and my siblings way of letting bits of truth out: I have PMed you btw so you can perhaps get the gist of my perspective. ETA: Not sure about the spankings getting worse at age 7. That could be memory getting clearer about post-age 7 incidents.

 

[Gecko100]

Yes! A million times yes!

People can overcome their issues. First of all, they have to admit and realize that growing up in a toxic environment has affected them.

Then, one has to find out in what ways s/he has been affected. Then, the person can start to deal with and unlearn dysfunctional behavior.

There is NO WAY that Travis was not scarred by his upbringing.

His focus on materialism to get him happiness is a sign of how his poverty affected him.

His need to hide his sexuality speaks of shame, for whatever reason.

He was attracted to Jodi because of whatever issues he had. His friends saw the pathology that he did not.

Thank you for understanding that, materialism and the need to look much larger than he felt, because he must have felt incredibly small and powerless.
He needed to be big and powerful because it proved to him that his parents were wrong, so he made himself charismatic and adorably cute.
But it only amounted to a flimsy persona or ego, because his overriding messages from his parental superego were hugely strong.
He acts these inner conflicts out.
As an adult at 30, the foundations to his ego strengths were very affected by his experiences. He had not completed the first stage of object relations and trust vs mistrust, so cracks appear in all of the individuations processes up to the age of 30. He was sadly, nowhere near balanced internally.
His inner life and outer expression of that would have been noticeable. It was by his friends because he projected it. Particularly at women, because his first intimate experience of woman was his mother, and she thought he was worthless. She never mirrored him as separate to her, as effective object relations would. Her children were her dumping ground for her experiences as a child which made her self medicate.
He had an inner competition/conflict between the id and the superego and bounced between the two extremes of needy child and censoring parental tapes. And desperate need for someone to pay him attention like they should have when he was a little wounded boy. He craved attention.
One part of him wanted to behave like a child id and seek endless pleasure and the other parent superego chastised him for it and reminded him he was worthless and unlovable. He could never win, and winning was very important to his still small underdeveloped ego.
I could cry for the whole lot of them including the Arias. He had no idea of his own pathology, and would have denied it if you told him.
JA could have no idea either.
My brother is very similar, an obscenely rich powerful serial womaniser adulterer, and violent person because that's what he was taught. He denies it too, because by societal standards he very successful. I know he suffers internally. But to open it up to scrutiny would devastate him, so he can't. He continues to be a funny charming charismatic intelligent man, in outward appearances but I know his dark side very wellhe doesn't.
I could launch a whole new set of clues of how this murder eventuated.

 

[SMK]

Thank you for understanding that, materialism and the need to look much larger than he felt, because he must have felt incredibly small and powerless.
He needed to be big and powerful because it proved to him that his parents were wrong, so he made himself charismatic and adorably cute.
But it only amounted to a flimsy persona or ego, because his overriding messages from his parental superego were hugely strong.
He acts these inner conflicts out.
As an adult at 30, the foundations to his ego strengths were very affected by his experiences. He had not completed the first stage of object relations and trust vs mistrust, so cracks appear in all of the individuations processes up to the age of 30. He was sadly, nowhere near balanced internally.
His inner life and outer expression of that would have been noticeable. It was by his friends because he projected it. Particularly at women, because his first intimate experience of woman was his mother, and she thought he was worthless. She never mirrored him as separate to her, as effective object relations would. Her children were her dumping ground for her experiences as a child which made her self medicate.
He had an inner competition/conflict between the id and the superego and bounced between the two extremes of needy child and censoring parental tapes. And desperate need for someone to pay him attention like they should have when he was a little wounded boy. He craved attention.
One part of him wanted to behave like a child id and seek endless pleasure and the other parent superego chastised him for it and reminded him he was worthless and unlovable. He could never win, and winning was very important to his still small underdeveloped ego.
I could cry for the whole lot of them including the Arias. He had no idea of his own pathology, and would have denied it if you told him.
JA could have no idea either.
My brother is very similar, an obscenely rich powerful serial womaniser adulterer, and violent person because that's what he was taught. He denies it too, because by societal standards he very successful. I know he suffers internally. But to open it up to scrutiny would devastate him, so he can't. He continues to be a funny charming charismatic intelligent man, in outward appearances but I know his dark side very wellhe doesn't.
I could launch a whole new set of clues of how this murder eventuated.

Your brother sounds like my father.:furious: (why are these quotes coming up all haywire, wrong posters at top, etc, Has happened 3-4 x with mine )

 

[Gecko100]

Your brother sounds like my father.:furious: (why are these quotes coming up all haywire, wrong posters at top, etc, Has happened 3-4 x with mine )

Dunno what's going on with the posts. Weird.
Yep, you never forget them, and we always remain an attraction magnet, them to us, and us to them. I am a lot better at weeding them out now, before I am 'victimised' I use big fat boundary skills and say no a lot. lol

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

A lot of grist for the mill here. The fact that she gives conflicting versions does nothing to discredit the authenticity: This was part of my own and my siblings way of letting bits of truth out: I have PMed you btw so you can perhaps get the gist of my perspective.

Thank you I am looking forward to reading that message in just a moment! (sincerely thank you and we will keep that bt us )

I also took issue with that aspect of her article. I believe I know what you are alluding to with the fact that memories may be false or "idealized" in order to seperate the host from memories of the abuse. It's all a part of the Dissociativr fog that can make ones own biographical recall incongruent and SEEM to lack simcerity - when in all reality the host sincerely believes the abuse was not as significant as it really was.

I like the authors points however about the mother chuckling during trial and seeming to have disdain toward Jodi at some points. I personally believe the mother had disdain bc she was upset Jodi was accusing her of abuse when we know from the interrogation videos that Jodi had issues with being the aggressor toward her mother in the past. When your abuser accuses you of abusing them, it might make you very angry. When an abuser villifies you and makes themselves the victim it will make you have disdain.

However, the chuckling is completely not empathetic to either Jodi or Travis and the mother seems rather narcissistic in some respects.

When Jodi responded softly "yes" to the question of loving her mother - I think that yes is soft bc she feels ashamed to say she cares for someone she vilified. Even if she has no empathy generally, she could feel shame for vilifying a family member as they are an extension of her ego/reputation.

I think every time she says her mom hit her, Jodi was really the physical aggressor. However the mother's narcissistic ego may have emotionally neglected/tarnished Jodi to the point that Jodi sought to take physical control.


IMHO

So glad you brought up the dissociation causing biographical context to get wonky. On to read your message!