Armchair Psych discussion of Jodi Arias

[Woe.be.gone]

If you believe my post was against the rules; you should report it.

I did not sleuth anyone and you are free to ignore my question.

I also did not in any way try to take away anyone's right to post anything.

Sounded as if you were demeaning other posters so I considered my post helpful. I've only called someone out once - some guy who was demeaning women frequently in his posts.

Not here to fight but don't want to be repressed either.

 

[SMK]

Your question is against websleuths rules. We can never sleuth one another. If a mod views it that way you'll be banned.

We are a varied bunch - just like the world we live in. Formal education isn't the sum of a person.

Everyone is entitled to discuss and provide input regardless of background.
We are not drawing conclusions here and have all been accepted as members. :twocents:

Yes, it would be a sad day at Websleuths if the ages/educational backgrounds of posters became a prerequisite or denoted worth or rank of a poster's musings. Well said. :rocker:

And from the academic perspective, some of the best philosophizing occurs outside of the academic setting, and comes from people who have little formal education but can think well.

Note to lil_buddy: If you have gone to college, then they certainly made you read Plato's Republic. One of the best books in it is The Meno, in which the slave is able to answer the question that the educated men could not. Remember?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I was wondering why the lack of critical thought quite frankly.
To scrap a theory when facts don't support it seems fundamental in my view.
I'm kind of getting the feeling that there is not much interest in this forum in constructing theories around the known facts in the case - so I'm wondering if should just stop posting them.

This thread surrounds psychology. What am I missing?
We know JA killed TA. But she didn't just walk up to him, pull a gun out and kill him. In fact, she over killed him.

In my discussions (can only speak for myself), I'm not excusing her actions but don't want to have to state that over and over again.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Yes, it would be a sad day at Websleuths if the ages/educational backgrounds of posters became a prerequisite or denoted worth or rank of a poster's musings. Well said. :rocker:

And from the academic perspective, some of the best philosophizing occurs outside of the academic setting, and comes from people who have little formal education but can think well.

Note to lil_buddy: If you have gone to college, then they certainly made you read Plato's Republic. One of the best books in it is The Meno, in which the slave is able to answer the question that the educated men could not. Remember?

Thanks SMK. I'd reveal my stats if they were yours too - very impressive indeed! Yet I could tell you were above average intelligence by your posts and ability to remain fair in your responses. You're not only smart but mature too. I'm average yet mature, in age that is! Never read Plato's Republic in college yet it's on our bookshelf and still haven't read it! Maybe I'll give it a try.

 

[SMK]

Thanks SMK. I'd reveal my stats if they were yours too - very impressive indeed! Yet I could tell you were above average intelligence by your posts and ability to remain fair in your responses. You're not only smart but mature too. I'm average yet mature, in age that is! Never read Plato's Republic in college yet it's on our bookshelf and still haven't read it! Maybe I'll give it a try.

Ha, well, as he asked , I felt fit to answer. Thanks for your kind words, too; most appreciated- And I have thoroughly enjoyed all your posts, keep up with the good posting! :blowkiss: And the Republic is always great, especially OUTSIDE the classroom

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Interesting. I had always thought that he was going to "out" her to the church and other people about:
1. the kinky sex (even though he was a participant, he could still out her.)
2. Maybe some lurid sex fantasy which SHE promoted? (something pertaining to pedophilia coming from HER?)
3. the slashing of tires and emails to Lisa, etc.

Do you think there may have been something else? A financial scam at prePaid Legal or something? Just curious. Thanks.

Don't know anything about the scam part but imo TA had already outted JA.
While on the stand JA stressed her loyalty to him over and over again. Some of TA's friends have commented that they knew her as a fill-in girl so-to-speak for TA until he found a wife. That wasn't what he told her during the time she fell in love with him. Not only did he keep her on a string but he talked badly about her behind her back. TA called her 'insert vile name' in front of one of his roommates (per her). Don't know if this has been verified by the roommate or not (but could be and should be).

Just like JA didn't call the police neither did TA at least in time for LE to investigate or catch her in the act. But the strongest deterrent for me to believe TA was in any way afraid of her is that he kept letting her back into his home thus his life and his bed! People who are being stalked do not do that - they are terrified of their stalker.

 

[SMK]

Don't know anything about the scam part but imo TA had already outted JA.
While on the stand JA stressed her loyalty to him over and over again. Some of TA's friends have commented that they knew her as a fill-in girl so-to-speak for TA until he found a wife. That wasn't what he told her during the time she fell in love with him. Not only did he keep her on a string but he talked badly about her behind her back. TA called her 'insert vile name' in front of one of his roommates (per her). Don't know if this has been verified by the roommate or not (but could be and should be).

Just like JA didn't call the police neither did TA at least in time for LE to investigate or catch her in the act. But the strongest deterrent for me to believe TA was in any way afraid of her is that he kept letting her back into his home thus his life and his bed! People who are being stalked do not do that - they are terrified of their stalker.

Yes, they are - and all you say could indeed cut the other way: i.e. , People have asked if Arias feared Alexander, why not restraining order, whey still be sexual with him, etc....Then why not on his part as well?

Everything is up for debate in this case, and nothing can be taken for granted. Theorizing can box you into a particular mindset (I have seen this in myself) and presuppositions have a way of leading to further inference, and so on it goes - via such a declension, one reaches conclusions and then these become static. I prefer the dynamic approach myself.

Your points are extremely well taken, and thanks for posting along lines which often run counter to the prevailing view.

And to everyone in general: Websleuths is a wonderful venue precisely because it is dialectical: Every thesis needs an antithesis It would be boring and static indeed if we all held to one perspective and saw things from one purview. Cheers

 

[Woe.be.gone]

This is a discussion of her psyche and what possible mental condition she may have. Harming animals is textbook sociopathic early behavior. This is what I think she is. The dog was harmed then never heard from again. Seems fishy.

This is a speculative thread. That is what all of us are doing, even you. You have no evidence that the parents were abusive, yet you throw it out there. So I can throw out my opinions too.

:seeya:

True but they're not letting it into the trial so the jurors will not hear about the incident which has not been proven.

Someone posted regarding considering the facts to aid in critical thinking. Yet there are many speculations floating around that it's difficult to sort out the facts from the other factors that may or may not be true. If JA killed a dog, you'd think someone would know that and the prosecution would have investigated the incident. Yet it doesn't even come into the trial based on her defense.

If we're like a mock jury, we shouldn't be privy to info the real jurors won't see. Some of the stuff I've heard should be part of the trial but it's not.

 

[SMK]

This is a discussion of her psyche and what possible mental condition she may have. Harming animals is textbook sociopathic early behavior. This is what I think she is. The dog was harmed then never heard from again. Seems fishy.

This is a speculative thread. That is what all of us are doing, even you. You have no evidence that the parents were abusive, yet you throw it out there. So I can throw out my opinions too.

:seeya:

Yes, although I was playing devil's advocate (i.e., We don't know for certain what she did to the dog besides kick it in anger; We don't know that the murder of Travis was not merely its own stand-alone crime, and deserving of punishment due to its heinous nature : We have no proof that it had its roots in neuro-pathology evident in childhood)---

Even so, I do indeed concede your point, that harming animals is indeed textbook socio-pathological behavior, and that there may be some truth that Jodi's incident with the dog was an example of this. Your point is well taken.

 

[SMK]

True but they're not letting it into the trial so the jurors will not hear about the incident which has not been proven.

Someone posted regarding considering the facts to aid in critical thinking. Yet there are many speculations floating around that it's difficult to sort out the facts from the other factors that may or may not be true. If JA killed a dog, you'd think someone would know that and the prosecution would have investigated the incident. Yet it doesn't even come into the trial based on her defense.

If we're like a mock jury, we shouldn't be privy to info the real jurors won't see. Some of the stuff I've heard should be part of the trial but it's not.

Yes, this was my point: There are many factors which cannot be proven and will not enter into jury deliberations. Perhaps I have an intuition that Jodi was sexually abused as a child : actually, she does indeed display many of the indicators. But I cannot prove it, so it remains as conjecture.

 

[MeeBee]

True but they're not letting it into the trial so the jurors will not hear about the incident which has not been proven.

Someone posted regarding considering the facts to aid in critical thinking. Yet there are many speculations floating around that it's difficult to sort out the facts from the other factors that may or may not be true. If JA killed a dog, you'd think someone would know that and the prosecution would have investigated the incident. Yet it doesn't even come into the trial based on her defense.

If we're like a mock jury, we shouldn't be privy to info the real jurors won't see. Some of the stuff I've heard should be part of the trial but it's not.

I think you're adding unnecessary rules to keep people from expressing their opinions. Jodi says her parents did nothing more than carry wooden spoons around and maybe her dad slapped her and people jumped off of that saying she must have been molested and worked to the bone like a little child slave. To that I say psshh (my dad used to make me and my siblings go and hand pick up dog poop from the back yard) but I let it go.

Jodi, in her own words, told a detective that she kicked a dog that pizzed her off and was never seen again. I made, in my mind, a very realistic and logical jump that she may have more than just kicked the dog. I think I have a right to make that jump just anyone else does to make theirs.

I also didn't know we were limited to discussing only things that have been in the trial. I have not been reprimanded for this nor has anyone on this thread. So until a mod says as much I think we are free to discuss what we please.

 

[MeeBee]

Yes, although I was playing devil's advocate (i.e., We don't know for certain what she did to the dog besides kick it in anger; We don't know that the murder of Travis was not merely its own stand-alone crime, and deserving of punishment due to its heinous nature : We have no proof that it had its roots in neuro-pathology evident in childhood)---

Even so, I do indeed concede your point, that harming animals is indeed textbook socio-pathological behavior, and that there may be some truth that Jodi's incident with the dog was an example of this. Your point is well taken.

Thanks SMK. Yours is as well.

I also like to point out that I never stated she killed the dog. I said I think she did. People are free to do with my opinion as they please. It is only my opinion.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Yes, they are - and all you say could indeed cut the other way: i.e. , People have asked if Arias feared Alexander, why not restraining order, whey still be sexual with him, etc....Then why not on his part as well?

Everything is up for debate in this case, and nothing can be taken for granted. Theorizing can box you into a particular mindset (I have seen this in myself) and presuppositions have a way of leading to further inference, and so on it goes - via such a declension, one reaches conclusions and then these become static. I prefer the dynamic approach myself.

Your points are extremely well taken, and thanks for posting along lines which often run counter to the prevailing view.

And to everyone in general: Websleuths is a wonderful venue precisely because it is dialectical: Every thesis needs an antithesis It would be boring and static indeed if we all held to one perspective and saw things from one purview. Cheers

The reason I take this approach is to try to avoid groupthink and to try to fish out the facts versus opinions.

On Caylee's case I did this and kept hoping for the one piece of evidence that would prove that KC purposely had hurt Caylee. I was sure the prosecution had the evidence and that they avoided revealing it to us via discovery despite the Sunshine laws in Florida.

As it turned out there was so much odd behavior surrounding people on the peripheral and no concrete forensic evidence that linked directly to KC - to the family garage, yes, but not to KC directly. I saw early fb posts/texts online before peoples' accounts were deleted that said, 'I wish we would have done things differently', yet those communications were never discussed or revealed. The people were never even questioned for all I know. To this day, I think there's more to that story and several people know what happened to little Caylee.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think you're adding unnecessary rules to keep people from expressing their opinions. Jodi says her parents did nothing more than carry wooden spoons around and maybe her dad slapped her and people jumped off of that saying she must have been molested and worked to the bone like a little child slave. To that I say psshh (my dad used to make me and my siblings go and hand pick up dog poop from the back yard) but I let it go.

Jodi, in her own words, told a detective that she kicked a dog that pizzed her off and was never seen again. I made, in my mind, a very realistic and logical jump that she may have more than just kicked the dog. I think I have a right to make that jump just anyone else does to make theirs.

I also didn't know we were limited to discussing only things that have been in the trial. I have not been reprimanded for this nor has anyone on this thread. So until a mod says as much I think we are free to discuss what we please.

No, I'm not saying not to discuss things. Sorry, I said it gets confusing as to what info is included in the trial testimony versus what we're hearing via the media that the jury will not hear.

No rules from me except when someone twists my posts I feel the need to speak up.

 

[Equinoxical]

I was wondering why the lack of critical thought quite frankly.
To scrap a theory when facts don't support it seems fundamental in my view.
I'm kind of getting the feeling that there is not much interest in this forum in constructing theories around the known facts in the case - so I'm wondering if should just stop posting them.

You seriously want me to list my bona fides for you?

You first.

And then you can go to the moderators and see if they'll set up a filter for this site so you only participate in threads that meet your standards.

Sheesh. The nerve.

 

[SMK]

Thanks SMK. Yours is as well.

I also like to point out that I never stated she killed the dog. I said I think she did. People are free to do with my opinion as they please. It is only my opinion.

Right, it is all grist for the mill. It is not illogical to wonder if there is something to the dog incident which Jodi is not telling. I appreciate that. As said, I am in the habit of playing devil's advocate because it facilitates debate....

I guess we must all learn to make logical inference and to deduce but always be able to change course in our thinking as needed, or be prepared to be open to other perspectives. I wish we had more than just a general outline regarding Jodi's childhood.

In fairness to lil_buddy, by the way, I likely angered him by facetiously suggesting that as Jodi is a liar, we ought always to believe the opposite of what she states. Sorry, buddy , didn't mean to set you off.

 

[MeeBee]

No, I'm not saying not to discuss things. Sorry, I said it gets confusing as to what info is included in the trial testimony versus what we're hearing via the media that the jury will not hear.

No rules from me except when someone twists my posts I feel the need to speak up.

I understand now. Know that the dog thing is not something that will be brought up in court. It's just something that people saw on HLN. I feel that goes to her psyche, the way she treats animals (first the cat then the dog).

 

[Gecko100]

I can't say that kicking a dog once is indicative of anything in particular, and dogs do run away. It might have bearing if it was habitual and cruel, but people sometimes hit their children more than once for wrongdoing, and children sometimes run away too.
Does anyone know how old her ex-boyfriend's child is? I wonder if they were interviewed?

 

[DesSands]

Yes, that would explain their not noticing it before that then, thanks.

Yes but in the report it states that one of them thought he smelled a strange odor before TA's door was opened, but didn't think much about it. Not those exact words, but it was noticed earlier by 1 rm.
I'm kind of shocked that they could even stand it as I've heard it's so horrible, not something one would ever forget.
Still kind of baffles me that got by them.

 

[DesSands]

Is anybody listening to second shrink at all today. I taped it but have skipped through a lot of it as it' AD NAUSEUM
The only one who would have definitely suffered PTSD would have been TA had he lived.
He may never again have taken another shower or taken one after sex. Look over his shoulder if he ever had another woman in the house. Jumped out of his skin when he saw blonde haired dollies with cowboy hat and chin strap maybe :hills:
Jodi doesn't have anything but jealous woman syndrome who took it to a criminal level. She wasn't the first woman to be used for sex and won't be the last. Uh ya learn, cut your losses and move on
This is getting sickening :juggle: DT forget about it