Armchair Psych discussion of Jodi Arias

[lil_buddy]

Do you mean you don't buy that the sex occurred on that day? Or that he was her adviser at that time?

I'm sure with all JA's lies, there is a grain of truth... so maybe they had sex on the baptism day, but if they did, I bet it was at her insistence. I doubt it was anal; that's just making the story extra lurid. How does one decide what percentage of a story is true - 90%, 50%, 2%??? IDK.

I don't think TA acted as a spiritual adviser ever. There have been no texts or emails hinting at such a thing - no quoting the bible or stuff like that.

It seems like Jodi expressed the interest in Mormonism and then Travis helped arrange for missionaries to meet with her at her home in Palm Desert.

 

[AnesthesiaAngel]

my sister just created this youtube video on the fumbling buffoon of a psychologist samuels........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=li1JYOHBpbs

 

[SMK]

I would love to see a credible source confirming that Crowley condoned murder.

1. I was speaking mainly of what would be JA's interpretation of Crowley. After all, look at her interpretation of Mormonism.

2. Not Crowley himself, but his Liber Legis and his celebration of freedom in the hands of the weak or the unstrung certainly could lend itself to licentiousness. The ethic of "do what thou wilt" in the world of the occult - and recall Jodi also dabbled in Wicca - can easily translate to anything goes.

:furious::snooty::snooty:

 

[Ricochet]

Can ASPD's love?

This will give you some insight into the mind of a psychopath, as it was written by one...

"Antisocials are capable of feeling the full spectrum of human emotion. They are typically individuals who were socialized to be criminals, although genetics may be a factor. Children who are exposed to criminal, violent, and/or otherwise antisocial behaviour tend to model that behaviour. They are capable of feeling guilt, but they usually rationalize criminal acts. They believe that their target deserved having been harmed because they "fell for it" and "it's survival of the fittest" or any other such whimsical notion. On the other hand, they do feel guilty for harming one of their friends or family. Gangs are a good example of this. Other antisocials may have been able to feel guilt and empathy, but it was never developed during those essential early years of childhood. This is usually due to abusive or negligent parents. It's more that they can't develop healthy relationships in which trust and empathy can flourish than truly not feeling guilt or empathy.

And then there are the psychopaths... These are the sort that don't feel empathy or remorse at all for anyone. It's a brain abnormality. Primary psychopaths can feel certain emotions to a far lesser degree than most people, and what emotions we do feel are usually fleeting. Complex emotions we're completely oblivious to. For example, I'll jump at loud noises, feel irritated by annoying company, content, interested, etc ... But I'll never understand empathy, horror, selfless love, compassion, etc.

I read a book which stated that secondary psychopaths feel guilt constantly. During childhood, secondary psychopaths were punished regardless of what they did, which lead to high guilt and anxiety that was never associated with a bad deed. It was an interesting concept, but I can't seem to find the book at the moment. If I do, I'll be sure to post bits of it."

 

[SMK]

my sister just created this youtube video on the fumbling buffoon of a psychologist samuels........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=li1JYOHBpbs

Ha, tell your sister this is great :floorlaugh:

 

[DebinGA]

I doubt she took Crowley's beliefs into her own makeup any more than she took on Mormonism, if she read him she was just aping Bobby, and disregarded it as soon as she was out of that relationship and moved onto her next host.

Exactly. She saw Travis' sexual inexperience as a way to hook him. She introduced the sex fantasies, including sexy schoolgirl. Amazon has 700 pages of sexy schoolgirl costumes, and nothing about them will remind you of a child. Ditto the Red Riding Hood fantasy she seemed to be pushing toward the end, going so far as telling him she'd found a woodsy spot for it. Here's an Amazon page of Sexy Little Red Riding Hood outfits to show how they aren't designed to excite pedos:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...0&rh=n:1036592,k:sexy+red+riding+hood+costume

I bet Jodi had a trunk full of skimpy "character" outfits she'd collected for years.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If she read Crowley she would have also read LaVey (which is an easier read), the idea however is you do what you want, but you take full responsibility for the consequences also, no crying like a little b**** when you are incarcerated or made responsible for your crime by the police. That is part of the choice you made with your own free will after all.

 

[Jimmynap]

At the risk of being verbally stoned, I wanted to post this and then duck for cover!

From my research in books, and articles I've read on Psychopaths and the tests used for diagnosis by a qualified mental health practioner, I am not convinced that we can say that JA is a Psychopath. This condition is usually manifested by the mid-teen age years. Yes, JA left home and did not graduate high school. But she got a job and worked. What evidence is there of any behavior of hers between her mid-teens and age 27 when she met TA that could point to psychopathology? Yes, she had a string of boyfriends, but she is single and that's not pathological. Who of her former boyfriends in that period have said she was unethical, a conniver, or played mind games with them? To my knowledge all this "crazy" behavior didn't begin until after she met TA when she was 27. This does not excuse her in any way. I believe she premeditated TA murder and should get life in prison at the minimum. My point is that a person does not suddenly become a Psychopath at 27 years of age. Her life up to that point had been relatively normal.

:banghead: after this for ten minutes I have to jump in. First she most certainly is a psychopath. Anything known pre-TA is mostly her "version". Of course we don't know all that went on before TA. Besides her "version" being lies all of the "crazy" stuff and what she does behind the scene is done on a ONE ON ONE basis -not public. Previous boyfriends go through certain levels of this and from experience, trying to tell another person what's going on, you will not be believed and you are the one who seems "crazy". You end up not talking about it and it takes awhile to even know what's going on because it's illogical and doesn't make sense. (Huge advantage -pysch). Part of what a psych is to always be in control. Not being in control is considered failure which can never be. They are superior and other people are to be owned and used. Concerning other boyfriends by what little we actually know there are clues. Any boyfriend can never just break up, move on and find another girl. JA has to think, say and even arrange for her to be in control. Take MM -he left her and found a new girl. To JA this can't happen as simply as that. JA will do whatever to know what's going on and goes to confront so she can say to herself and anyone who will listen that he cheated on her and she broke up with him. Anytime she says a boyfriend cheated on her and she broke it off this gives her the control when in reality they left her. Even when TA was with another girl she admits she and TA are not bf/gf but she says he's courting her. When she says he wasn't affectionate in public or we were together secretly or TA was a flirt -the reality is they were not together. With TA it becomes a whole new level. This is where stalking, slashing tires, and trying to control everything comes. He becomes what I'll call the "target" meaning the one to own and use long term. To simplify a "target" would be a "nice guy" with value. This is called Narcissistic Supply. It could be anything material, attention, adoration, kids, getting married, help, etc. In 4/08 TA had enough -no more support, no more traveling together and sent her to CA. This can never be to her, he will be punished, she will be in control and this will be all his fault hence the motive.

 

[SMK]

If she read Crowley she would have also read LaVey (which is an easier read), the idea however is you do what you want, but you take full responsibility for the consequences also, no crying like a little b**** when you are incarcerated or made responsible for your crime by the police. That is part of the choice you made with your own free will after all.

Absolutely, I agree with you. Of course it is disgusting to do what she did and to NOT take responsibility for it (I would kill myself if I had to look at the crime scene photos and know I had done that.)

I meant only that Jodi could easily ABUSE/twist/adulterate Crowleyism or LeVay or anything - to suit her own needs, just to rationalize and justify herself! It does NOT mean in any way, shape or form that Crowley would agree.

I knew a guy who used that "do what thou wilt" to justify back-stabbing, money theft, sexual absue, you name it.

 

[SMK]

:banghead: after this for ten minutes I have to jump in. First she most certainly is a psychopath. Anything known pre-TA is mostly her "version". Of course we don't know all that went on before TA. Besides her "version" being lies all of the "crazy" stuff and what she does behind the scene is done on a ONE ON ONE basis -not public. Previous boyfriends go through certain levels of this and from experience, trying to tell another person what's going on, you will not be believed and you are the one who seems "crazy". You end up not talking about it and it takes awhile to even know what's going on because it's illogical and doesn't make sense. (Huge advantage -pysch). Part of what a psych is to always be in control. Not being in control is considered failure which can never be. They are superior and other people are to be owned and used. Concerning other boyfriends by what little we actually know there are clues. Any boyfriend can never just break up, move on and find another girl. JA has to think, say and even arrange for her to be in control. Take MM -he left her and found a new girl. To JA this can't happen as simply as that. JA will do whatever to know what's going on and goes to confront so she can say to herself and anyone who will listen that he cheated on her and she broke up with him. Anytime she says a boyfriend cheated on her and she broke it off this gives her the control when in reality they left her. Even when TA was with another girl she admits she and TA are not bf/gf but she says he's courting her. When she says he wasn't affectionate in public or we were together secretly or TA was a flirt -the reality is they were not together. With TA it becomes a whole new level. This is where stalking, slashing tires, and trying to control everything comes. He becomes what I'll call the "target" meaning the one to own and use long term. To simplify a "target" would be a "nice guy" with value. This is called Narcissistic Supply. It could be anything material, attention, adoration, kids, getting married, help, etc. In 4/08 TA had enough -no more support, no more traveling together and sent her to CA. This can never be to her, he will be punished, she will be in control and this will be all his fault hence the motive.

Thank you for these insights. Very interesting. So in this purview, when the Narcissistic Supply is cut off - as Travis cut if off - this is intolerable and rage and revenge MUST take place? very interesting....

 

[Gecko100]

I doubt she took Crowley's beliefs into her own makeup any more than she took on Mormonism, if she read him she was just aping Bobby, and disregarded it as soon as she was out of that relationship and moved onto her next host.

This struck me as kind of reminiscent of the whole case; Evil vs Godly. It's bit of a leap to go from Crowley as a world view and then into Mormonism.
It indicates she has very little 'self' knowledge, and that her notion of 'spirituality' is something to be manipulated and gain from, rather than seeking it for self understanding.
It could also mean that she would catch more flies being 'godly', rather than casting spells.
Her seeming lack of 'self' made her ripe pickings for any cult like the other poster said. (Sorry I forgot your name).
She also seems to bounce between child/extreme adult behaviour, with very little in between which might indicate a very weak ego.
There is no doubt for me that she is very damaged.
Of course, none of this precludes psychopathology or any of the cluster B's.
Her parents owned a restaurant didn't they? I wonder if she became some sort of de-facto parent for her siblings at an early age?
I wish we knew more about her background.
My apologies if I offend anyone, but I have an intense need to know what happens to children, and what if anything can be done to prevent the ugliness that changes them so significantly. Especially as 4 of them in 100 will end up with ASPD.
Does anyone know if these statistics reflect all cluster B's or just ASPD? If not, then it's even scarier...
I'll see if I can find out.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Just to note, You couldn't be more wrong ...girls who are 12 years old experience orgasms (and you should really learn how to spell the word before you use it too), big time, no matter how "hard you find it to believe", so you can pop your immense bubble of denial with a pin right about now. I've got more news for ya, 8 year old girls have orgasms. My wife, when she was a 3rd grade teacher, would tell me stories about girls DURING CLASS rubbing up and down on their chair until they reached orgasm. Complete with the chair going up and down until that moment of orgasm. Kids, both boys and girls, know what orgasm is WAYYYYYYYYYY before 12....and not because someone has "taught them about it". I remember it at that age as well. If you didn't experiment at those ages that's YOUR problem, not TA's. And the fact that someone "uttering about a 12 year old's orgasm" disturbs you, but stabbing someone 29 times, slitting their throat from ear to ear, and shooting them in the head DOESN'T disturb you, is the ONLY thing that's disturbing...believe me. You need to grow up asap before making such ignorant comments. Don't comment on something you know NOTHING about.

Carp, I'm 100 years old and still haven't had one! :blushing:
I'm blushing not because of that but because I didn't spell the word correctly (I did at first but, for some reason. I changed it).

I'm sure some girls have experienced an orgasm. My belief is that it isn't that common for young girls or virginal girls to do so until they learn more about their bodies and hopefully experience a good lover some day. I'm a woman and was a girl once so I'm not lacking all knowledge on the subject. That said, maybe times have changed in that there is so much about sex on TV and the word masturbation is said outloud now (not back in my day) that it's possible girls are exposed to the notion of stimulation at a younger age. If they experience molestation that would be one way. I'd be curious why anyone older than four or five would be self stimulating in public. That's a private thing/behavior.

I'm not here to bash TA, JA or the witnesses or lawyers; I'm interested in discussing the whole scenario of how and why TA's life ended the way it did. Keep in mind, I had nothing to do with it and wouldn't wish this on anybody.

It's not true that what happened to TA doesn't disturb me. The circumstances are being analyzed and discussed and I'm not connecting (on purpose) emotionally to the case. If I did, I couldn't be on WS.

By the way, we're not allowed to attack one another on websleuths. If someone posts something you don't like or agree with, you can state your opinion without verbally attacking the poster or pointing out how stupid they must be because of a spelling error. :what:

Yes, the idea of a thirty year old man being turned on by twelve year old girls having orgasms disturbs me.

 

[aafromaa]

...sure did notice it. I also noticed Wilmott hid the other results when she put them up for the court.

Anxiety runs through all those we noticed. She is a cluster B..having anti-social, narcissism, borderline and histrionic....not to mention passive aggressive, when needed. PTSD is not her diagnosis...but a convenient tool to use to explain her amnesia. Every answer she gave fits all the other catagories we saw on the screen.

Gad, is she histrionic! Yikes! Everybody bodyslams her and she keeps passing out. She is a cluster B for sure, imo.

I agree. I think the defense was looking for a way to explain the "amnesia" and they probably googled it and traumatic events and came up with this guy who I suspect came to the PTSD diagnosis before ever even meeting JA let alone administering any tests

And his interpretation of how to administer and score those tests made it sound like any one who ever experienced or witnessed a trauma would have PTSD and anyone with PTSD would have dissociative amnesia and as someone who has suffered from PTSD...and often been misunderstood because of people's misconceptions about it...I was glad to see JM take him down a few pegs.

On a side note, I believe JA's amnesia is selective and that she remembers every detail of the killing and the cover-up But I do not understand why it matters whether she remembers the details or not. Can anyone explain to me why that should be such an issue when she has admitted killing him? Isn't the issue whether she premeditated it or not? What does whether or not she remembers the details AFTER shooting him have to do with whether or not she planned to kill him BEFORE shooting him?

 

[Jimmynap]

Thank you for these insights. Very interesting. So in this purview, when the Narcissistic Supply is cut off - as Travis cut if off - this is intolerable and rage and revenge MUST take place? very interesting....

It can never end like this because it becomes failure to her. The way she is wired, she can never fail because she can never be wrong , she is better than anyone else. Other people are only seen as to be used for her wants and needs.

 

[Callisto]

It's impossible for me to accept your viewpoint as we've heard TA say outloud that he's being turned on by the thought of a twelve year old having her first orgasim.
As much as some would like to, we can't blame JA for everything that came out of his mouth.

Just noting too that I find it hard to believe that twelve year old girls are experiencing orgasims. When girls are sexual at twelve, it's usually because they've been lead down a path for somebody else's pleasure.

The thought of the sentence being uttered about twelve year old girls having orgasims as a turn on is beyond disturbing to me. It's on tape so nobody made it up - TA said it. If it's her fault, he was a chameleon too.

I understand some of what you say but when you give blanket statements, they are misleading to others out there reasoning.. For the record I had my first orgasm(s) long before I knew anything of the subject. I have memories of being probably around 5 years of age doing stimulating things and being told not to do that and I recall orgasms. I didn't know what I was doing then at all it was just an almost involuntary thing that happened. By age 12 I did engage in this activity willfully, and knew what it was. I don't consider myself some freak of nature, from what I've researched my experience is 100% normal. Everyone explores their bodies differently and at different times and to different extents! I have absolutely no past involving molestation or early exposure to sexual things. No one lead me down some tainted path. I don't feel like having an orgasm at an early age is something shameful...

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Woe.be.gone]

As long as I'm playing the devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that no one who is new to a religion or a philosophy (less than six months or even two years) is going to be understanding of it or even know if they'll grow accordingly. As a person learns they grow or they don't and fall away. You have to witness people walking the walk as Christians like to say. Members of whatever it is would be wise to be aware of this concept and not expect perfection or expect that a newbie will stick around for very long. Whose job is it to set the example? The newbie or the oldie?

To fault JA for her newness to Mormonism and not following the rules, is like getting mad at a baby for falling down after taking her first steps. It's the seasoned - the leaders - who should be held accountable for doing what is right. Read the above as if it has nothing to do with this crime.

Relating to this crime, is that when one labels themself this or that and the label comes with a set of expectations, it's a let down to find out you're not what you said you were. I don't get why other people don't seem to relate to some kind of disconnect in the whole spirit of this case. It doesn't mean TA deserved what he got but the information that has been presented is an element of this case that impacted TA's future.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I understand some of what you say but when you give blanket statements, they are misleading to others out there reasoning.. For the record I had my first orgasm(s) long before I knew anything of the subject. I have memories of being probably around 5 years of age doing stimulating things and being told not to do that and I recall orgasms. I didn't know what I was doing then at all it was just an almost involuntary thing that happened. By age 12 I did engage in this activity willfully, and knew what it was. I don't consider myself some freak of nature, from what I've researched my experience is 100% normal. Everyone explores their bodies differently and at different times and to different extents! I have absolutely no past involving molestation or early exposure to sexual things. No one lead me down some tainted path. I don't feel like having an orgasm at an early age is something shameful...

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for sharing. As I said in a later post, I'm sure there are girls who have discovered their clitoris. Did I spell that correctly?

By the way, who said a girl should be shameful if and when she discovers pleasure via different parts of her body? Not I.

Don't twist my words or the meaning of my posts.

Grown men should not be thinking about twelve year old girls in relation to sex or orgasm. I stand by this conviction and the rest of you are wrong if you think it's okay for them to go there.

 

[SMK]

As long as I'm playing the devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that no one who is new to a religion or a philosophy (less than six months or even two years) is going to be understanding of it or even know if they'll grow accordingly. As a person learns they grow or they don't and fall away. You have to witness people walking the walk as Christians like to say. Members of whatever it is would be wise to be aware of this concept and not expect perfection or expect that a newbie will stick around for very long. Whose job is it to set the example? The newbie or the oldie?

To fault JA for her newness to Mormonism and not following the rules, is like getting mad at a baby for falling down after taking her first steps. It's the seasoned - the leaders - who should be held accountable for doing what is right. Read the above as if it has nothing to do with this crime.

Relating to this crime, is that when one labels themself this or that and the label comes with a set of expectations, it's a let down to find out you're not what you said you were. I don't get why other people don't seem to relate to some kind of disconnect in the whole spirit of this case. It doesn't mean TA deserved what he got but the information that has been presented is an element of this case that impacted TA's future.

I have to say I agree with you. I think Travis was a lovely young man, and I have enormous sympathy for him and for his family. He did not deserve the horrific fate that befell him.

That said, I have always been deeply disturbed by his sexual behavior with Jodi: NOT because he was a young man sowing his wild oats (of course we all understand that any young man offered a chance to explore his sexuality will be mightily tempted) but because he presented himself to the world as an extraordinary man: a leader, an adviser, a man of God, and a motivational speaker. He knew what the rules were.

 

[Ricochet]

My apologies if I offend anyone, but I have an intense need to know what happens to children, and what if anything can be done to prevent the ugliness that changes them so significantly. Especially as 4 of them in 100 will end up with ASPD.

I do not believe that it can be prevented, because the child is not in a position of influence over adults to prevent it, and the other problem is a child may/may not recognize what is taking place. I can look back now as an adult and see what was taking place when I was a kid, but I didn't recognize it when I was a kid. I have no problems answering questions as it relates to bpd, but I don't want to hijack this thread with all that is me. You or anyone else is more than welcome to pm.. My knowledge on other pd's is somewhat limited, and almost nil regarding narcs..

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

my sister just created this youtube video on the fumbling buffoon of a psychologist samuels........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=li1JYOHBpbs

Tell your Sister thanks and I love the ending with the Judge looking out blankly and tapping! The best!

:floorlaugh: