Poll for the Armchair Psychologists

[2Hip2BSquare]

That good-looking people get better treatment, in general, has been proven so many times over that it's practically become common sense. I don't think that this always applies in the justice system, though.

I had read an article, in the very early days of the Arias trial, that had a different opinion (I've been searching for it and haven't yet found it again). The upshot was that there was an opposite effect with good-looking women who use their experience of domestic violence as a defense. Young and pretty women may be perceived as having too much luck, charm and personal power to be victims of their partners. They may be perceived as being less vulnerable, and having more relationship choices available to them than plain women do. Good-looking women may also be judged more harshly by people who are on guard about their own tendency to sympathize with pretty people, and who therefore over-compensate for this natural bias by refusing any sympathy or mitigation for the defendant.

Hm. I'm not so sure it's "common sense". Especially when we see that attractive people:

"In an experiment, Sigall and Ostrove (1975) asked 120 participants to recommend sentences for burglary or fraud either with or without seeing a photo of the defendant. The photos were either physically attractive or unattractive. The physically attractive photo received shorter sentences.
Saladin et al. (1988) showed participants eight photos of men and asked them to judge how capable they considered them to be of committing each of two crimes: murder and armed robbery. Overall, the attractive men were considered less likely to have committed either crime than the unattractive ones. This attractiveness effect is strongest with serious but non-fatal crimes such as burglary, and when females are being judged (Quigley et aL, 1995). An exception to this rule occurs if people are considered to be using their attractiveness for illegal material gain, such as in performing confidence tricks or in fraud."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/crime/jury.htm

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Travis was complaining that she was smothering him, and he wouldn't be her rescuer, I believe. She should have been working, but she decided to obsess and not get help.

I thought it was bc she stopped paying her half the mortgage on her place with DB. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows anymore. Ugh

 

[Cate49]

I think it would have been very strange for Travis to want sex or to pose for pictures passively, after his May 26 email in which he assured Jodi that he viewed her as a sociopath, a scammer, "the worst thing that ever happened to me", etc. I do not believe the pics were from that day, nor that they had sex or that he posed in the shower.

Do you mean the photos from Travis' camera? No. There is nothing to suggest this, their hair / weight etc etc is all the same as it was at time of murder, there is no reason to change time stamps either (why????). Do we really have to discuss crack pot theories in here? Perhaps we could have a conspiracy theory thread so this one could be left to discuss the actual topic within the known facts, it's just hard to discuss things rationally when the clear facts of the case are being constantly disputed, for what reason I do not know.

Mrs.G Norris: premeditation is one of the most important issues in this crime. It was important enough to be a specific factor for the jury to determine culpability in this death qualifying case. There are many areas in this case were the facts aren't clear. My theory is no more out there than speculating Jodi was prostituting.
If you find my posts too out there than skip them. My suggestion for a thread
would be on how to post respectfully. There are ways to make points without
throwing daggers.

 

[OEJ]

I thought it was bc she stopped paying her half the mortgage on her place with DB. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows anymore. Ugh

You might be right. That was in Palm Desert and I thought she was in Yreka after that, but not sure now.

 

[lil_buddy]

:seeya: I'm glad it's not just me .. I've been alternating between :floorlaugh: :scared: and :banghead:

Be careful, Mrs. G. You may be picking up FLEAS in here!
http://outofthefog.net/CommonNonBehaviors/Fleas.html

 

[shelley921]

You forgot to add a comma, Mrs G, between the first and second emoticon in your sentence. (just teasing!)

Besides the fact that Jodi would have no reason to fake those photos--aside from deliberately placing herself at the scene of the crime--there were strong suggestions, made by both Flores and Martinez, that there were other photographs which depicted even more explicit sexual engagement between the two.

right - if jodi had altered the date and time stamps on the photos - IF she had done that - it would have been to her DETRIMENT - not her ADVANTAGE.

 

[fruity]

SMK: Some of pictures may have been from a previous sexual encounter. Mixed with photos on the day of murder. Photos from day of murder may include both close up of his face and the photo of her pant leg.The time stamp changed without difficulty for a photographer. Suprising him while showering without realizing she was in his house. Would be interesting to see if their physical features are consistant ie. Hair color, hair length.jewlery. Is the background consistent in photos ie. Bedding, bath accessaries, room lay out. If there are differences this would reinforce the premeditation. SMK this could be true. Not sure if my interpretation of your post is correct. It could be that photos are mixed time frames pieced together to look fluent. Again if true more premeditation.

No. Please see Mrs Norris' posts regarding all of the unbolded.

Re the bolded. If she was such a good 'photographer' she would have known that simply hitting the delete button doesn't delete photos from the memory card, it just deletes the location for you to find it. I don't think her 'photography' skills were more advanced than 'aim camera, push button'. She wouldn't have known how to change time stamps.

It doesn't matter anyway because it didn't happen. The photos were taken on the day.

 

[shelley921]

You might be right. That was in Palm Desert and I thought she was in Yreka after that, but not sure now.

I think i recall that once she left Palm Desert - she moved to Mesa. Against the wishes of Travis. He did not want her there. They were not a couple. He had begun to see her for what she was. There was no reason for her to move there to Mesa. She moved-to Mesa-but not in with Travis-she moved in with some roommate there and got some part time waitressing jobs. But nothing substantial. The roomie asked her leave after a few months because supposedly the roomie got marrried over a long weekend. [ she probably wanted Jodi O-U-T is what it was ]. Travis wasn't letting Jodi move in with him - by this time he was dating Lisa and then Mimi. This is when Jodi was slashing the tires and stalking. Finally in April of 2008, I think it was, Jodi's mom came to Mesa and helped her move back to Yreka.

 

[thefragile7393]

Mrs.G Norris: premeditation is one of the most important issues in this crime. It was important enough to be a specific factor for the jury to determine culpability in this death qualifying case. There are many areas in this case were the facts aren't clear. My theory is no more out there than speculating Jodi was prostituting.
If you find my posts too out there than skip them. My suggestion for a thread
would be on how to post respectfully. There are ways to make points without
throwing daggers.

She "attacked" the post, not the poster. That is one of the big rules around here.

 

[Emmi]

Hm. I'm not so sure it's "common sense". Especially when we see that attractive people:

"In an experiment, Sigall and Ostrove (1975) asked 120 participants to recommend sentences for burglary or fraud either with or without seeing a photo of the defendant. The photos were either physically attractive or unattractive. The physically attractive photo received shorter sentences.
Saladin et al. (1988) showed participants eight photos of men and asked them to judge how capable they considered them to be of committing each of two crimes: murder and armed robbery. Overall, the attractive men were considered less likely to have committed either crime than the unattractive ones. This attractiveness effect is strongest with serious but non-fatal crimes such as burglary, and when females are being judged (Quigley et aL, 1995). An exception to this rule occurs if people are considered to be using their attractiveness for illegal material gain, such as in performing confidence tricks or in fraud."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/crime/jury.htm

Not sure why you're providing me with more evidence of favourable bias toward attractive people. I acknowledged that there are so many studies proving this bias, that I said it's practically common sense to expect it.

My post was was about a situation in which this bias may be reversed-- the exception to the rule, the circumstances in which that might happen.

 

[human]

Broke, yes. And the move was, I believe, also an opportunity to put some physical distance between them. She did make some efforts to extract herself from the relationship.

This makes sense to me.

 

[Emmi]

Be careful, Mrs. G. You may be picking up FLEAS in here!
http://outofthefog.net/CommonNonBehaviors/Fleas.html

Would the sudden urge in non-bullies to bully the bullies count as picking up fleas?

 

[human]

Be careful, Mrs. G. You may be picking up FLEAS in here!
http://outofthefog.net/CommonNonBehaviors/Fleas.html

This is interesting.

People can make different inferences about how it applies to all kinds of things

 

[human]

I think i recall that once she left Palm Desert - she moved to Mesa. Against the wishes of Travis. He did not want her there. They were not a couple. He had begun to see her for what she was. There was no reason for her to move there to Mesa. She moved-to Mesa-but not in with Travis-she moved in with some roommate there and got some part time waitressing jobs. But nothing substantial. The roomie asked her leave after a few months because supposedly the roomie got marrried over a long weekend. [ she probably wanted Jodi O-U-T is what it was ]. Travis wasn't letting Jodi move in with him - by this time he was dating Lisa and then Mimi. This is when Jodi was slashing the tires and stalking. Finally in April of 2008, I think it was, Jodi's mom came to Mesa and helped her move back to Yreka.

I still do not get why she would leave the object of her obsession.

If she was so obsessed, I would think that she would do anything to stay close by. It's not that hard. So why leave?

 

[TorisMom003]

I still do not get why she would leave the object of her obsession.

If she was so obsessed, I would think that she would do anything to stay close by. It's not that hard. So why leave?

No money, no job, no moving in with Travis and no more taking advantage of "friends" that let her live with them. At some point people begin to see what Jodi is really all about. At that point they move away from being her "friend" and really want very little to do with her if they still want anything to do with her at all. Jodi had no choice but to move back to Yreka and live with her grandparents. Scams only work as long as people buy them and give the scammer money.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

Broke, yes. And the move was, I believe, also an opportunity to put some physical distance between them. She did make some efforts to extract herself from the relationship.

How on earth does someone that wants to extract themselves from the relationship think that calling, texting, IMing, etc the person they are "wanting to extract themselves from" is a way of doing that? One only needs to look at the records to see that Jodi got in touch with Travis a heck of a lot more than Travis got in touch with Jodi.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

No money, no job, no moving in with Travis and no more taking advantage of "friends" that let her live with them. At some point people begin to see what Jodi is really all about. At that point they move away from being her "friend" and really want very little to do with her if they still want anything to do with her at all. Jodi had no choice but to move back to Yreka and live with her grandparents. Scams only work as long as people buy them and give the scammer money.

MOO

You're right .. a few of his friends have said this, that she's worn out her welcome in Mesa .. she had done her dash, and everyone closed their doors to her .. although I know what human means about the fact that she could have found another job and stayed, there are probably things the two of them (and now only Jodi) know. Regardless we know she couldn't stay away for long unfortunately.

 

[human]

The population of Mesa is over 400,000 people. The population of Phoenix is about 1.5 million.

The door was closed with a few people, but there are thousands more for her to use.

She did not hesitate to borrow money from men. She knows about that.

She knows she can hustle up other men easily. She could have lived with some other guy for quite awhile. Darryl was happy with her for a long time. He even took a pay cut to be with her. She knows her power.

She is obsessed with TA, yet she moves to CA.

And since she is in CA, TA could easily get a different phone number or even never answer her calls and texts.

When did he sell her the car? And if he wanted to ditch her, why did he keep a relationship by selling her a car with payments to him?

While she was at the house surprising him, why did he not say that he had an appointment and he had to leave in the AM? He could make up any story to get rid of her. He could say he had to go to the dr or dentist. Anything, to ditch her. Why hang around with her all day?

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Not sure why you're providing me with more evidence of favourable bias toward attractive people. I acknowledged that there are so many studies proving this bias, that I said it's practically common sense to expect it.

My post was was about a situation in which this bias may be reversed-- the exception to the rule, the circumstances in which that might happen.

Yes and my post supports that exception to the rule that you spoke of. This isn't a contest Emmi.

Sharing sources shouldn't be offensive. The point is this may not be "common sense" to everyone else here which is why we discuss and provide links, credentials, and sources... To help give validity to conversation and guide those who do not have your "common sense" through to a better understanding of what we are talking about.

And perhaps also I was trying to understand if you were coming from the same place as me. Lot of good that did.

 

[SMK]

Mrs.G Norris: premeditation is one of the most important issues in this crime. It was important enough to be a specific factor for the jury to determine culpability in this death qualifying case. There are many areas in this case were the facts aren't clear. My theory is no more out there than speculating Jodi was prostituting.
If you find my posts too out there than skip them. My suggestion for a thread
would be on how to post respectfully. There are ways to make points without
throwing daggers.

I agree many areas are unclear; "crackpot theory" is in the eye of the beholder, merely.
The prostituting theory I would take to be the furthest out there, but I would not dispute anyone's right to conjecture on it.
If all is so clear, there is nothing to "Sleuth", really.....