Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/20 thru 2/23 - Break

[Mindmatters]

BBM

Is this not one of the tactics used by people who are domestic abusers. I am firmly convinced there was DV in this relationship but JA was NEVER the victim.

You are absolutely correct. No Psych professional worth their salt would believe that JA is the victim of DV in this relationship. TA was clearly the victim of gaslighting, triagulation, full scale psychological abuse, and very likely some form of physical abuse (I have always wondered if the alleged incidents of abuse she claims were actually her perpetrating against TA) in this relationship (based on available info).

This is why I find ALV, Fons, and Geffner so very revolting and disturbing. These three have seriously undermined and made a mockery of the field of DV, as well as insulted and minimized victims of true DV IMO.

 

[bznbear]

I hate it when people refuse to accept personal responsibility but I also hate her superiority. It just oozes off of her. You, like me, were in a real abusive relationship. You, like me, know how hard the fight is to gain any confidence back after an experience like that.

And here we have Einstein hanging her photos next to the flipping Mona Lisa after slaughtering a guy we probably would have given our eye teeth to date, compared to whom we were involved with, and telling anyone who will listen how horrible he was.

She makes it oh so easy to really, truly hate her.

This is something I truly fail to understand. Arias is far from accomplished or outstanding in any way, whether it's her talent, education, social status, etc. So where does the entitled attitude come from? Is it merely a manifestation of her illness?

My mom, also BPD, did exhibit the same privileged belief. Even at a fairly young age, her actions/words gave me pause. I knew she was very different from my friends' moms. We were extremely close until I got my driver's license and started dating. Suddenly she was critical of everything - my friends, my interests, me. I realize now that was the devaluing piece of the disorder because I was becoming independent. As she neared menopause, she became worse, exhibiting psychosis and was hospitalized 3 times over the years. Aside from her criticism, I noticed the superior air and the "everyone owes me" mindset. It started with money. She was spending way more than she had. She went through 2 inheritances in a 2 yr span, and then took out signature loans. When she could no longer pay her bills, she came to me. I offered to make the monthly payments on $10k cash advance. On Thanksgiving Day, she called me to tell me it wasn't enough and that I was selfish. She then went into a tirade accusing me, my 87yr old grandmother (her mom) and my aunt (her sister), uncle and cousin of being evil and conspiring against her. I later discovered my grandmother had been giving her well over $1000 a month for years. Grandma was going into assisted living, and thus could no longer afford to support my mom. That was the impetus for her rage.

This is the same behavior I see in Arias, and it's just baffling to me. And it's this delusional assumption in her own exceptional self that spurs much of her rage, her scorched earth MO, imo. The goddess syndrome. And if you don't kowtow to her demands, you suffer her wrath. Arias is a frightening creature.

 

[GigiG]

BBM:
I didn't mean to type the wrong name .... bet I was sleep-writing before morning coffee took effect. Sorry to both of you.

I know there was no disrespect! :loveyou: My question was because I have seen statements about oldsters being swayed away from voting for DP from several posters over the years. I wondered if there was a certain reason for that. Just a curiosity on my part. I tend to do that sometimes..... get a thought stuck in my head that I can't shake off. Now that I have posted, it will probably disappear for a while again.

my opinion of Zervakos? He was another pampered misfit, never told no, and wanted to be the boss. "Pick me, pick me" ... and the others easily caved.

Spellbound, I think those comments come from the fact that of those on the first jury who spoke publicly, each said the one thing the 4 who couldn't be persuaded to vote for death had in common was that they were the older jurors. So it's more a statement of fact than it is a commentary on "oldsters" having groupthink about the DP. Perhaps the fact that they were older was coincidental to other things they had in common. Who knows?

Also, of those 4 "oldsters" who voted for life, 3 of them were men. With this new jury being younger and more female, it will be interesting to see what happens. I personally contend that women tend to judge JA more harshly than men (or maybe I should say men are more gullible in terms of buying her "woe is me" BS), so depending on who gets chosen for the final twelve, it could be much more about gender than age.

 

[atthelake]

I believe Reagan was another name Jodi said she considered for a child? This made me not believe anything related to any conversation she had with Travis about children! There is a mind-association of Hinckley and Reagan, which is why I believe she blithely lumped them together. Hinckley tried to assassinate Reagan.

For a good laugh (well, not really), consider that Hinckley had a fixation on someone (namely Jodi Foster), was nuts, and attempted a very splashy murder.

And Hinkley missed and James Brady was shot in the head and lived to have brain damage. :gaah: Times like right now I can fathom the entire sequence being that she wanted sex pictures on camera and to shoot him so that he lived, but was brain damaged and planned for others to find those photos to destroy his reputation.

I feel like I'm playing six degrees of separation ..so how does Kevin Bacon fit in !

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Paintr]

You are absolutely correct. No Pysch professional worth their salt would believe that JA is the victim of DV in this relationship. TA was clearly the victim of gaslighting, full scale psychological abuse, and very likely some form of physical abuse (I have always wondered if the alleged incidents of abuse she claims were actually her perpetrating against TA) in this relationship (based on available info).

This is why I find ALV, Fons, and Geffner so very revolting and disturbing. These three have seriously undermined and made a mockery of the field of DV, as well as insulted and minimized victims of true DV IMO.

:goodpost:

 

[Steve44]

double post deleted

 

[Steve44]

You are absolutely correct. No Pysch professional worth their salt would believe that JA is the victim of DV in this relationship. TA was clearly the victim of gaslighting, full scale psychological abuse, and very likely some form of physical abuse (I have always wondered if the alleged incidents of abuse she claims were actually her perpetrating against TA) in this relationship (based on available info).

This is why I find ALV, Fons, and Geffner so very revolting and disturbing. These three have seriously undermined and made a mockery of the field of DV, as well as insulted and minimized victims of true DV IMO.

Agree completely, and 'some form' indeed.

 

[ElleElle]

From that link: But the psychotherapist said Jodi never really left Travis. She couldn't, because Travis psychologically and physically abused her. When she told him she was thinking about leaving Arizona for California, he became violent. ..."There was discussion of her moving to Yreka. There was an argument and he was upset and slapped her across the face."

How can we believe ANYTHING JA has told ALV? :notgood:

According to his journals, TA was able to breathe once JA left. Even if he slapped her in the face, that should of given more reason to leave, and never, ever go back.

ALV and Dr. F are twisting the meaning of DV. Abused women don't come back to their abusers over 1000's of miles once they escaped their abusers. If Travis was really an abuser, he would of kept her closer, not further. JMO

 

[rose222]

Perhaps I'm in the minority on this but I do not believe that the age/gender of a juror dictates how they will vote in any given trial. In this case, the foreman happened to be an older man. I know plenty of older people who are able to see Arias for the psychopath that she is and believe that she should get the death penalty. It might take a man a few additional seconds to 'get it' but that goes both ways---it's a little easier to get fooled by the opposite sex. I've spoken to a lot of people regarding this case---men, women, older adults, students etc. and most agree that she should be sentenced to death or at least LWOP. It has little to do with age/gender/class.

 

[DebinGA]

EEK!!!! Are we sure MF isn't really ALV in slight disguise and a voice distorter under her blouses?

With JM, ALV adopted a stern schoolmarm faced with an annoying, disruptive, and slightly stupid student persona. With JM, Fonseca adopted a militant feminist who doesn't take crap from males persona, repeatedly complained to JSS that she was unable to hear the crap the male was shoveling, and then showed she'd clearly heard the shoveled crap and every bit of it mischaracterized what she'd said.

 

[ElleElle]

So since he is bringing in 2 computer guys back in, I guess that Nurmi is still going to try that angle, about the "thousands of pornographic images on Alexander's computer." :no:

Maybe Dr. F will borrow Geff's 5 year old colored graph to use as a prop. The one with the women TA was texting.

Again, if I were on the jury, i'd be thinking why did again? What does this have to do with mitigation?

 

[Mindmatters]

Agree completely, and 'some form' indeed.

Hi Steve, let me clarify...I used the term "some form of" physical abuse to describe her behaviors prior to her brutally murdering Travis. It is my best guess that, despite the DT claiming this murderer had no history of being violent, JA was physically violent with TA during their relationship. I would further surmise, that the murder was the escalated culmination of her physical abuse. Of course this is only my opinion but there is some evidence that strongly suggests that this is case.

 

[wenwe4]

You are absolutely correct. No Pysch professional worth their salt would believe that JA is the victim of DV in this relationship. TA was clearly the victim of gaslighting, full scale psychological abuse, and very likely some form of physical abuse (I have always wondered if the alleged incidents of abuse she claims were actually her perpetrating against TA) in this relationship (based on available info).

This is why I find ALV, Fons, and Geffner so very revolting and disturbing. These three have seriously undermined and made a mockery of the field of DV, as well as insulted and minimized victims of true DV IMO.

Thank you for this!

I keep thinking about child custody cases when DV is involved. Sometimes parents (and extended family) will call in false CPS reports and make accusations against the other parent that have no factual basis in an effort to cast doubt and gain power for custody. (ie: using the children to get back at the other spouse). Child Protective Services investigates when a child has witnessed (in some states) or has been harmed as a result of a DV incident between parents. Allegations of past DV must be substantiated if the State is seeking to limit time/access to the child with the perpetrator parent.

The very act of terminating parental rights is taken very seriously (in my experience) these vague allegations would never fly. For instance, if Jodi were arguing to a court that TA shouldn't have access to their child(ren) because he called her names and allegedly broke her finger - it would not even raise to the "concerned" level as these are unsubstantiated. Travis OTOH did have evidence of Jodi's concerning behaviors that would warrant further investigation IMO. (let alone the murder issue)

Why on earth would the DT think this is enough to save her life? I realize it's all they've got, but IMO it still doesn't meet the bar. Hope I am making sense here.

 

[daisydomino]

You are absolutely correct. No Pysch professional worth their salt would believe that JA is the victim of DV in this relationship. TA was clearly the victim of gaslighting, full scale psychological abuse, and very likely some form of physical abuse (I have always wondered if the alleged incidents of abuse she claims were actually her perpetrating against TA) in this relationship (based on available info).

This is why I find ALV, Fons, and Geffner so very revolting and disturbing. These three have seriously undermined and made a mockery of the field of DV, as well as insulted and minimized victims of true DV IMO.

I agree except for one thing: they haven't made a mockery of the field, only of themselves.

It's easy to see that JA lies about the abuse from TA. The only reason these psychologists are testifying on her behalf is because they're being paid to do so.

 

[Mindmatters]

I agree except for one thing: they haven't made a mockery of the field, only of themselves.

It's easy to see that JA lies about the abuse from TA. The only reason these psychologists are testifying on her behalf is because they're being paid to do so.

I get what you are saying Daisy, and agree to an extent, but I suspect that there are many out there who will see them as "representative" of the field itself and thus come away thinking psych as it relates to DV is just "psycho babble".

 

[Steve44]

I agree except for one thing: they haven't made a mockery of the field, only of themselves.

It's easy to see that JA lies about the abuse from TA. The only reason these psychologists are testifying on her behalf is because they're being paid to do so.

I don't think the money alone explains nor justifies their bias in their own minds. If they can be this biased within the courts they can be just as biased outside. It's disturbing to think they pass themselves off as degreed profesionals with decision making power in situations that require true unbiased judgment. They can and probably have done considerable damage with their warped thinking.

 

[ZoeyW]

The first time I was on a jury I was SHOCKED. I was very young, first year in college, and I looked it. I was under the impression no one would even get started until we all returned to our seats. We took a restroom break straight away. When I sat back down, one of the men, said no no, you sit at the top of the table, you are the foreperson. We elected you. I thought he was kidding. There were folks one could tell just by the way they dressed and spoke who were professionals, experienced, my elders, surely far more learned than me. I looked around the table to see if it was a funny they were pulling on the baby of the bunch. Nope. They were not kidding. So I swallowed hard and stepped up to the white board and got us started. I am sharing this just to let you know how a jury leader is picked is not necessarily the way you think. Tara Kelley said that the jury had discussed they would simply draw a number, randomly to decide the jury foreperson. She wound up being an alternate so there is no way to know if that is what happened.

I watched the foreman's various and sundry interviews over many times searching for the inevitable WHY to be answered to calm me. I believe he does not believe in the death penalty and he would never have voted for it. Period. He was that rigid. If I am correct, he is a lawyers worst nightmare, a stealth juror. I thought we had another one of those in the book writer, juror #3 on this jury. She has since been released.

A few things stood out to me.

1) I inferred that he opined that they were not permitted to consider the VIS of Sam and Steven as he said that was not evidence. He had a poor understanding of that. Absolutely they were to consider it, or the judge would not have put it before them. I hope that is made clear this time that just because it is not sworn testimony, does not mean the jury cannot consider it. GOOD GRIEF!

2) By stark contrast, he was willing to accept what Jodi said in her allocution, forgetting that too was NOT sworn testimony, so his standard was adjustable?

3) He said they did not try to convince one another, they respected each person's personal decision. Translation- they took a quick vote and he considered that to be definitive. He did not understand the idea of deliberation is indeed to go over the evidence, and opinions, back and forth, over and over and over again. He honest to God did not seem to think this was needed in this phase. That explains the VERY quick question/note he sent out about being deadlocked after, what was it....two hours.

4.) He is in broadcasting. I will bet my home we will see a book from him straight away after sentencing. I say this because several of the jurors were interviewed the day after he went on Good Morning America. They were polite, but LIVID. They seemed SHOCKED that he was interviewed; because. as a group they all had committed to one another to hold their peace until later. He purposely walked out in front of the news trucks right after trial and the bookers for every station approached him. Of course. He could have declined as he had just promised, but instead he was booked on plane to NY. I don't respect that. The jurors said politely, he does NOT speak for us. We do not share his views. We are here ONLY to set that straight publicly; because, in his GMA interview he used "we" often.

5) He says he saw with his own eyes the texts and emails between the pair of them. "There is no doubt in my mind she was emotionally abused by him," he opined firmly. So he bought into the Travis had it coming nonsense if you ask me.

Someone was asking why do folks assume older folks would go easier on Jodi Arias. I laughed when I read that; because , it has my experience that people from my mom and pop's and CERTAINLY my Gram's generations DO NOT PLAY. They suffer no fools and would come down harder, if anything. Every kid in America knows if you go over to your Gram and Gramps' home, you WILL BEHAVE with the most elegant manners you know of. You will not be putting your feet on their coffee tables, or running through their house, you wont walk one step toward the living room with your dripping popsicle. You just know Gram don't play. They just worked too hard and their life was so much harder that they just don't put up with any nonsense. They can advise you as a teenager or young woman about the wrong boy within five minutes of meeting him. They have seen it all, heard it all, and they just are not easily fooled by the Jodi Arias' of this world. Right? Older folks would be more likely to be stern in my opinion.

What I think folks mean, in general, is that this Kim Kardashian generation is a lot different regarding sex than that of someone in their sixties or early seventies. What would absolutely shock my Mom, and give my Gram a heart attack....like Jodi texting Travis she wanted him to ejaculate on her face, she loved being debased, and Travis and her laughing about how long he went to town chomping up her behind doing "tossed salad" ( I had to look that up in the urban dictionary ). Nurmi took out all of Jodi's parts and just played back and put on the screen ONLY TRAVIS' WORDS during that sex tape. Strung together like that, wholly out of context without her asking for it, enjoying it.....
it made it seem like Travis was abusing her sexually and emotionally. People think an older generation would view all of that much harsher. People forget these folks lived through the 60s. That is a whole other show. Maybe my mom and pop never heard of anything outside of Playboy magazines, but the young generation finds quite common. Going back to Kim.....she is a multi millionaire. It is not due to sales at her Dash store. It is because millions of red blooded young men, and women for that matter, bought the sex tape of her with Ray J. So a little sex talk would seem quite palatable to a young group.

I think that is the only intention when people discuss age groups opining. I do agree with our posters that say older people would hold her feet to the fire. In my family, the autopsy photos sealed the deal. My Gram, God bless her, would not miss a beat...."Get a rope".


Here is Tara Kelley , juror http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_o...st-tara-kelley-juror-in-the-jodi-arias-trial/

Jodi Arias jurors speak out "To set the record straight after foreman spoke for them" http://youtu.be/dDRLc3lCYdg

Jodi Arias juror #8 http://youtu.be/_q2T0zszCaE
Jodi Arias juror #10 http://youtu.be/xcO76UR9v_k
Jodi Arias jurors on Dr. Drew "She showed no remorse". http://youtu.be/-SqRZVECefM

The jury foreman in the Jodi Arias trial, William Zervakos, gave an interview where he explained how he reached his verdict. He also said that he did not believe Jodi killed Travis in self-defense but said, "I am very sure in my own mind that she was mentally and verbally abused." Although he does not say it outright in this interview, his tone suggests that he was one of the jurors who voted against the death penalty. Alrighty then http://youtu.be/3aZqWCJ7ee4 He has other interviews too, but I have heard enough from this gentleman. Indeed.
THIS sir is what true PTSD looks like
Steven https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD8mGcmlwkk
Sam http://youtu.be/3DKThBJxrFA

WHY she should get the death penalty
http://youtu.be/6HZovnt7hh0

 

[Mindmatters]

Thank you for this!

I keep thinking about child custody cases when DV is involved. Sometimes parents (and extended family) will call in false CPS reports and make accusations against the other parent that have no factual basis in an effort to cast doubt and gain power for custody. (ie: using the children to get back at the other spouse). Child Protective Services investigates when a child has witnessed (in some states) or has been harmed as a result of a DV incident between parents. Allegations of past DV must be substantiated if the State is seeking to limit time/access to the child with the perpetrator parent.

The very act of terminating parental rights is taken very seriously (in my experience) these vague allegations would never fly. For instance, if Jodi were arguing to a court that TA shouldn't have access to their child(ren) because he called her names and allegedly broke her finger - it would not even raise to the "concerned" level as these are unsubstantiated. Travis OTOH did have evidence of Jodi's concerning behaviors that would warrant further investigation IMO. (let alone the murder issue)

Why on earth would the DT think this is enough to save her life? I realize it's all they've got, but IMO it still doesn't meet the bar. Hope I am making sense here.

What a great post Wenwe. As someone who (eons ago) was contracted by the District Courts to specifically evaluate individuals/interested parties involved with Drug Court, Divorce cases, and CPS abuse claims for level of functioning, overall mental health, the presence/absence of malingering, and many other factors, it is beyond me how HER WORD ALONE is taken so seriously.

 

[DebinGA]

Zervakos also noted later that the 8-4 final vote changed from the initial vote which had fewer than 8 for the DP. Zervokos likely made it plain that even if the vote got to 11-1 for DP, he'd to be lone holdout, so further deliberations were futile.

 

[Mindmatters]

I don't think the money alone explains nor justifies their bias in their own minds. If they can be this biased within the courts they can be just as biased outside. It's disturbing to think they pass themselves off as degreed profesionals with decision making power in situations that require true unbiased judgment. They can and probably have done considerable damage with their warped thinking.

AMEN!! The money is nothing compared to the potential harm they can (and likely have) cause people who are in desperate need of help and lay their trust in them. It is absolutely unthinkable IMO.