Hello all, I am new to the Arias threads but an old-timer on Websleuths. Also have been following the trial from the beginning.
I am sure these questions have been asked and answered somewhere, so I apologize if I am being redundant. There are so many threads though, and Im unsure where to look to even begin to find them.
Several questions/comments regarding the current witness (ALV):
All she has done, in my opinion, is describe Jodi Arias as a batterer, not a victim. Her ENTIRE TESTIMONY is based on what Jodi herself told her, so that blows anything she says right out the window for me. I believe she is a credible witness and is basing her opinion on what Jodi told her but
just like the other psychologist, how can you form a diagnosis based on a whole big fake story?
I can acquiesce that Travis and Jodi may have had a mutually dysfunctional relationship, but Jodi clearly was no victim! Why would JM go into this whole Snow White thing (I actually thought maybe I had fallen asleep on the couch and was dreaming)? I understand his point is to parallel one mythical fairy tale with another (Jodis) but why all the questions about the dwarves, etc.? As I mentioned, I believe ALV is a credible witness and I have no doubt she never intended to actually prove Snow White was battered; it was just, as she said, a catchy title. Youre doing a seminar, you want people to come and pay to see it, so you need to draw them in with something. Why is he focusing on the whole Snow White angle and not simply taking ALVs own words and applying them to Jodi?
Re/Juror #5:
Why would she come back to court!? She stated that the trial is more important than my removal as a juror (or something to that effect), but then she makes a spectacle of herself by coming to court! I understand that its completely within her right to do so, but if she didnt want to make it all about her why not watch the trial on TV like the rest of us? To me, that was a very selfish act on her part (wanted to stay connected to the trial, I guess) and is risking yet another motion for mistrial.
Re/Jodis parents:
Why didnt the prosecution call them to the stand and have them explain all of their statements in the police interviews? They both clearly think their own daughter was unstable in some way.
Again, sorry if all of this has been addressed before!
:welcome4:
I have no strong opinion on juror 5 and see both sides of the debate having merit - it helps, I'm sure, that being over here I lack access to most media you guys see regularly. (True. I could search Nancy Grace out - if I were so inclined.
)
In terms of Jodi's parents, I believe that could potentially be a strategy that could backfire on the State. IME, even parents who acknowledge behaviors of their psychopathic children still often veer on the side of giving that child the benefit of the doubt - even disregarding or minimizing vast evidence to the contrary. Denial is often a very strong component of such relationships. They easily could have testified they believe 'abuse' contributed to whatever mental disorder or disease they think she has.
As far as 'mutually dysfunctional relationship', I personally believe a relationship with a cluster B disordered person, and even more so a psychopath, can become that because of the disorder itself. Toxic relationships do exist but I view them very differently than a relationship with a psychopath, in which psychological abuse and manipulation runs so rampant that the person who is the target of such abuse and manipulation often says and does things they normally wouldn't in
any other relationship. (This is just so difficult to explain at times.)
While LaViolette professes Snow White was simply just a catchy title she references her in her own work very often. In her book, she uses Snow White in terms of a conversion theory. She typifies abuse victims as Snow White and in so doing, describes them as compassionate, disempowered, kind, sweet, vulnerable, gullible and absolutely helpless. Snow White, upon leaving an abuser, is compelled by family, friends, and even an 'ignorant' therapist (my term for her implication) to become the Wicked Witch who she equates to strong, manipulative, controlling, and assertive. It's an idea that to me is inadequate an assessment at best, overly simplistic of much deeper dynamics, and at worst could be offensive to abuse victims and survivors.
I
think I understand what she intended...I just think it was a very poor example, badly misconstrued, in an inane attempt to portray something much more convoluted than she delved into. Her book is available at Amazon to preview, page 71, should you wish to read it yourself.
And personally I question both her credibility and ethics in all honesty. But that's JMO.
