Jodi Arias Trial: Her Statement To The Jury

Jodi spoke to the jury today. She told the jury that every time, including the most recent time, that she has publicly said that she chose death over a life sentence, she meant it. So in essence she’s saying that nothing has changed. Then she goes on to say that though she meant what she said and was sincere in preferring the death penalty, when she said it, she lacked “perspective.”

Jodi DP2

Later on she reveals to us what that perspective was. The new perspective and why she thinks a life sentence would be preferable, is not because she still does not prefer death to life, it’s because her getting the death penalty would be hard on her family. If you listen to her words carefully, she remains consistent and strong in her preference for the death penalty. It is her personal choice. But Jodi being the ever self-sacrificing humanitarian is willing to put up with life to spare her family from her dying. That’s what she said. Her ego was unbent, yielding not an inch.

The best example of an ego that is completely out of control was her humorous moment when giving her presentation to the jury. She was going through pictures of her childhood and later years and then came to a picture were her hair was a reddish blonde or blondish red color.

She stopped her presentation to make an aside to the jury. She smiled and said in reference to the hair color on the screen, as if hair color had some importance to the jury “that’s when I was coming out of my red hair phase.” She smiled as if someone cared. It was a little side humor, something you might say when showing a picture to your friends in the office. The only problem was, it was a completely inappropriate moment. These weren’t her friends at the office. These were 12 individuals who would decide if they were going to kill her or not. There is no room for humor when talking to your possible executioners.

I have much more to say about this but I’d like to leave you with one last thought. Once again Jodi bashed Travis. She brought to the jury, for show and tell purposes, a T-shirt that she is selling on the Internet. It clearly says on the Internet, “that a portion of the profits would go to charity.” She told the jury that “100% of the profits were going to charity.”

She then told the jury that she knows that some people don’t think she was a victim of domestic violence and they are entitled to their opinion but that she really is a victim of domestic violence. So her story continues. The lies about domestic violence continue. The bashing of Travis continues. Why continue the lie now since the jury didn’t buy it in the first place? Ego demands that. I don’t know if you’ve noticed in your life experience but when you catch someone in a lie, if it is someone who rarely lies they will quickly admit it. However if it’s someone who is a compulsive liar, they won’t give up the lie. No matter what and no matter how silly and how caught they are, they keep lying. They might even add on to the lie and make it even more ridiculous and grandiose. Why? Because their ego demands it.

In the beginning of her statement to the jury, Jodi says that she mistakenly gave those early interviews to the media. Those hour-long documentaries were a mistake according to Jodi.

Depending on what part of the country or world you live in, somewhere near the evening in my part of the world the judge lifted the ban on Jodi’s interviews to the press. Within minutes Jodi had begun scheduling hour and a half long interviews with different TV stations. That’s ego folks.


27 thoughts on “Jodi Arias Trial: Her Statement To The Jury

    • Because you have a soul.

      Because you see JA for the monster she is.

      Because JA never said she was sorry.

      Because you have compassion for the family of Travis Alexander.

      This list could go on and on. Take comfort in your emotional response to JA’s obscene show; it’s evidence that you’re nothing at all like Jodi Arias.

    • We get shaken by such pure evil. Talk about ego, Arias thought she was Willmott up in front of the jury, supposedly pleading for her life. She gave her “presentation” as a CEO, an attorney. And she was going to be the be-all for the prison system. Be agent of total change. Hilarious, if not so frightening & chilling.

  1. I think your opinion is interesting, to some extent because it is kind of the opposite of mine but based on the same JA bizarre conduct. Can you see this as a scenario where she is dissociating as a result of an extremely traumatic event – witnessing her boyfriend’s brutal murder, perhaps having been raped at the same time; or if not, can you identify the specific reason or reasons that you rule that out entirely?

    I mean, you have to disregard her defense at trial and a lot of what she says or admits to, but if you can run with that idea I’d be interested to hear what you come up with.

    I’ll appreciate any response.

  2. It amazed me when Wilmott said Jodi had low self esteem with no, or zero ego. I immediately thought of you and hoped you had a posting today. I have a much better understanding of the psychology behind this trial thanks to your articles. What’s the difference between antisocial and borderline. ?

  3. I think the last photo of Jodi should be her brain being studied post mortem. It seems very clear that this freak will not leave the Alexanders alone for as long as she lives. She can’t help her evil self. She will find ways, conduits, and sycophants to help her torture them. She is fully capable of controlling people from prison. The press will always give her the attention she craves. The only way to stop her is to dump her in death row where her privileges are as close to zero as possible. The world (and probably not the general prison population) will not be a safe from her madness until she is placed in solitary and then ultimately purged from the planet.

  4. I know Dr. Drew will argue she has a disorder. He’s right. Psychopathy is a disorder. But then again so is ADHD and halitosis. And just like those disorders, being a psychopath does not exclude you from being responsible for your actions. A psychopath is absolutely aware of what they are doing. They know right from wrong. They simply don’t care if what they’ve done is wrong or hurtful as long as their “needs” are met.

  5. I agree with Uppity. The Jodi show has gone on for far too long. It needs to come to a stop.
    Thank you Dr. Randle for helping us to understand the mind of Jodi Arias. Very scary!

  6. She continues to take NO responsibility. She manages to TRY to undo all said & done before, while definitely getting her message across. How many times we hear: “I made a mistake before,” I am doing it for my family.” I lacked perspective,” I shouldn’t have said that.” And then continues to bash Travis & family, i.e., takes out a “Survivor” t-shirt…going to be the spokesperson for domestic violence. Yes, (((EGO))). On & On. The id, ego, superego. Her id (pleasure) & ego (Me, Me, Me) full-blown. The superego (conscience, morality) never developed &/or crashed into slime.

  7. I was astounded by Jodi’s multi-media “lecture” and thought her T-shirt display was unwise. (And its “design” didn’t convince me she’s a great artist!) I thought when she said “this precious child” (referring to her niece) it sounded incredibly stilted. This relates to an issue in her attorney’s closing. JW said when the sister was born (Jodi was 11 yo), that’s when JA’s troubles began. She no longer could do anything right in her mother’s eyes and she became estranged from both her parents. JW seemed to suggest this was when Jodi’s Borderline Personality Disorder began (a dx the defense is now trying to use as a mitigator even though the defense fought it at trial) because Jodi could no longer “connect” with her parents. (At trial, DeMarte had mentioned the role of family dynamics in creating BPD.)

    Of course, that’s BS. Whether Jodi has borderline traits in addition to antisocial and narcissistic traits (and I think she does) personality disorders don’t start at age 11 but rather begin much earlier in life even though they are not diagnosed until adulthood. Any disconnection or invalidation by the family to produce BPD in a child would have had to have come well before age 11! But I do think there was a great truth in what JW said. Jodi may have been able to tolerate a baby BROTHER (we don’t know that but we don’t have evidence she couldn’t) but what JW told us, in effect, was Jodi felt extremely displaced by a baby SISTER and that her life went downhill from there. I think it is also known she told her sister she “hated” her (and obviously was old to know better if the sister wasn’t born until Jodi was 11–normal sibs might say that to each other if 7 or 8 yo) And what do we see in the “adult” Jodi? Might we say she displayed the same intolerance towards other adult women who she felt might displace her? Not only in killing Travis for “leaving her” for another woman but also in her non-lethal but very inappropriate behaviors toward women she felt “threatened” her? Certainly she didn’t seem to have any real female friends as an adult.

    So far as her symptoms being dissociation from “seeing her boyfriend killed” John Regan (May 22, 1:08AM), I don’t think there is really any doubt SHE killed him even if we exclude her confession. And the pictures that were recovered from the camera certainly don’t suggest she was raped unless you are suggesting she had voluntary sex and then was raped (which it seems would be a problem from the timeline in the camera) Sure, we can all suggest alternatives if we throw out all the witnesses and all the evidence including the pre-crime evidence like the gas cans, the rented car, the license plate, the changed hair color, the cell phone, etc— heck, maybe Travis killed himself by rigging up a way to stab himself in the back and Jodi didn’t want people to know he killed himself so she removed all the evidence—but that alternative as well as others just don’t fit the known evidence. And from a psychological perspective, people who tend to dissociate usually aren’t “control freaks.” JA is certainly one of those. In addition, in the police video Jodi asked the detective if she could see the crime scene photos of Travis’s body. That doesn’t fit—at all—with her being a traumatized innocent observer who had been raped and then “blocked out” the memory of that and of seeing “her boyfriend” killed by someone else.

    • Respectfully, I think you’re not doing a good enough job separating your belief that she killed him from your analysis of whether dissociation could account for the extremely odd behavior she exhibits.

      You might find this helpful:

      I mean, what is the difference between dissociation and amnesia? Dissociation is, as the term implies, a disconnect, right? Can be an emotional disconnect, or a mental/cognitive disconnect, or some combination of the two.

      Sometimes it involves amnesia, sometimes it doesn’t, so why can’t it involve partial or selective amnesia?

      Why is her asking to see the photos so determinative?

      Looking on the other side, aren’t there real problems here with all the BPD claims? Wasn’t she too functional for that? Narcissistic/sociopath could certainly fit, but it could fit so many people. Don’t you worry that you’re reasoning backwards from the crime? If she just presents to you with the same “symptoms” and there’s no dead body in a shower somewhere, is “sociopath” even going to occur to you?

      If you or the host here could deal with some of these questions I’d find it helpful.

      • I’m sure KR will provide a thorough answer. And I’ll be glad to think about the issues you bring up and will read the linked material from your post. But in the meantime, I’d like you to think about a few issues too.

        1) Just how likely is it that another person or persons repeatedly assaulted Travis with a gun AND a knife in Jodi’s presence and perhaps raped her, let her wander around enough to get her palm print in Travis’s blood, and then let her leave completely unharmed? (Unharmed other than the possible rape—and BTW, why assume she might have been raped? Just because women CAN be?) And that these mystery persons were immediately confident Jodi had permanent amnesia (which is rare) and she would never do anything to identify them as the “real killers” including calling the cops from down the block after she left? (Even if these mystery killers didn’t anticipate they would “luck out” and Jodi would actually confess to doing the crime herself.)

        2) I also have trouble with the notion she had PTSD if she had “amnesia” for the trauma. As many people have pointed out, that simply does not compute. It also does not compute she would ask to see the photos whether she was blocking the trauma OR she was suffering from PTSD. It’s not a matter of “insensitivity.”

        3) Despite Samuel’s disjointed testimony, dissociation and amnesia aren’t exactly the same. Dissociation (alteration in consciousness, identity, memory, and/or sense of self) is typically thought of as a psychological process while amnesia may be caused by psychological factors OR physical factors such as head trauma. We could hypothesize Jodi was in somewhat of a dissociative fugue state when she drove away from Travis’s house (with amnesia for the killing event—not sure about your use of the term “selective” here as I’m not sure what you mean) and she didn’t come out of it until later still retaining amnesia for the event. But in order for that to work in service of her innocence and the some-other-dudes-did-it defense, we have to assume she lied about much of everything else (including that she remembered shooting Travis and that she left the voicemails on his phone afterwards to cover up that she killed him.) We’d also have to assume she had some reason to dispose of the gun belonging to the “real killers’” as she admitted to throwing the gun away in the desert. (We could also assume she didn’t do that but was lying then too.) We’d also have to assume the serial content of the deleted photos was misleading, it was misleading that ONLY those photos were deleted, and the timeline the photos show was misleading, and the events before the killing (gas cans, cell phone off, etc) were meaningless events.

        I simply have trouble explaining the death of Travis by resorting to an explanation of traumatic dissociation and permanent amnesia on Jodi’s part along with the SODDI defense when there isn’t any evidence of that and there IS evidence she did it beyond her confession. After all, at least by time of trial, none of the mental health experts believed Jodi might have merely WITNESSED the killing. Of course, defense trial strategy comes into it but if there was ANY evidence of someone else doing it and the defense didn’t suggest that at all but instead went with self-defense, we then ALSO have to assume both her attorneys are complete buffoons. (I realize the state has the burden.) All in all, we have to make a huge number of “assumptions” to make the “SODDI and Jodi was traumatized” scenario fit including either assuming Jodi is a habitual liar or assuming she is so mentally ill she doesn’t know what happened and her testimony about her actions was all confabulation.

        Also, BTW, I’ve never said I thought Antisocial PD fit her very well. I do think she has borderline traits but not full-blown BPD. And yes, even if there wasn’t a dead body, I’d still think something was wrong with her. And you must think she has problems too if you think it’s possible she confessed to killing Travis when she really witnessed someone else doing it!

        • I really, really appreciate this response. It’ll take me a while to respond fully but I wanted to thank you. It’s not only evidence focused and thoughtful, it’s pretty forceful and cogent. I look for this a lot in discussions like this and rarely find it.

          I’ll probably deal with all this over on my blog, too, because there are some readers over there that will appreciate it as well I think.

          Thanks again, I’ll be back a little later.

        • 1) Well, likelihoods. Given this terrible and brutal murder – and I think it’s fair to say based on the wounds that it had to be murder – our sense of likelihood has to be adjusted. Ordinarily I’d say the idea that someone with her background and lack of previous violence did something like that would be fanciful. But there’s no question someone did it, and there’s no question she was there. But I’d still say her doing it by herself in that manner is unlikely enough that it would be important to entertain other scenarios, and indeed for a long time she maintained that two others had done it. The way she described them being dressed might account for no physical evidence of their presence being there (although there is that unidentified shoe print, and that is physical evidence). Another thing is that the nature of the killing implies or suggests – doesn’t absolutely demonstrate but implies and suggests – a professional killer or at least an experienced one, such as a hunter or butcher. I don’t think it’s disputed that JA doesn’t fit that category.

          So I’d say based on those things and others there’s a likelihood of others being there. Were there others out there that had a motive to kill TA? Sure, not that that means much by itself, but when you have such people and balance it against the unlikelihood that she could have done this by herself it would be something to seriously consider, and it doesn’t seem like anyone did that.

          I’m not “assuming” that she was raped. But in the scenario where two other men did this it would not be shocking if that had happened as well. And it might make it more likely that she would be let go. And it is consistent, I think, with the severity of the dissociation and/or PTSD that would have to be present to explain some of her behavior. And she would be perversely grateful to them for sparing her. And terrified of them. And ashamed of being raped. And ashamed of surviving, or even begging for her life, when her boyfriend had been so savagely murdered.

          And maybe they never removed their masks so they weren’t worried about her identifying them, especially given everything else. And maybe their real purpose was TA, and they just took pity on her because they didn’t want to kill anyone else, because they felt morally justified in killing him but not her.

          2) I don’t know everything about PTSD, but I believe the range of behaviors and the degree of memory of the traumatic event can vary widely both absolutely and from one time and circumstance to another. Obviously, guilty or not she experienced – or committed – a very traumatic event such that PTSD would be an expected consequence, don’t you agree?

          3) I agree that we have to conclude – not assume, if we are running with this hypothetical – that JA is lying or fabricating almost all the time, and basically nothing she says should be relied upon in and of itself. So there wouldn’t be anything unreasonable about concluding that she was lying about disposing of the gun and knife in the desert. We know for a fact that the gun and knife were never found, but interestingly that is also consistent with the 3rd party did it scenario because she never would have had the gun or knife at all; the unknown others would have.

          I don’t know the “deleted photos” you are referring to.

          There actually IS evidence that someone else was there – an unidentified shoe print, and you can be certain that if they could have typed that shoe print to her they would have – and while I’m not entirely certain, I don’t think there is any evidence that she killed him beyond her say-so. There is evidence that she was there at the time he was killed, but no evidence that unequivocally points to the fact that she actually killed him. I mean, how could there be?

          We don’t have to conclude or assume that her attorneys were complete buffoons. There may have been reasons we don’t know about why they chose not to go down that route, although to me it seems like a mistake, based on what I know.

          So, with that understanding of an alternate scenario – not to say that you agree with it, I’m just asking you to run with the idea for a limited purpose – could her behavior be explained as being the result of a severe case of PTSD and/or dissociative disorder?

          Thanks again. I’d be happy to get other opinions too.

          • Mr. Regan…i wish you had been her attorney. Then we’d all be SURE she’d never see the light of day again. And none if us would have stressed over the possible verdict. Do you honestly believe that crap coming out of your mouth & can you honestly say it with a straight face? Im not sure ive ever heard anything more fantastical! Id suggest NOT going into the field of defense. Youd most assuredly get your clients all killed.

          • Bethany your opinion, such as it is, is noted.

            The question on the table here, at least from me, is whether the “symptoms” ascribed to JA could be consistent with a completely different scenario. I’m not asking anyone to endorse the completely different scenario, just to answer the question if they can.

            For many people this is very difficult, running with an idea they find disagreeable. I understand that.

          • I appreciate your response also, John. I am sure others can add much to this discussion but a few points:

            First, the “deleted photos” I mentioned were shown in court (nude sexual poses of Jodi looking quite relaxed that day, some of Travis after the assault began, one of which seemed to show Jodi’s foot). These photos (and only these) were intentionally deleted from Travis’s camera. The camera was put through a wash cycle but the deleted photos were recovered from the memory card. I admit not removing the memory card was a dumb mistake for Jodi to make (esp as she claims to be a photographer) but it doesn’t make sense for ninja killers to have done it either. But the photos are what they are.

            Second, so far as the killing perhaps looking professional, to the extent we can tell, it seems like more of a “personal” rage killing to me. Professionals just want the person dead—it’s a job, after all. I may be suffering from a “mafia movie” effect, but if the hypothetical killers wanted him to suffer (even more than he did), I can think of lots of ways two killers (both male and presumably larger than Jodi) could have done that. I also would think professionals planning a killing would have brought a bigger gun than a 25 mm (the size gun which just happened to go missing from Jodi’s grandparents’ house right before the killing) You also mention it could have been a hunter or a butcher. I don’t know much about either, but how many hunters would own only a handgun? And a tiny one at that? We could hypothesize these hunters brought a gun that was easy to conceal but if they came and went in ninja costumes it doesn’t sound like they were too worried about being noticeable. And if a professional butcher, well, the way Travis was killed was awful but it would seem a trained butcher could easily have done more.

            So far as assuming PTSD was an expected consequence for Jodi, estimates vary but one large study (National Comorbidity Study done in the early 1990s) suggested about 10% of American women and 5% of American men will suffer from PTSD during their lifetimes. But the same study showed that about 51% of American women and 62% of American men will experience a trauma that would meet the “trauma” criterion for PTSD. (Frequently reported—combat, natural disaster, seeing someone killed, life-threatening accident, sexual assault) So we can’t assume that PTSD would be an “expected” response or even a “more likely than not” response to Travis’s killing (whether she did it or ninjas did it.) In addition, Jodi really does not meet the remaining required criteria for PTSD.

            1. Recollections of the trauma through intrusive thoughts, nightmares, flashbacks. Distress/reactivity in the face of cues associated with the event. (Not “memory fog”) Meeting this criterion is not optional for dx. And typically, this is the most personally distressing aspect of PTSD for people who have it. They do NOT have amnesia but fervently wish they did. We have no evidence of any of this in Jodi’s case despite Samuels’ best efforts. Further, no matter who did it, the fact that Jodi calmly asked to see the pictures of Travis’s body and the crime scene during interrogation, attended the memorial service, chose to drive by Travis’s house on the day of the AZ service, sent flowers to the grandmother, left voicemails on Travis’s phone, attempted to contact Travis’s friends, and repeatedly called police to “check in” w/ investigators doesn’t fit with distress in the face of cues related to the event. (Think Vietnam veterans who can’t watch jungle combat movies even 50 years later)

            2. Avoidance/numbing (3 sx required. Includes sx like restricted affect, avoidance of activities, withdrawal, sense of foreshortened future, inability to recall an ASPECT of the trauma) Jodi didn’t avoid, she continued to participate in activities, she continued to socialize (with the guy she visited after leaving Travis’s, with the guy on the plane after the memorial service) she went to work and co-workers and family described her as normal. Typically, people interacting with people w/ PTSD quickly notice these sx when they are present. Jodi’s reported “fog” was far beyond not recalling an “aspect” of the trauma. She didn’t seem to show restricted affect in the interrogation video (singing, laughing, smiling) or in the TV show a few years ago (the one where she said “no jury will convict me”) Samuels said she had a sense of a foreshortened future because she SAID she thought about suicide but that really is not what that sx entails. He also said her lies to police about ninjas were an effort to avoid thoughts of the “real” trauma. That’s REALLY stretching it. I can’t remember how he managed to come up w/ the 3rd required sx in this area.

            3. Arousal—(two sx required) Persistent symptoms not present before the trauma: Difficulty falling/staying asleep, irritability/outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, hyper-vigilance, exaggerated startle response.

            I don’t recall how Samuels came up with two sx here but he counted having trouble sleeping IN JAIL because it was noisy as one. (But who wouldn’t?) She may have had angry outbursts but those were known to be present before the trauma too so they don’t count here.

            I realize the case was circumstantial as there was no direct recording or observation made during the killing (other than the photo that seems to show Jodi’s foot and a dying Travis). And sure, I realize any one piece of evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. But the full set of evidence seems to fit together in only one logical way to me. It’s like the old saw “if I go outside in the AM and see my grass and driveway are soaking wet on a June morning, I can conclude it rained” (even though I didn’t see the rain coming down.) Is it possible my one neighbor used his hose in my yard for some unknown reason and got everything wet? Sure. But add in that rain was predicted every night for the entire week and I saw it rain the night before and the night after this night, I heard thunder and saw lightening during the night in question, my dog came in quite wet after his trip outside the night in question, my roof leaked where it always does when it rains, my neighbor is out of town for a week and I’m watching his house….I would feel safe in concluding it rained. And I’d be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it possible my neighbor snuck back from his trip and went nuts with a hose including wetting my roof in just the right spot to make it leak? Or someone else broke into his shed, got his hose and did it? Or some strange new weather event happened instead of rain? Sure, but not at all likely.

          • I have read Legal Counsel, Mr. Regan here. I have tried to understand, to make sense of his legal arguments, as well as his psychological analysis of Jodi Arias & the crime. That said, I cannot comment with the introduction, “with all respect,” for I do not. I find reading him like double-speak. “Word salad” in most of his writings. He is not an expert in criminal law. He is not a mental health professional. I believe this is more than obvious. He comes here to control. To monopolize as is evidenced in his over-long ramblings. I so enjoy & learn much from this professional web site. This is the first time I have been dismayed. However, it is free press. May he correspond with Ms. Arias discussing the not-within-possibility of *reality, the so-called Ninjas ~

          • Lizzie, thanks. Very good response. Just a couple of other things for now and I might deal with the bulk of your response over on my own blog rather than take up bandwidth here where I am apparently upsetting a few people.

            One of the characteristics of rape trauma syndrome, as opposed to PTSD, is “minimizing”, where the victim pretends “everything is fine”, which might account for some of JA’s more unintelligible behavior, such as singing in the interrogation room.

            The other thing is that I think we might have to recalibrate our “avoidance” ideas in this setting. Being suspected and charged in the matter, there is no way for other kinds of avoidance to take place; the event to be avoided is becoming the central part of your life for another reason entirely – you’re being prosecuted for it. Being prosecuted for a serious crime when you are innocent of it has to be experienced to be appreciated; to call it “traumatic” doesn’t even begin to describe it. But in this scenario the person is not just innocent; they were traumatized at the outset as a result of the same event that they themselves are now being prosecuted for.

            I should think this might take PTSD or Rape Trauma Syndrome to a whole new level.

            Which, I have to disclaim again, I’m not committed to any particular scenario here. I’m exploring the viability of alternative scenarios. And overall I’d estimate that for this 3rd party did it scenario to be viable you’d have to identify specific 3rd parties and make a pretty good case against them.

            Thanks again for your very thoughtful response.

  8. In 2009, when I first saw her interview with Maureen Maher of “48hours”/CBS, my first thought was –
    this girl reminds me of Ted Bundy, John Cooper and Jack Unterweger.
    Admittedly , these were all serial killers.
    But there were so many similarities: the charm, the constant craving for the limelight and grandiose image of self. They never stopped talking to the media.
    Ted defended himself in court, and more disturbingly , he was able to seduce women after his escape and even trick a witness into “marrying” him on the stand.
    His biographer described him as “a sadistic sociopath who took pleasure from another human’s pain and the control he had over his victims, to the point of death, and even after” .

    This is exactly what you’ve shown us by pointing out what JA was doing with that T-shirt.

    By no means I want to say that JA is a serial killer of sorts, but she is a psychopath. She may not have the more exhuberant ego of Bundy’s , who openly admitted to the pleasure of another human being’s pain, calling himself “evil” and defending himself on his own, but everything she does screams it.

    We do not know what she would have done with that 9mm gun she bought for “protection” . But guns are never a good combination with an angry anti-socialite.

    The excellent work of Juan Martinez has got her to bare herself on the stand . But there should be a law that goes beyond the incarceration. A law that prohibits the offenders from giving interviews, or interacting with the media in general.

    I believe, life sentence is the heaviest burden, especially for someone craving attention like JA. But the punishment for that kind of ego should be the oblivion – and this is why I believe there should be a law like that – so she would not be allowed to write books, use any kind of media, or ever , ever express anything in public by whichever means. That would be the true punishment for JA and other grandiose egos.
    And also the relief for their victims’ families, to never having to be confronted with any words or actions from that person again.

    In one of the interviews, ( I believe for “azcentral”) she said , she hopes she will serve as an example for others for bad choices. We should take that literally: if I were a teacher in high school, I would show her interviews to my class, show footage of her testimony and the evidence, and then start a debate with my students to see, how many of them believed her in her “post – trial” interviews. It would be interesting to know, how many people would fall for her “charm”. This is how we could also educate on psychopathy, not only in academic environment, but in real life, where we have to deal with people like that and bear with the consequences of their egos’ work.

  9. Arias stands condemned of the horrific slaughter of a fellow human being. She further stands condemned of slaughtering her own family – yet tries to save herself by using them, having already accused them of a history of abuse towards her. She then has the audacity to use the Alexander family’s victim impact statements to further her cause. She loves her family (?) – please!!
    She wants to teach other prisoners? This super narcissist wanted to die a couple of days ago – or so the manipulation went.
    A victim of domestic violence – Arias? what an insult to the jury’s intelligence
    The mother who so mistreated her took so many pictures of her, she so proudly displayed? She was telling the jury how wonderful she was through her photos – and not one showed her as an abused person, and none showed what she had done to her victim. But still she attacked him, and then had the temerity to say it was a goal of hers to preserve his reputation and was quick to defend him. The Alexander family, showing an extraordinary amount of restraint, refrained from attacking her, to their everlasting credit.
    This woman is way beyond contempt. A survivor(?) – she warrants no further survival.
    If there is a reason why she should not receive the ultimate penalty, it was not revealed today. She has no soul. The only person in her world is herself, but she is just a cold, wicked, remorseless killer.
    Mitigating factors for this arrogant, vile, evil woman – there are none.

  10. Hi Dr. Randle…I really did laugh out loud at “…Why? Because their ego demands it.” Yes, of course…that’s the core of Jodiopathy, but it’s the way you wrote it, to trip up the speedy reader. As I was racing through the paragraph thinking ‘well, of course they they’ll do that, they HAVE to because…’ that’s why the chuckle. Love all your blogs, Dr….8-)

  11. You guys are all so smart! And you crack me up too!

    John, people dissociate on purpose when they’re lying so that the truth doesn’t leak out in their body language and emotions. Look at the far away look in Scott Peterson’s eyes every time he talked about wanting Laci and his “little guy” Conor to come home. That far away look is a retreat inward, dissociating, not allowing the true self to be present should it contradict the lie they’re presenting.

    Jodi’s behavior is full of dissociation. Deliberate! Like the deep sea diver that has to hold their breath and deny the pain in their muscles and distance themselves from the thought that they might drown. People have mastered dissociation for many purposes. It’s not all about abuse!

Leave a Comment