Thursday, April 11, 2013

Jodi Arias: Indication of Sexual Abuse

Jodi Arias killed her boyfriend, and then lied to police about it, yet she has a following and is selling her artwork on her website.

In the section, "About Me", she wrote:

"Since I was a child, I’ve been drawn to art. I have been privileged to study under the guidance of two very gifted teachers. One, I remember only as Mr. B, the art teacher at Orcutt Junior High School, who I’m sure has long since retired. He granted me creative freedom to veer from the linear syllabus and follow my own inclinations. Richard Rengal, my high school art teacher and a true master of fine art, instilled me with the confidence in my ability that I would carry into the future and do still today. It is in large part due to his ceaseless belief in my skill that I have continued my artistic pursuits years after I last walked out of his classroom.”

Notice that in referencing her early life, she calls herself a "child" rather than another term (girl, kid, youngster, and so on). 

In Statement Analysis we recognize that when a person refers back to herself using the word "child" there is a close association with child abuse.  Of those abused in childhood, using this term, approximately 80% were victims of sexual abuse. 

If so, what part did sexual molestation play in her life?

But what else do you see in this statement? 
 Is there anything that causes you to reflect upon the character who took the stand in her own defense? 
 Any insights into her personality that you note?

Also...

What causes so many to be part of "Team Jodi"?  

Put your thoughts in the comments section. 


112 comments:

Skunks said...

She says"I"and"me"a lot!!!

Anonymous said...

Well she is ariting about herself...idk if that's wrong or not.

Sus said...

The jr. high part is written in the passive tense like she wasn't there in some sense. Either she is telling someone ele's story, or she was disassociated from that time...I'm not certain.

shmi said...

Both teachers she credits were male.

shmi said...

Seems her validation as an artist comes from men.

shmi said...

Jodi presents herself in court as a meek, calm, mousy girl. In About ME, she is bold about her abilities and confident and all about "ME ME ME".

Anonymous said...

Shme AGREES with "me"observation.

Anonymous said...

She is narcissistic
There is indication that something occurred with her art teacher as she states "she walked out"
she starts by say "first" as if she is going to list items but never completed the list - missing information

MeagIn Manhattan said...

She is a masterful story teller. I am sure this “story” is a fabrication. Might I remind you all that she is a pathological liar. She is SO self-centered, self-absorbed and narcissistic. The world revolves around Jodi Arias!!! (Didn't you know that???)
Evidence: She compared herself to Albert Einstein and well as (trying to be) "Christ-like"....
This statement up for analysis doesn't surprise me, she sickens me.
She is also the one that claimed "No jury will convict me..." I hope otherwise, but we shall soon see as I think this trial is drawing to an end.
She had such poor relations with both parents, it does not surprise me that she has bonds with teachers. And being the little “sex-pot” that she is, it doesn't surprise me that they were male teachers she could easily manipulate. She is a master of manipulation.
I am sitting on the edge of my seat and anxiously awaiting the verdict. Hopefully the family of Travis Alexander - the real victim here - will find justice they so deserve.
Most Sincerely,
Meag

MeagIn Manhattan said...

FROM JODI ARIAS IS INNOCENT.COM - - - THIS IS APPALLING!!!!

(FULL COLOR PICTURE OF PRESUMABLY TRAVIS ALEXANDER IN A VIVID BLUE BODY BAG)
STATES: "JUSTICE FOR TRAVIS HAS BEEN SERVED...WE ARE TEAM JODI AND WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS"

TEXT READS: Let this be a warning to any other self-righteous bastards that think they can verbally & physically abuse women and get away with it.

Because the fact of the matter is… in the cold light of day… most of the time you can get away with it… but sometimes… well… you just can’t. The photograph above is testament to that fact.

We are Team Jodi… WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS… and we are proud to stand behind and support Jodi Arias.

Always have done.

Always will do.

SJ
Team Jodi

If you would like to help Jodi directly by way of a financial donation via check or PayPal, click here (or click the Team Jodi link below) for further details. Thank you for your support.

***SICKENING***

deb said...

She's tweeting from jail, what do you think? https://twitter.com/jodiannarias

MeagIn Manhattan said...

Hi Deb - I am not on twitter - what is she saying???

Thanks,
Meag

Ladyluck WI said...

could someone who is promiscuous or involved with "adult" relationships at a young age (maybe with others her own age or slightly older) be influenced in her speech? i know plenty of peers of mine that got involved at adolescents but i don't consider them "abused"

elf said...

I get the feel of a story being told. Not surprising because she tells stories to fit her reality, or how she views reality rather. And we've all seen how center-egoed (sp) Jodi is. This statement filled with me me me and ass kissing of male influences is not surprising to me at all.
As for the Jodi is innocent crap blog...disgusting. that is a truly appalling blog. The bitch (I'm not using the term loosely. I'm using it by definition) confessed to killing Travis whom she supposedly loved. Idgaf what he did (seems like he never stood a chance against her) but no one deserves to be murdered in cold blood. No one. And I'm not speaking lightly.I was a victim of domestic violence at one point. I pressed charges and ended the relationship. Because I'm sane.

Skeptical said...

My assumption is that the people who are on "Team Jodi" are horny young men and women who identify with her as a victim.

nymima said...

If JA was molested as a child, then why didn't she tell her star defense witness - Ms. LaViolett, the DV expert? Certainly, that would have been a pivotal part of testimony. Nothing has ever come up in this regard, except that her father treated her in an inappropriate manner (verbally). And this treatment is JA's word only. No one ever backed up this story.

JA doesn't write from actual memories in many cases. She's a pathological liar and makes things up. I can't put stock in anything she writes or says.

MeagIn Manhattan said...

AGREED 100% ELF!!!

SANE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE CALL THE POLICE - FILE A REPORT! DON'T SLIT THEIR THROAT!!! DON'T STAB THEM 29 TIMES AND FINISH THEM OFF WITH A BULLET IN THE HEAD!

THOSE PEOPLE ON THAT SITE ARE REWARDING HER FOR THAT VICIOUS BEHAVIOR!!! TAKING THE LAW INTO HER OWN HANDS! LIKE SHE IS JUSTIFIED!

M.

Anonymous said...

I think she is guilty of premeditated first degree murder and I also think they should let her go. He had it coming to him. He was maliciously torturing her. And she was addicted. Her killing him was akin to a heroine addict tossing all their drugs away -- doing what they can to get clean. I think she was abused as a child and this is where she got the weakness for men like this and the anger -- but I don't know how much that matters as an explanation. The guy was sadistic and pushed her to it. If I had the power I would set her free.

Peter Hyatt said...

she is not saying she was molested. The language is suggesting child abuse, with a close relation to sexual abuse.

She may not want it known;
She may not realize it herself

and/or...they may still attempt to use it in the penalty phase.

Defense attorneys will make any excuse possible.

deb said...

@ meagln - you don't have to have a twitter account, just type "https://twitter.com/jodiannarias" into your url.

Nanna Frances said...

MeagIn Manhattan,

Just google that link and you can see the trash she says. I am praying for true justice, not imperfect justice in this case.

She killed Travis Alexander because he wouldn't marry her. If she couldn't have him, no one could.

MeagIn Manhattan said...

THANKS SO MUCH NANNA & DEB - I DON'T WANT TO READ IT {TWITTER}RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE MY BLOOD IS STILL BOILING AFTER READING THE OTHER WEBSITE!!!
:-)

@ NANNA - I think the "marriage never happening" was a big thing, but I also think that she really wanted to go on that CANCUN trip with Travis - and whoops, she wasn't invited. So if she couldn't go on a Cancun getaway - well - hell - neither could he!
Ultimately, SOMETHING would have eventually set her off - she was a ticking time bomb - to murder him - but I think that SHE THINKS she planned the "PERFECT MURDER"....
M.

dadgum said...

Do not post on the 'Innocent' site. People have had their accounts hacked, and things posted they did not say.

Trigger said...

This was a crime of passion, complete with a love triangle.

Jodi was so obsessed with Travis that she wanted to punish him because he did not give her what she wanted, a commitment and a life together.

They were both playing with fire. It was only a matter of time before one of them got burned.

Jodi made sure that she was the last woman that Travis ever had sex with in life. She took the photos so that she could always have those last moments with him in her possession.

He abused her but murder was not the solution.

Warning: If you scorn Jodi, you will get the death penalty.

Anonymous said...

I have very strong doubts this woman was ever abused. I think she was sexually active at a very early age and learned that sex gave her a sort of power. She then used sex to get whatever she wanted or needed. She went from man to man searching for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. She thought she had found it in Travis,but he could only be enticed so far. I think she went to see him with the idea of using her charms one more time and if Travis didn't change his mind about the Cancun trip she was ready to take his life. She already had another man of means lined up to take his place.
We will probably never know the real story. JA is a liar of the first order,very similiar to CMA. It's all about them,no one will ever matter more to them.
JMHO of course

ME said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skeptical said...

I found this description on Dr. Simon's blog.

" some manipulative people are like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing: they can appear benign on the surface because they so carefully cloak their aggression. Inwardly, however, they can be quite ruthless. But rather than openly assert power over you, covert-aggressors use subtle tactics that not only blind you to their real nature and self-serving agendas but also have the power to bring you to submission and control you. And dealing with these folks is often like getting whiplash: you only fully realize what’s happened to you after most of the damage has been done." (Insert picture of Jodi Arias)

Dr. LaViolett is out of her league. She bought into Jodi Arias' lies and is looking more foolish by the day.

I like Dr. Simon's perspective. Take no prisoners, deal with reality. Dr. Drew he's not. There is no sugar coating. He may have been the first mental health professional to understand that some people understand exactly what they are doing, but do it anyway because they enjoy it. Using shame or guilt on these types of people does not work.

Juan Martinez is dealing with the nimrods for the defense in the only way that has a possibility of working - confront, confront, confront.

Ladyluck WI said...

What if her OWN perception is that she was abused? but to the rest of the world it isn't perceived as such. she does think she was abuse based on her defense team's strategy. so that very perception could lead to that. some people do play the "victim" card their whole lives. I know a few of them. Everything that happens to them was someone else's fault or error, its never their own fault.
in the police interviews her dad says they searched her room when seh was a teenager and ever since then she was never honest with them and hid everything. maybe she perceived that as abuse.

i know when i was a teenager/child i perceived my parents as being too controlling, disrespecting me, etc.. but now that a decade has passed I don't view it the same.

MeagIn Manhattan said...

@ Ladyluck WI - You are right - and Jodi Arias was known and NOTORIOUS for "Playing the Victim" card - repeatedly - all of her life.
I agree with you that she has her own perceptions and I think that she lives in an alternate universe in her own head!

M.

justice in CT said...

Who is sending the tweets for Jodi?

Peter Hyatt said...

Ladyluck,

Really good question...it is something to consider and banter around.

My thinking is, yes, especially if, as an adult, she looks back and feels taken advantage of; ie, at "risk" like a "child" rather than an adult.

Great post.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

When we were young, our parents were idiots.

As we got older, they got a bit smarter.

When we arrived with kids of our own, we are stunned to see how brilliant our parents had become.

Somewhere in there is a verb tense needing a jolt.

Ladyluck WI said...

I am particularly interested in anyone's opinion's regarding the story she told the detective about kicking her dog, and never seeing him again. she then apologizes to the dog moments later and repeats that she never saw him again. makes me think the dog died

Hobnob said...

We are Team Jodi… WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS… and we are proud to stand behind and support Jodi Arias.

Always have done.

Always will do.

SJ
Team Jodi



o0o let's play spot the pronoun

We are team jodi shows unity and co-operation.

We will be victorious.

We are proud to stand behind and support jodi.

Then whoops where did they go?

Always have done.

Always will.

Oh dear oh dear where did those pesky pronouns go?

If they can't take ownership of their committment we can't do it for them.

Who is the we that supports her?

When did they start supporting her?

Door number 1 when she denied being present at his murder?

Maybe it was door number 2 when the two ninja's shot, stabbed and sliced him as she cowered?

Or maybe it was door number 3 when she claimed self defence?
if the latter how do they explain all the wounds to his back and defence wounds when he was not a threat, the gunshot which would have disabled him or the sliced throat?
At which point then does self defence become murder?

Will they still support her if she does a plea deal to get death off the table?

Will they support her when she is found guilty and her track record is revealed ( and there will be one)

Will they support her if she admits outright she murdered him because he wouldn't take her to cancun/marry her etc?

Will they visit her, write letters to her, send her money till they or she dies?

or, as is more likely, they will forget about her and jump onto the next homicidal maniac bandwagon?

MeagIn Manhattan said...

Peter ~ To add to your comment above - in the midst of all that growing up and "hating" our parents, I feel that our parents perception of us changed too!
I feel the parent/child relationship is an ever evolving relationship, one that grows and grows...and changes for the better (or for some worse!) as we grow up and develop into our own selves.
M.

Ladyluck WI said...

I also had perception as a child that adults were all moral, mature, did the "right thing", and knew the "right answers"..i still felt the same things i described as a teenager, being "disrespected" or my parents were too controlling. it was almost as if "adults" were this class above children.

but one surprise i had, especially after graduating highschool and the years that followed were that many adults were not "Mature" or continued to mature with time. many of them were kind of stuck in a highschool equivalent maturity level..or at least..much less than what i had perceived

some of us continue to grow, some of us don't care or just don't know how I suppose

Hobnob said...

It struck me she walked out of his classroom which makes me think of her stomping out in a temper because she couldn't get her own way.
I note she says he granted her creative freedom to veer off the linear syllabus.
Was it i wonder because she did her own thing regardless and he said sod it, i'll teach the class, you do what the hell you want since you aren't going to listen to anything i say.
Was she disruptive in class?
How come we hear nothing from those she went to school with, who taught her or will they crop up in mitigation.
Expected would be his last lesson or the last lesson i had with him.

She has a grandiose view of herself and her skills, she is confident and narcissistic, it's her way or the highway, no one dumps her she is the one who dumps them when she tires of them, she is the centre of her universe and a waste of space in ours.

She was a spoiled demanding brat with, i suspect very few friends, she is a user and in jail she will use her talents to get what she wants.

Ladyluck WI said...

I also find all this talk about kicking very strange. she kicked a dog, she kicked her mother, she claims TA kicked him. i'm a domestic abuse survivor and so i listen carefully to all these accusations. ive never been kicked before.. just seems unlikely to me. usually the go to "punishments" are choking, squeezing/slapping/hitting the face, being held against your will.

so kicking sounded strange to me

sidewalk super said...

Is there any proof that either of those referenced teachers ever existed at that school? (I have come to the conclusion that if her mouth is moving, she is lying)!
Her comments show her to be very absorbed and impressed with herself. Huge ego.

Counseling of the other members of that arias family would give us more information about jodi's early environment. I don't believe anything she says about her family.

Watching her interact with her female attorney, she presents as the ever so adoring associate, she's physically too close, her motions too intimate, creeps me out. And the ever present self satisfied smirk, the constant posing, all of that is alarming.

jodi was the one looking desperately to get married, have a "regular" life, house, husband, children. She needs the grounding because she is so empty inside.

Jodi has been using sex for communication and domination and shes good at copying others, but even poor Travis and his friends were finally getting alarm signals from her.

My guess is she arrived on his doorstep with both gun and chef's knife as a total surprise. The shower photos of him are uncomfortable, ill at ease, forced is how they look to me.

Travis just couldn't comprehend her evil.

MeagIn Manhattan said...

@ sidewalk super:

Your comment is dead-on.

(Pardon the pun!)


Meag

Sus said...

I haven't followed the Jodi Arias trial closely, but I did hear that she was accused of using men. This blurb shows that to be true. She has a need to control her environment and those around her.

If she was abused, it was before jr high...
"SINCE I was a child.."
Since gives her reason.

"Since I WAS a child.."
Was is in past tense.

"Since I was A CHILD.."
A is distancing; child may denote abuse.

"I have been drawn to art" "I have been privileged to study..."
Note that Jodi is in Control. She is the one who is drawn to art; art did not draw her. She is the one who is privileged ; no one gave her the privilege.

...STUDY under the GUIDANCE of two very gifted teachers"
Jodi is controlling; the teachers are only guiding her.
"...study under the guidance of two very gifted teachers"
if they are guiding Jodi, they are gifted...not only gifted, but very gifted. This makes Jodi special.

"One, I remember ONLY as Mr. B,..."
This very gifted art teacher that guided Jodi now doesn't even have a name for her. She can't remember.

..."who I'm sure has long since retired."
How is Jodi sure of this? Retired =not at the school. Jodi is sure Mr. B is not at that school.

"HE GRANTED ME creative freedom to veer from the linear syllabus..."
Now someone gives Jodi something rather than Jodi controlling it. But, the person who GRANTED it probably doesn't exist. I don't believe Mr. B "granted" a thing. I believe Jodi made this up and created that she was so artistically gifted as a jr high student, she was granted extra privileges.

"He granted me CREATIVE FREEDOM TO VEER from the linear syllabus..."
Jodi sees this as her right in art, in speech, in life in general. Jodi is saying here that she can lie for the better good because she is that special.

"He granted me creative freedom to veer from the LINEAR SYLLABUS..."
linear syllabus = what normal folk follow lol

"and FOLLOW my own inclinations. "
After saying she has creative freedom, now she reins herself in to say she will "follow" ...but who?

"and follow MY OWN INCLINATIONS."
Ah yes...she will follow, which is not really following, herself.




Anonymous said...

Growing up, I was taught to use "child" instead of "kid," because it sounds more sophisticated.
Also, I was abused and I refer to myself as a "kid" during those times. But that could be to hide what happened in my own mind, denial.
Which is another thing: these criminals may do the same thing.
They may coach themselves for a long time to say "child" instead of "kid" to LOOK like they were
abused, or to look more precious.
Like I've seen mentioned in here before, even without SA, we all know the basic rules of the language and, with enough forethought, we can use it to our advantage.

anon 77

elf said...

I was hit, kicked, had things thrown at me. Sometimes all I could do was ball up on the ground until his rage abated. Kicking is common and I believe that even after sliiting travis's throat and stabbing him so many times it would be considered overkill Jodi kicked him.
Funny how a crime of passion can be so cold blooded and heartless.

Ladyluck WI said...

Sus- great analysis. I also think it speaks to her narcissism and heightened self esteem.

"HE GRANTED ME creative freedom to veer from the linear syllabus"

to me this shows that she's trying to convey to us, and remind herself, that "someone else" also confirms her superior talent

Ladyluck WI said...

elf- maybe it seemed suspicious to me because of the fact that I had already heard references to jodi being the "kicker" first. so when i heard TA kicked her..something jsut didn't seem right to me. also in the story she told the detectives about kicking the dog she even remembered what foot she kicked him with all these years later

Bonnie Blue said...

"Richard Rengal, my high school art teacher"
proper social introduction, then following by a strange way of wording things: "after I last walked out of his classroom".

Could it mean that since she remembers his full name and then uses "my" showing possession, that she is still in contact? Or the later would show she ended the relationship that most likely existed?

Mr Rengal is probably dying inside as he wonders if she will expose any impropriety that could have happened. Yikes.

Sarah said...

Peter, is there any room for the use of "child" when referring to one's self to not be indicative of abuse?

Sometimes I wonder if, when people are writing things like this bio--knowing other people will read it and wanting to sound "professional," they would opt to use the word "child" instead of "kid."

I am not doubting that SA is accurate in picking up this sensitivity, say, in a police report or in some writing that was not intended to be read by a large audience. I just wondered if the context of the statement mattered (I know context probably always matters but I think you get what I mean).

elf said...

When someone repeatedly references the same violent act over and over it always sends a red flag up in my radar. Repitition equals sensitivity. I don't think he kicked her. I think that's HER fighting style. If someone is in the position to kick you it gives them power.

Ladyluck WI said...

Sarah, I believe this is true for me. I had to do a bunch of documentation for a child custody case involving my stepkids. (and i do refer to them as kids almost all of the time i believe)

when it came to documenting how their mother illegaly withheld them from visitation with us, i kept stating "children" purposefully because "kids" seemed disrespectful in a way. yet i know i say kids all the time, I will ask my husband, what time are we picking up the kids?

Skeptical said...

Sarah:

I agree. The "About Me" written by Jodi Arias sounds as if it were written to impress the reader. It is rather formal in style and any word I can think of to substitute for "child" sounds wrong. To me the whole statement has a look at my world through my "rose colored glasses" tone to it. Or I may be completely wrong and the references Jodi makes about her art teachers may be thinly veiled references to sexual contact with them. Perhaps these two men were her practice runs in her career of sexual manipulation of men.

Sarah said...

also, mr. b is "the" art teacher, Richard is on first-name basis "my" art teacher.

"walked out" does seem weird. It seems like more information than necessary. She could have said "since high school" or something else showing the end of that period of time...but she said "walked out of his classroom." who knows why she said that but there must be a reason.

Also, ceaseless belief in her skill...couldnt she have just said his belief in me, my skill, abilities, etc? But she added the adjective ceaseless, which to me would indicate some kind of sensitivity--but I'm no expert, Peter this is where you come in! :)

i think one of the hardest things about SA is not drawing an immediate conclusion about something when sensitivity is discerned. It's sensitive--but we don't know why--it has to be drawn out by skillful questioning and probing. It's hard for me to learn and apply noticing sensitivity vs. jumping to conclusions and filling in the gaps myself. We all like to solve things and have answers. It takes a lot of self-discipline and probably even humility to stave off the impulse to "know" and "be right" and just be ok with not having all the info for a time...or even forever.

Some things in SA are more black and white but the not knowing and admitting that you're not sure is the toughest part. at least for me it is.

Sarah said...

Ladyluck, I totally understand what you mean by the word "kids" seeming disrepectful. It just doesn't seem like the appropriate word choice when the subject matter, involving those kids, is serious.

sidewalk super said...

Is it reliable with all the extra lying jabber?

Lemon said...

Bonus points for "extra lying jabber" :)

Bonnie Blue said...


I only quoted one instance, but there were actually a few where she plainly says she didn't do it, with no qualifiers.

Or, the officer would say I know you killed Travis and she would reply, "no, I didn't" and nothing more.

I was really surprised!

~ABC said...

It sounds like Jodi is a liar of the Scott Peterson variety.

Coughing said...

I can't tell from THIS whether or not she was molested. I think it's interesting that this sounds like an acceptance speech for an award. I've seen her work, and I have a degree in art analysis....it's good. It's not good to the degree that this kind of flag waving, can't take all the credit, must mention the little people behind me speech is meant to convey. This reminds me of an awkward teen's college entrance essay, request for a scholarship or an award acceptance as I've said several times. And as she is on trial for an ignominious crime, it is that much more odd. This statement conveys an idea that her art is bringing something very valuable to the world yet, why would someone accused of this crime feel proud of anything she'd done.
I'm not 'there' with SA skills to answer this question. The lack of humility over a moderate talent is embarrassing for her, or would be if she was capable of shame.

Gwen Smith said...

I have been a long time reader here and greatly respect your analysis work however it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that she was sexually abused based on her using ONE word. Jodi Arias is an admitted and proven liar. She is obviously manipulative. She also seems to have the tendency to choose words to make her seem intelligent (and has stated that she believes her IQ is equivalent to Einsteins!) Could it be that she uses the word "child" simply because she thinks it makes her sound smarter than using the expected word "kid" or "girl". Is that not a possibility? If this were a stream of consciousness type conversation rather than a crafted written statement then I might give more credence to your opinion that her use of the word "child" indicates sexual abuse but since it was something she wrote to publish for the public to see, I can't agree with you. Additionally, Jodi has been willing to air her dirty laundry and throw every body she knows, as well as the victim of her vicious crime, under the bus to save her own skin. She appears to enjoy "playing the victim". I see no reason why she would not reveal sexual abuse as a child if this had indeed happened in order to elicit sympathy in her attempts to get away with cold blooded murder.

Anonymous said...

I like how that one teacher is just HER high school teacher, as if he had no other students and no life beyond teaching her. she thinks incredibly high of herself :S

Anonymous said...

and that leaves 20 out of every 100 people who will use the word "child" to describe their childhood, that were NOT molested

so there's a 20% chance she wasn't molested....and i believe she was not or else we would have heard about it for 8 more days on the stand,....if she would have thought about it as a lie we would have heard about it too

Shelley said...

Anyone know why the jury won't see the tapes of her talking to LE as well as the tapes of her parents? I don't understand why the jury doesn't get to see that

Shelley said...

So watching Nancy Grace. Jodi is tweeting through a friend in the outside. Telling her what to put.

Wish the jury could see this. Nancy Grace apparently made a comment about what appeared to be Jodi flipping off the camera. Jodi then tweeted that it was meant for nancy grace. Also insulting Juan martinez.

Clearly a mousy girl that has been abused.

She proves time and again she is perfectly fond of herself.

If I was on trial for murder tweeting insults would never cross my mind.

Just proves she is totally confident in herself

Shelley said...

So watching Nancy Grace. Jodi is tweeting through a friend in the outside. Telling her what to put.

Wish the jury could see this. Nancy Grace apparently made a comment about what appeared to be Jodi flipping off the camera. Jodi then tweeted that it was meant for nancy grace. Also insulting Juan martinez.

Clearly a mousy girl that has been abused.

She proves time and again she is perfectly fond of herself.

If I was on trial for murder tweeting insults would never cross my mind.

Just proves she is totally confident in herself

Shelley said...

Also listening to the friend that tweets for Jodu. Donavan Bering. There is a photo as well, I GUARANTEE this friend would not be a friend in the real world.

But this person also mentioned her website. I checked out out, she's selling her art for $2000. Again, she's pleased with herself!

lane said...

Aired January 31, 2013 - 19:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(snip)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: (snip)
And she`s been doing these for some time. Well, joining me exclusively right now is the man who helped her create this art, become an artist, Jodi`s high-school art teacher Richard Rangel.

Richard, first of all, thank you so much for joining us, this exclusive interview tonight. I want to ask you, I understand that Jodi is from a very good family, Yreka, which is near the Oregon border in California and that you went to the business that the family still has in Yreka. Tell us about that business. And when you talked to them not so long ago about Jodi being behind bars. Tell us about that, sir.

RICHARD RANGEL, JODI`S ART TEACHER (via phone): Well, the business, the restaurant is called Daddio`s. It`s a franchise here in Yreka. And I went there to get my daughter a gift certificate so that she could go to the various places in town with friends and have lunch and dessert and that sort of thing.

And when I showed up, both parents were there as well as Joey, Jodi`s brother. And so they gave me the gift certificate. Then, of course, I had to ask how Jodi was. They said that -- the mom said that she was pretty nervous awaiting the trial that was up and coming.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you taught her art. She`s a great artist. I love some of these color drawings. What went wrong? In your opinion, first, describe what she was like in high school. Did you ever see her ending up like this?

RANGEL: No. No, no clues whatsoever. In school -- you know, in high school we teach single subjects, so you get a small snapshot of a student throughout the day just while they`re in your class.

So in my class, she enjoyed art. So when I saw her, she was ready to participate, enthusiastic, very conscientious, always prompt, and she was just a good art student. Took instruction well, was very skillful, very smart. And so, because of her intelligence, she was able to deal with any problem I would throw at the students. She was very skillful and just the kind of student that you would like all your students to be like, very modest and conservative, always clean-cut, soft-spoken and just -- just pleasant always.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you never saw any evidence of her being, let`s say, a sociopath. Some people have said later, maybe more recent to this horror, that she seemed sort of -- there was nothing there. You look in her eyes, and it was kind of empty. And maybe it`s easy to be a 20/20 quarterback/psychiatrist, but did you ever see anything that was just off?

RANGEL: Well, no. She was the -- you know, there was nothing that would indicate anything like this, that`s for sure. And, you know, as a high-school teacher, you see students all the time, and this is my 21st year. So I`ve had several thousand. And I work with them on their individual projects. They`re not coming up with an answer that they all should have. They all work independently. And so you get a chance...

lane said...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Richard, can I jump in here and ask you about -- I want to ask you about her siblings. I just want to ask you about her siblings, because she has four siblings. And you said you ran into Joey, her brother. We haven`t seen -- I haven`t been in court, so correct me if I`m wrong, but I haven`t seen siblings there, especially boy siblings. What are her siblings like?

RANGEL: Well, Joey, very nice young kid. I knew him in high school, as well. He was very bright. We have something called the academic challenge where they put teams together and answer questions of various sorts. He`s a very bright kid. When I ran into him at the restaurant, he was working on some calculus at the local college.

The daughter -- I met one of the daughters, Angelina -- I was very impressed with, because we also have a talent show at the high school. And people put together groups, dance groups or performing groups, but they`re usually in company, safety in numbers.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.

RANGEL: But she walks out by herself, holding a banner singing a cappella native American song I thought it was pretty brave.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you`re saying that these kids, Jodi, her sibling, they all seem -- they`re from a good family, they own a franchise in Yreka. She`s above average intelligence. Her brother is above average intelligence. They were never in trouble. She`s a great artist. It doesn`t add up.

Richard, something doesn`t add up. This Travis Alexander, by her own admission, was stabbed 29 times. His throat was slit almost to the spine, shot in the face. That is a very, very violent crime.

There is a missing piece to the puzzle here. I don`t understand it. I don`t know how you can get from "A" to "Z." And we`ve got a great team here. So we`re going to analyze. I want to thank you, Richard, for your insights. There`s a missing piece. There`s still a missing piece. More on the other side.

lane said...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/31/ijvm.01.html

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/01/31/jodi-arias-former-art-teacher-speaks-out

Bonnie Blue said...

I don't think his interview matches her summary of how their paths crossed. He never says that he went out of his way to encourage her? She is an odd bird.

Juliette said...

Ms. LaViolette's CV:

http://kristinarandle.com/blog/jodi-arias-trial-prosecutor-martinez-challenges-laviolettes-credentials/

Anonymous said...

The teacher "veer"ing from the syllabus and giving her creative freedom- sounds an awful lot that "special treatment" ether a good teacher or maybe a "molester" might give/use. Those children searching for attention are easily "veer"ed into the web of a molester

Peter Hyatt said...

Gwen,

I have made no assumption.

Peter

AnnieG said...

SA dies not work for Jodi. She lies almost contrantly. She issued several reliable denials over Travis' s death. She spook in what would be flagged as reliable terms when speaking about the fake ninja story. I love SA and find it a great tool. Jodi Arias is someone it simply won't work correctly with. I do not think she was abused. I think she thinks she was abused

AnnieG said...

Sorry for the typos. On my tiny phone keyboard

Hobnob said...

Interviewer: Nobody else did this - you were the only one - I am not seeing any remorse or anything . . .you are the kid that got caught stealing the candy - I have the proof . . .If your own mother saw you do this and told me you would still tell me No I didn't do this.

Jodi:I did not kill travis . . . I did not take his life . .

I did not do it - I feel somewhat responsible for it . . . .I wasn't planning to go there at all - he really wanted me to go there . . . I was going to see Ryan and nothing is going on with me and Ryan . . . he's not an active church member anyway


A strong reliable denial is first person singular I
Paste tense DIDN'T
Event specific KILL TRAVIS.

Anything other than those words in this case are not reliable, anything in addition to those words weakens the dnial, here we have a seemingly strong statement I did not kill travis
except then then weakens it with I did not take his life . . and then weakens it further with I did not do it and then weakens even further with an admission I feel somewhat responsible for it . . . .

What also caught my eye was this telling phrase he's not an active church member anyway
Why did she feel the need to introduce this phrase?

The church is sensitive enough to her to have her introduce it in the free edititng process.
This leads me to wonder if jodie saw the church as competition, a challenge, she saw herself as the 'anti'christ' her against the church with men the prize.
Could she tear a man from his religious beliefs? she she cause him to leave the church to be with her, every sex act, the more deviant the better was a victory over the church.
She debased herself and made sure every man ( and i wouldn't put it past her woman) was debased with her.

Her aim, her role in life was and is, to bring everyone down to her level of base behavior.
Use them, abuse them and then dump them for the next one.

She is the type who would persade others to kill on her behalf, to kill for her.
It is all about control.
I will even suspect that during her appeals she will turn on her defence team and make allegations about them and the defence witnesses.
Not because she thinks she will win, simply because she wants to ruin them.

if you do not please the jodie, the jodie will do as she pleases and throw you to the wolves.

Peter Hyatt said...

AnnieG said...
SA dies not work for Jodi. She lies almost contrantly. She issued several reliable denials over Travis' s death. She spook in what would be flagged as reliable terms when speaking about the fake ninja story. I love SA and find it a great tool. Jodi Arias is someone it simply won't work correctly with. I do not think she was abused. I think she thinks she was abused

Statement Analysis "works" for liars as it does for all human beings. It is even best for liars as they give us the most sample.

I have not said that Jodi Arias was abused, only that she used a word consistent with abuse.

However, if you think someone can do what she did after growing up in a non-abusive atmosphere, we probably have more to discuss.

Due to excuse making, people over-react to claims of childhood abuse.

Please learn the full principle of Reliable Denial, and its follow up: No one can lie twice, before posting sweeping assumptions. You'll have a better understanding of what Jodi Arias is denying and what she is not denying.

She is doing a great job showing just how valuable a tool Statement Analysis is.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

A few more:

Sarah:

We find that those who work near or around children at risk use the word "child" more often than others.

The average woman does not possess the ability to plunge a knife into the living body of another human being, just as the average woman does not possess the ability to put duct tape over the mouth of a living, breathing child.

If you don't believe me, put a knife in your hand and attempt to picture it: it is abhorring to us.

Those abused in childhood have a difference "reference point" than those who were not abused.

This does not excuse behavior, nor should it impact the punishment. Take a life, forfeit your own life, means that if the killer's liberty (or life) is taken, she will be unable to kill again. (avoiding the argument of life sentences and violence against guards as I believe in the death penalty as having a fairly good chance of the dead prisoner not killing again)

Understanding what goes into a monster like Jodi or Casey Anthony is helpful for society.

Abused children can become violent, even though all abused children do not turn violent.

Neglected children (those without discipline and boundaries) become violent, even though not all neglected children do not turn violent.

We've done a really good job in the past half century of filling our prisons with undisciplined (neglected) and/or abused children.

Prisons are a "growth industry" and as each child is taught entitlement and extremist narcissistic self importance views, expect the growth to continue.

Meag:

MeagIn Manhattan said...
Peter ~ To add to your comment above - in the midst of all that growing up and "hating" our parents, I feel that our parents perception of us changed too!
I feel the parent/child relationship is an ever evolving relationship, one that grows and grows...and changes for the better (or for some worse!) as we grow up and develop into our own selves.
M.

April 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Well said.

After all the years in parenting, teaching, etc, I still feel as if I know so little about parenting.

Recall the boastful, "If I had to live my life over again, I would not change a thing because it made me who I am"?

I would change so much beginning with every hurtful word that ever came from my mouth.
I'd be a better son to my parents;
I'd be a better student to my teachers...

and on and on.

We've become so selfish, so boastful, and so arrogant that we've lost our way (along with our manners).

People still overreact to the Jodi Arias's of the world because they are so sick of hearing excuses: the "abuse excuse" mentality.
I understand it and agree, but it should not keep us from learning.

Peter

AnnieG said...

I do think she could do what she did after growing up in a nonabusive household. My brother-in-law grew up in a loving, stable home with both parents. He was under a doctors care starting at age 11 for his behavior issues, many of which Jodi Arias' s parents claim Jodi displayed. My in laws did everything they could to raise a decent human being, and yet he is now a felon. He was engaged in a sexual relations with one of his students. He was also planning to kill my sister-in-law after she gave birth to their second child. So, yes, people can have issues that do not stem from childhood abuse.
I have spent a lot of time reading about the rules of SA. I also have spent a lot of time on this case. Jodi has made endless statements. She has issed several reliable denials. She is also guilty as sin.
I am not sure why the snarky response. I have never been disrespectful in my comments here. I was simply stating my opinion.

Peter Hyatt said...

It is not snarky, it is strong.

I hope people learn here and to claim "SA doesn't work for Jodi.." is bluntly incorrect.

I would prefer "he who asserts must prove" be followed, or at least attempted.



Peter


Ney said...

Peter Hyatt said...
"PS:When we were young, our parents were idiots.
As we got older, they got a bit smarter.
When we arrived with kids of our own, we are stunned to see how brilliant our parents had become."
_______

Peter, this reminds me a JOKE by Jeff Foxworthy. He was speaking about how sick he is of people blaming their parents for everything all the time. He said, he would just love to hear ONCE someone saying: “My daddy was great, my mom was great, I’m just a shithead.”
LOL
That might be the case quite often.

I watch the trial every day, my opinion is, she was not abused neither by her parents neither by Travis. She had serious behavior problems from childhood and people did act angry with her quite often. She made Travis angry with stupid things she has done, but always made up for them to keep the relationship with Travis. Something happened between them in May that is not told. That was not jealousy from his part. He was scammed by her he said. She hurt him more than his father's death. He knew something about her others didn't. Those messages and whatever happened then are the trigger points of her plan to kill him. IMO.

sidewalk super said...

Any discussion of how maybe jodi might have hacked into Travis's cell/computer and sent herself flattering messages?

sidewalk super said...

Were I "Mr. Martinez", I would be so tempted to use violettes' stubborn/anachronistic/slavish devotion to the "abused" story and her er, ah, distaste for me to destroy her credibility.

OT: that photo of jodi reminds me of National Geographic films of the small, sharp toothed hunting animals whose coats change to camouflage white during the winter months so that they can hide in plain sight..

deb said...

Nice friend, she's an arsonist... see link http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/articles/2008/09/05/20080905gl-nwvarson0904-ONL.html

AnnieG said...

"I was not at Travis' s on June 4th" "I did not kill Travis" "I did not go to Mesa" "I have never shot a gun" "I do not know how to shoot a gun" "I did not shoot Travis" "I did not stab Travis""I did not hurt Travis" all first person assertions with no qualifiers.
When she changed her story to nijas she agin uses strong first person assertions. When she changes her story again to abuse and self-defense, she again employed strong language that indicated she was being truthful. Yes, she made statements when cornered on her lies where her statements became sensitive. After she was confronted with forensics. But her statements where she speaks freely, she very often makes very strong statements. That in my opinion taints the use of SA in her case. I think that would be possible in any case where the defendant has the type of mentality Jodi has. I hesitate to call it mental illness because I couldn't even begin to guess what her diagnosis would be.

sidewalk super said...

don't hesitate...

Gwen Smith said...

Peter - I apologize for saying you "assumed" abuse. I guess I read your post wrong as it seemed you were saying that Jodi was more than likely sexually abused by her use of the word "child". If that is not what you were saying, then I'm not clear on what you were indicating.

I have to agree with AnnieG. Jodi Arias has issued strong, reliable denials. Of course, many of her statements include deception indicators. But she was able to say "I did not kill Travis" even though she actually did kill Travis. Isn't it possible that some people can "beat" Statement Analysis in the way that some people can beat a lie detector test? Jodi clearly has antisocial peronality disorder (at least in my unexpert opinion). I see no remorse for her actions whatsoever. That woman terrifies me on a visceral level.

Skeptical said...

I wonder if it shouldn’t be Jodi Arias’ parents who should be suing her for abuse. My guess is that Jodi came out of the womb primed to get her way at any cost. Parents have a finite amount of energy and attention to give to their children. A lot of that energy has to be spent on the nuts and bolts of daily living - work, all the duties that go with keeping a home, bills to be paid, etc. Add to that mix other children and a child who concentrates 24/7 on getting what she wants, and you’re going to have parents spread so thin that the child can get the upper hand and keep it. It takes an enormous amount of emotional energy to deal with children like Jodi. These are the kind of children who grind parents down.

My guess is that tantrums didn’t work in Jodi’s family so she learned to lie and be sneaky in going about getting what she wanted.

I would like to see what her brothers and sisters have to say about her. My experience with similar children is that they are the ones who instigate a fight, wait until they are hit back, and then go tattle that their brother or sister is hurting them. I always made them both spend time in time-out and made the one who tattled spend an extra 5 minutes for tattling.

Jodi lied and continues to lie because it works. It’s time she gets the first NO to her behavior and it is enforced by the State of Arizona.

Shelley said...

AnnieG said...
SA dies not work for Jodi.


What are these reliable denials? I would you to put them in here so Peter can analyze.
I have seen her begin what starts as one, but as Peter has said, when they continue to add to a simple "i didnt do it", it is no longer reliable. Or, if they are basically using the questioners own words.

Peter – Chime in if I am incorrect but I found 2 samples.

Using the interviewers own words. See below:

A police officer asked Arias, “So you're going to continue to tell me you did not kill Travis?”
She replied, “I did not kill Travis.”



Or adding extra comments when “I didn’t kill him” him was sufficient

ARIAS: I didn`t kill Travis. I just didn`t -- I did not take his life.


So I think that SA does work on Jodi.

Shelley said...

AnnieG... I missed your other post with examples.

I am going to go back and look at those comments. I am curious about them.

AnnieG said...

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original post. When confronted, Jodi starts to show deception indicators. When she is freely so speaking she iasues statements that, at face value, do not indicate deception. Every otger case I have read about with SA the sensitivity is always present. That simply is not so with Jodi. She lies in a way that indicats truth. For that reason, I stand by my original opinion. Jodi Arias, when allowed to speak freely, often defies the rules of SA, making it uneffective in her case. There isn't a single type of analysis that is 100% accurate because of the human factor.

Sus said...

Peter stated that using "child" in reference to oneself MAY be a sign of past abuse. There are exceptions as he has explained before.

Jodi's need to control her environment even in jr high is typical of a child who has gone through some type of trauma. This is what forms a narcissist. I don't know her childhood so I can't say.

Being a narcissistic sociopath does not excuse murder. Being abused as a child does not excuse murder. It would be nice to learn about these things to prevent further narcissistic and sociopathic behavior in the world. It is on the rise.

Shelley said...

AnnieG
Can you provide where you got this quotes:
"I was not at Travis' s on June 4th"
"I did not kill Travis"
"I did not go to Mesa"
"I have never shot a gun"
"I do not know how to shoot a gun"
"I did not shoot Travis"
"I did not stab Travis"

One I can comment on….. "I did not hurt Travis" – This is not the same as saying “I did not kill Travis.” – And as Peter has stated many times “hurt” is a mild statement considering the damage done to Travis

But the rest, we need the full context of the statement. Not just that one part that works. Peter has said it many times, someone may start to issue a reliable denial but then add extra information that changes that from reliable. So alone it would have been reliable, but then they add extra words beyond the scope and made it sensitive.
Below I have the closest quotes I found to those above. Peter, would love you to analyze. To me these show classic SA analysis does in fact work on Jodi.


QUOTES OBTAINED FROM ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTS. I COPIED THE EXACT WORDS USED FOR ACCURACY
For lines that are together without spaces, those were together as I felt the question asked immediately before was necessary for the full context

ARIAS: Are you sure it`s me? I mean, because I was not there.
ARIAS: “I have never fired a gun but am relatively familiar with them.”
ARIAS: “It’s not that I’m not remorseful that he died,” Arias says. “I didn’t kill him. I didn’t take his life.”
ARIAS: If I`m found guilty, I have an alibi. I`m not guilty. I didn`t hurt Travis. If I hurt Travis, if I killed Travis, I would beg for the death penalty.
ARIAS: I was not at Travis`s house. I was not.
ARIAS: I'm not the brightest person, but I don't think I could stab him, I'd have to shoot him … The least I could do is make it as humane as possible."
ARIAS: "If I was going to ever try to kill somebody, I would use gloves. I have plenty of them."
ARIAS: I`m not a murderer, but I guess if I were to do that, I would wear gloves, or you know, something. I`m not guilty. I didn`t hurt Travis. If I hurt Travis, if I killed Travis, I would beg for the death penalty

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you at Travis` house on Wednesday?
ARIAS: Absolutely not. I was -- I was nowhere near Mesa. I was nowhere near Phoenix. I wasn`t even close to him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What if I could show you proof you were there? Tell me if you change your mind.
ARIAS: I wasn`t there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can be honest with me, Jodi.
ARIAS: I was not at Travis` house. I was not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I have pictures of you in Travis` bedroom with Travis, pictures of him, and it`s obvious you guys are having sex. Taking photos of each other. And they`re dated and time stamped on the day he died.
ARIAS: Are you sure it`s me? I mean -- because I was not there.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re going through your house right now. So are they going to find anything there that could make you bad for this?
ARIAS: I don`t think they would. I mean, there is nothing that could make me there. I mean that`s pretty –


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it`s obvious that you committed a crime, that you hurt Travis.
ARIAS: There`s no reason for me to hurt him



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are we going to find any evidence in that car?
ARIAS: You`re free to look.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m going to look.


ARIAS: Oh, OK. It`s not that I`m not remorseful that he died. I didn`t kill him. I didn`t take his life.

Jen said...

Hi AnnieG-

I agree it's interesting that she said the 'magic' words, but SA relies on the WHOLE statement (the more sample we have the more we can know). In the context of the whole interview, she is overwhelmingly deceptive. She's all over the place, posing hypotheticals about her guilt, her motive, and reflecting on how she 'would have' committed the murder more effectively/humanely. She says she's 'not the brightest', but she would have worn gloves, and not that she DIDN'T stab him, but she 'can't IMAGINE herself stabbing him. She also says IF she was going to kill him she would "have to shoot him repeatedly" (probably her original plan or what she now realizes would have been a better idea).

I actually noticed in the interview that she slipped out an accidental confession while trying to persuade Det. Flores that she didn't have a motive...

I'll post the whole excerpt with the quote when I find it, but basically Jodi says to Flores, 'What's my motive...
there's no reason why I would do this, there's no reason why, etc.", Flores replies, "that's what I want you to tell me Jodi, with you there's so many motives...whether it's jealousy, or fear of being left behind," (he names a few more things and Jodi sits in silence for a few seconds, racking her brain for a believable lie)

Flores says, 'I want you to tell me why you did this, why this happened...and you refuse to tell me why...'. Jodi replies (paraphrased), "But I wouldn't even say I was jealous...I mean I was a little jealous that he was going to Cancun, BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN WHY..."

While answering the question of motive, (the reason why), and trying to convince him there was no reason... those marbles got to rolling out too fast (as Peter/Karen say) and her mind KNOWS WHY, so she blurts out that her jealously WASN'T THE REASON WHY.

The more she talks the worse it gets, but she can't stop herself, she loves the sound of her own voice too much, and the rapt attention of the detective. Multiple times the Det. tries to end the interview, saying...'if you are going to keep in with this story, then I'll just take you back to jail...are you ready to go back"? Each time Jodi declines to end the interview, still convinced that she can persuad this detective that 'she didn't do it', even as she talks about how she 'would have' done it.

Bonnie Blue said...

Is it possible, Peter, that in her mind he was already dead to her (before the actual murder)? Maybe because of whatever betrayal she felt she suffered. Therefore, she could honestly say she didn't kill him. In her head, he was already dead or by his actions, he already signed his own death warrant and was "dead" long before in her eyes.

Just wondering.

Bonnie Blue said...

Go to youtube and you can see each interrogation. They are also transcribed at Webslueths. Google it. She really does say these things!

FireandBlood said...

Anonymous @ 10:50 AM ... your logic fascinates me - care to explain how you reached the conclusion that Travis was a sadistic beast and deserved to be slaughtered like a cow?

Please reply and oh yes, I need the evidence that you used to reach your conclusion.

Jen said...

Hi Skeptical-

I agree with what you said about Jodi's parents suing her, its hard to imagine what she has put them through over the years. My Mom's longtime co-worker has a daughter just like Jodi. She's been married 5 times (4 since the girls father) and she's basically isolated due to her daughters behavior. It doesn't take long for people to walk away from the crazy.

The damage that these sociopaths do to the people around them is criminal. When I read Travis' email/text messages I can see his built up frustration in dealing with a manipulator. When he said 'you have scammed me', I believe he meant EVERYTHING she had done in their relationship was a scam, and he was right. Jodi never cared about him or joining the Mormon church, she joined because it gave her a legitimate reason to ATTACH herself to Travis, who she saw as her meal/travel/marriage ticket. Having him baptize her into his faith gave her a legit reason to maintain both current and lifelong contact with him, and it placed him in a delicate position that she could ALWAYS hold over his head (he baptized her, and then participated in 'fornication' with her).

I personally believe that Jodi threatened Travis many times, to expose their sexual relationship and worse, to lie about him raping her or being a pedophile (for whatever reason these sociopathic types tend to use accusations of rape, molestation or some sexual impropriety as their go to method of revenge). I also believe she most likely tried to get pregnant, and possibly even told him she was pregnant in an attempt gain access to him again and to control him (maybe that's why he let her in the door on that fateful night, she called him 'crying' and said 'I'm on my way to your house, I'm pregnant). Wouldn't put it past her!

Shelley said...

Bonnie Blue said...
Go to youtube and you can see each interrogation. They are also transcribed at Webslueths. Google it. She really does say these things!



I am assuming you are backing up the quotes AnnieG shared.

And yes, she said them, but it the full context that matters. What was she asked, did she respond with just these statements or did she add extra information. Everything I have found from the transcripts show extra information or her repeating the words of the investigator. Which Peter has explained.....

Bonnie Blue said...

I do not believe she is a master at communication and able to escape statement analysis. I do see that she has given a few denials without qualifiers or extra language. I do not agree that SA does not apply to her.

My point in bringing this up & putting the question out there to Peter was above. Is it possible that Jodi, being a nut job, really did see Travis as already "dead" in her head before butchering him and maybe this is why she was able to say she did not do it?

That was it.

sidewalk super said...

How has Martinez done against the sadly out of touch violette today?

JerseyJane said...

Jodi did not get credit from Travis for editing Chapter1 of his book he was writing( that Chapter 1 is on his blog). She also said these on the witness stand.... In that Chapter 1, he speaks of his fears(still now)stemming from his mom mainly abusing him..read it.. His biggest fear was taking a shower(hmmmm.. Wonder where Jodi got the idea to kill him there?)... Travis fear revolved around his mom throwing against the bathroom wall cuz she thought he had peed on the bathroom floor but; Lil' Travis was just soaking wet from the shower and drying himself off...
Can't get anymore meditated than that!!!!! He also describes turning his back to his mom's hits, so his back received the damage... Another hmmmmmm..
I hope Travis' blog is part of the closing arguments. Jodi mentioned it in her testimony, u would hope that the prosecutors studied that angle. She could have murdered him as he slept, but of all places in the shower? She KNEW his biggest fear.
Just google Travis Alexander blogspot it will come up.

Coughing said...

I think this woman is a narcissist with borderline personality disorder. She connected to her victim/boyfriend through sexuality and then they became enmeshed in a love/hate relationship in which she gave up everything to be near and available to him. She was totally invested and self-sacrificial, at one point, in order to get his love. She even had 'misgivings' and 'conflictions' about her professed faith but always defaulted to her hypersexuality in order to keep him as she grew increasingly unstable. Additionally, being a child of abuse puts one at greater risk of developing this (pitiful for the victim child) malignant personality disorder. She had developed a sexual back up plan but had to kill him once she was completely rejected by him. She had given him her identity, dignity, self and reason for living, and he did not want her. To salvage a sense of self she had to be the one to end it, abd she also had to make sure he died so there'd be no way for her to not be chosen. She savagely killed him, close contact, stabbing, very personal, prolonged, predatorily and animalistic. She had another suitor waiting in the wings and not just as an alibi but as a mirror to assure her that her desirability was still in tact. Interesting that she does so many female portraits, her worth is directly tied into her physicality, ability to attract and to arouse. She fits the 5/9 required to meet the disorder criteria. She will do it again.

Coughing said...

I'd like to point out that we don't always need to stop with the parents to find the origin of abnormal behavior...trauma may be unknown to the entire family.
One person I knew who had several profound personality disorders and was both verbally and emotionally abusive had very attentive parents. The behaviors showed up early on and perhaps in attempt to help or out of guilt the patents handicapped the child with over protection and favoritism.
Many excuses were made for the adult that evolved from this turbulent childhood, from medications given during a paralysis episode, etc.
Much later it turned out that this person had been kidnapped at 4 by several teens, molested and threatened with homicide--for hours. The paralytic episode, in my mind, was not malingering, it was conversion disorder. Interestingly enough, though this episode was known to the entire family, no one acknowledged it as the possible source of trauma or behavioral discord. It was easier to blame the doctor who tried to treat conversion disorder as if it were polio or Guillianne Barre.
When I was told of this event by each member of the family, it was given as much gravitas as someone remembering spilling a dipped cone on her favorite dress.
Even if the parents weren't perpetrators, we will never know whether or not Jodi was victimized at all. Even when its 'known' people often choose to not 'get it.'
You are right. She may not know. The person I knew didn't 'know' either, even though she told me all about it.

Anon "I" said...

I think that Jodi figures Travis killed himself because of his actions. Her part in it was just to "finish him off" since he was the one, in her mind, responsible for his own "death" because of his choices. I think she mentally and conveniently shifted the blame to him instead of her own bloody hands. I hope that makes sense.

Anon "I"

Just My Opinion said...

It is quite apparent JA has mental problems. Her mother confirmed this. Defiant from a young age. Was she diagnosed and treated or, was it obvious and ignored?

Conditions left untreated such as, Oppositional Defiant Disorder may progress into Antisocial Personality Disorder.

The issue JA described with the family dog is concerning. Many people who commit acts of cruelty to animals move on to mankind.

The issues with her parents, an unprotecting mother and the inappropriate comments from her father may have been downplayed and very well may relate to sexual abuse. Possibly the reason for leaving home at such a young age. Why would a responsible parent allow this?

Does JA believe by blaming the Alexander family she will restore the honor long lost in her own family?

Jen said...

Hey Deb and Dadgum @2:10

About Jodi's 'friend' Donovan, who sends her tweets, manages her art sales, etc.

Did you notice that aside from being an arsonist, she bold faced lied (very stupid and disprovable lies) to 2 questions from Nancy Grace?

1. When asked how long she's known Jodi, she answered 'a little more than 6 YEARS'.

2. When asked where they met, she minced around about meeting Jodi when she FIRST came to AZ (expecting the listener to interpret her to mean when Jodi moved there to be with Travis). When a follow up question was asked by a caller she clarified that she actually met Jodi when she was moved to the current jail in AZ.

The truth:

1. Jodi was arrested in July of 2008, it is now April of 2013...at the most they have known each other for 4+ years, (almost 5) but NOT 6+ years, as she claimed.

2. They met IN jail, before Donovan was released. She cleverly skirted the issue, (lied by omission) saying she met Jodi shortly after she was transferred to jail in AZ, and 'she's been visiting her since then'. Making it sound like she's some do-gooder who visits the prisoners for support, rather that a criminal who struck up a common bond with another criminal.

While I know that Jodi's jail house friend is somewhat inconsequential, it makes me wonder (just like I wonder the same about Jodi) if these liars even realize they are lying anymore. They lie about insignificant nonsense, and they lie in situations where the truth could serve them just as well, or better...WHY? The Donovan girl already admitted on 48hrs that they met while she was in jail, so why lie about it later and act like she's some minister of sunshine to poor imprisoned Jodi.

Most annoyingly, Jodi's minion really got my blood boiling about the tweets. She said that for awhile they have been looking for a way for Jodi to communicate and interact with the outside world.

NEWS FLASH- Jodi is not SUPPOSED to get to communicate with the outside world, she is SUPPOSED to be suffering punishment for her horrific crime (once convicted), and until then she is SUPPOSED to be removed from society, and locked away for our protection. Not carrying on like the whole world is her stage and reality TV show!

Ugh, the NERVE this chick has! (Jodi)

~ABC said...

Jodi Arias reminds me of Dalia Dippolito. They both have that mousy little appearance and rarely speak above a half whisper. Very cold. Jodi is beyond articulate. Her extremely careful choice of words is disturbing. She imagines she comes across as thoughtful, but the extreme nature of it feels calculated instead.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

The word 'child' is bandied about very often in today's news and TV shows, way more than it was when I was growing up. In 2001 The "No Child Left Behind Act" was passed and then every TV host and doctor was using the word child instead of other definitions that mean not-yet-adults.

I think the word association with child abuse has been diluted. TV Personalities such as Oprah (who was abused) and Dr. Phil (who has talked about abuse from his alcoholic father) use this word frequently and the association fits for them. But now people who have watched them, and similar shows, for years use the word 'child' when they want to be perceived as serious in discussing their kids. My child's education. My child's health. A better life for my children. I still think the association is a true one, but perhaps not as strong an indicator as it once was? What do you think?

Jodi Arias thinks she's all that. It wouldn't surprise me that she'd use the word 'child' trying to sound smarter than she really is.

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for Jodi to show even a speck of remorse for her brutal slaughter of Travis Alexander. I haven't seen it. I also haven't seen any sign at all of fear, and I believe that if she had been a victim of abuse she would still show fear when she talks about it--her opening statement as to why she killed Travis was very cold and distanced. "The simple answer is . . ." well, what is the not-so-simple answer (i.e., the real reason)?

Do not underestimate her conversion to the Mormon church (cult) and that organization's EXTREME push to have their members be married in the temple and become gods and goddesses. Jodi left her live-in boyfriend (Darrell Brewer) of 4 years to be with Travis. She knew Darrell had reservations about being married after his divorce; in Travis she had something she did not want to EVER let go of.

Why didn't Jodi's attorneys go for a crime-of-passion defense? With the overkill of Travis, that defense seems more reasonable to me, but I'm not well-versed in the law. Are they trying to get her completely exonerated? I think she deserves the death penalty and I hope that's what she gets; she's a dangerous person.
--Anonymous

Mel said...

Mr. Hyatt,
If I may jump off of Gwen Smith's comment about statement analysis and whether it works on Jodi: if Jodi gave a reliable denial, could that be because lying does not cause her stress? If people use deceptive language because outright lying is stressful, can someone for whom lying is not stressful give an easy, reliable denial? Jodi Arias certainly doesn't seem to be stressed by lying. I hope I"m understanding SA correctly.

Also, can you explain what the excessive use of "just" in a statement means? Jodi's teacher says she's "just" this and "just" that. He uses that word several times. What does that usage mean in SA terms? Thanks in advance!

noh8 said...

Peter: I have no doubt that Arias premeditated the murder of Travis, and I have no doubt that she has done nothing but lie since June 2008 and probably much earlier, but I do have some questions.

1. In her ninja story, she says "He pulled the trigger, and nothing happened with the gun, and so I just grabbed my purse, which was on the floor at that point..."

Why is it important for her to say that she grabbed her purse or where it was when she grabbed it? You have taught us that in each statement there is a bit of truth. Is it possible that the gun misfired when she was attacking Travis?

2. In all her stories she says that she heard Travis screaming. I think that is the only truth she has told, but I'd like your take on it.

3. Arias seems incredibly uninvolved in her own trial. She sits and colors and seldom pays attention to the lawyer’s questions or the witness’s answers. Why?

4. How do you interpret the juror’s questions? Do they indicate that they don’t believe her story?

5. This is slightly OT and doesn’t have much to do with SA, but I’d really like to know how others feel about this: Is it possible for a person to be born without a soul? Or can a person lose their soul somewhere along the road of life? I don’t believe Arias has a soul. She is smiling in the vast majority of the pictures she’s in, but her smile never reaches her eyes, and you know what they say; eyes are the window to the soul.
Thanks in advance for your help.

noh8 said...

I don’t believe that Jodi Arias was ever sexually abused, but I do believe that she used sex as a tool to keep Travis. Like a true psychopath, she used her sexuality to control Travis, and the more control she got, the more she thought she could manipulate him. She wanted to be Mrs. Travis Alexander, and when her sexuality no longer worked, she could no longer control or manipulate him, and he had to pay for that. I am a survivor of domestic abuse and once I got away, I worked with ‘battered women.’ One thing I know is that true victims never return to their abusers once they have decided to leave for good. They know that it’s either far too easy to get sucked back into the cycle once the honeymoon period is over, or that they will have to ‘pay’ for leaving in the first place. For Arias to try to portray herself as a victim of DV and use self-defense as an excuse for the savage murder of Travis sickens me. For her defense team to bring in ‘experts’ to support her claim sickens me even more. A true victim would never drive over 1,000 miles to go back to her abuser. A true victim would have police and/or hospital records to back up their claim. I believe (hope) that there is not enough proof of abuse, and enough proof of premeditation for the jury to dismiss her claims. It’s taken a long time for the courts to recognize ‘battered woman syndrome’ as something that is real, and the courts are just beginning to recognize that men can also be victims. If this jury believes that Travis abused her in any way and sentence her to anything less that first degree murder, real victims will suffer. The prosecutor in this case has already sent one woman to death row for the brutal slaying of her husband. She also claimed to be a victim of DV, despite the fact that her husband was bed-ridden. For the sake of victims everywhere, I pray he can do it again.

Anonymous said...

I believe that Jodi Arias was sexually abused by someone very close to her at a very young age - perhaps as a toddler prior to the age of 3 even. Jodi Arias reminds me of my daughter who was sexually abused by her biological father from about 18 months of age (based on her history of extreme behavioral problems) to just prior to her third birthday. She was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease just before her third birthday. It took me awhile to figure out that her abuser was a person that I trusted - her bio dad, because I very naively believed that if a child is sexually abused, he or she will tell and name their abuser. Not so! My daughter had a very close - to the point of being clingy type of relationship - with her bio father the whole time. She was very drawn to him. She worshiped the ground he walked on. He was everything to her. In her mind, to deal with all of it, she separated him into two different people. By night, when he'd hide in her closet or underneath her crib and come out with blankets covering his head (to hide his face and identity from her), she referred to him as "the Jesus Man". By day, he was her loving father, and people often commented on their love for one another and their close relationship. My daughter has had extreme emotional lability since she was about 18 months old. Zero emotional intelligence. Extreme anger and rage episodes. Highly disturbing behavior problems. Pathological lying. The list goes on. She is 24 years old now, and has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder after about 12 suicide attempts. Jodi Arias met 7 out of 9 criteria. My daughter met 9 out 9. When Peter says that Jodi may not remember, that may be true. Her memories may be repressed. Jodi may also have done what my own daughter did - separate her abuser into two different people in her mind. Or she may remember but have extreme loyalty to her abuser. Preverbal sexual abuse is very damaging to children, because it takes place at a time when their brain is developing faster than it's ever going to again. By the time a child is about 3 years of age, the brain is 80% developed. If a child is subjected to something very traumatic during this crucial period of development (prior to the age of 3), there can be physiological changes within the brain. Personality if formed by about age 5. If Jodi Arias does have a Personality Disorder such as BPD, then whatever happened to her happened prior to the age of five.