(I wrote the following post back in September, 2012.)
Jodi Arias/Fatal Attraction/Stalker/Murderess
Remember this name, Jodi Arias
I just finished reading about Jodi Arias and the information I garnered was chilling. When you combine a ‘fatal attraction’ with ‘stalking’, it only spells one thing, trouble.
You may find a lot of similarities in this case with one that we were obsessed with for over three years. A young, attractive, woman with an outgoing personality does not fit a cold, callous, calculating murderess who would premeditate a vicious murder. Was the motive, “if I cannot have him, I am going to make sure that no one else will have the chance?”
Here is a video of the Dr Drew show that I think you will find interesting.
An Arizona judge has set a new trial date for Jodi Ann Arias, a California woman accused of brutally killing her ex-boyfriend. Tuesday morning, Judge Sherry Stephens set Nov 19th as the date jury selection will begin.
Originally slated to begin on Feb. 21, the trial has been delayed because Arias’ lawyer, Victoria Washington, asked to withdraw from the case.
Judge Stephens appointed Jennifer Willmott, a death penalty-qualified defense attorney, to represent Arias. Willmott will have roughly 10 months to get up to speed on the case.
Travis Alexander had a blog. I just read one of his posts. He was decribing why he was not married and what he expected in a wife , if he ever found the right girl. I can fully understand why Jodi Arias tried to fit that bill and challenged him to choose her. You can tell by her actions, that she thinks highly of herself. When Travis Alexander rejected Jodi’s advances, this is when she did the unthinkable. You may find the following quite interesting….
Here is just one excerpt…People fall in love for too many reasons to count. Usually it is a combination of reasons. But I want someone to fall in love with me because I am a man of ability and achievement. Not because I have a lot of friends (not saying I do) but for the reason people want to befriend me, not because I have tons of money (not saying I do) but because I have the ability to earn a ton of money. Not because of my accomplishments but because I am a man of accomplishment. In fact I wouldn’t want to marry anyone if they loved me and these were not at least some of the reasons why.
Jodi Arias is charged with shooting and stabbing her ex-boyfriend to death in his Mesa, Arizona, home in 2008. Prosecutors say the 31-year-old went to Travis Alexander’s home, shot him in the face, stabbed him 27 times and slit his throat from ear to ear.
Some of his closest friends found Alexander’s body in his shower. Taylor Searle told Jane Velez-Mitchell that he immediately suspected Jodi of the murder. “That was the first thing to my mind is that, ‘oh my gosh, Jodi actually killed him.'”
Searle described a confrontation between Arias and Alexander just days before his murder. “He had caught her breaking into his Facebook account, and he read back to me his response to her, and it was a pretty harsh response,” he said. “I just remember my response to him was, ‘are you afraid she’s going to hurt you?’ and four days, five days later, he goes missing and then we find him dead.”
Arias initially told investigators that she wasn’t at the home. Then she changed her story, saying two people broke into the house and attacked them. Finally in June 2010, Arias admitted to killing her ex out of self defense, according to court documents.
Police say they found a camera in Travis’ washing machine that had two sets of photos: a series of nude shots of Jodi and Travis together, and photos of a bloody Travis as he reportedly lay dying.
(The following is new information from today, March 31, 2013)
The narcissist is often considered a therapist’s nightmare
The narcissist believes that they are among the elite that walk this earth and that they deserve to be recognized as such and treated as such. They also have little compassion for those beneath them and that can often include their therapist. They are incredibly demanding. They expect to be treated like the royalty that they believe themselves to be. They can believe that they are not only attractive but the most attractive person in the world. They expect to be recognized as such by the therapist and seek admiration from the therapist.
Narcissists have fantasies of unlimited success, unlimited power, and unlimited achievement. When in love, they will describe it as “a love never before felt by a human being.” It’s not that they consider themselves to be the best, the highest one in the world, etc. but that they believe that they belong to a very special class of the elite. They belong to a group that is few in number and is superior to the rest of the human race.
Thanks goes to ‘gramared’ for this contribution in the last thread which I just swiped as it is very informative!
I’m not sure if any of you have seen these or are interested, but the info below is taken from the Arizona Statutes which define self-defense as well as use of deadly physical force.
I’m fairly certain the jury will receive these definitions, along with a number of other instructions from the judge both verbally and in written form, before they begin deliberating.
The reason I say this is that I was foreman on a jury in AZ a number of years back. The defendant was arrested for murder and claimed self-defense. The crime was committed some nine years earlier, and the jury was never told why the defendant was finally arrested.
It wasn’t a death-penalty case, but it would mean serious jail time for the defendant, if he were convicted.
The strange part was the jurors. The women were quite involved, and the men, not so much. A number of the men didn’t even sit at the table, just stood back against the wall?? We had been deliberating for a while, and it was a Friday afternoon. The jury was leaning toward a not guilty verdict, and a number were anxious to finish and not have to return. I kept reading and rereading the definition of self-defense to the jurors because it was extremely important that we interpret it correctly when making our decision. The problem was the way the crime was committed and why the victim ended up dead.
I decided that we would think about it over the weekend and come back on Monday to deliberate further. The women, once again, obviously spent a great deal of time over the weekend giving a great deal of thought to the case. They came prepared on Monday with copious notes and were ready for some serious deliberation. The men seemed to have little interest but did return! (Should we be concerned about the number of men on Jodi’s jury??)
The bottom line was, however, that there was a gun on the table, and the defendant got the gun and shot the victim, claiming the victim was going to shoot him. However, once the defendant got the gun in his possession, the threat ceased because the other man was unarmed. What was he defending. He could have just as easily shot the victim in the leg to stop him from coming toward him or run out of the room and fled the scene. The victim had no way of harming him once the defendant had the gun. His claim of self defense to kill the victim fell flat. We took another vote, and the defendant was found guilty.
Here are the statutes. The “key” phrase is “reasonable person.”
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this14. “Deadly physical force” means force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.
Here are a couple more “definitions.”
14. “Deadly physical force” means force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.
15. “Deadly weapon” means anything designed for lethal use, including a firearm.
I’ll be anxious to hear thoughts from the Yakkers! Sorry this was so long.
Please do your best to stay on topic in this thread. Use the Coffee Café for any off topic or personal issues you want to discuss. I will be putting another Yakkers thread up for April 2nd when the trial resumes. Enjoy!