Arias: Defining Psycopathy

I did some homework...

Jodi Arias exhibits all the key elements required for a clinical diagnosis of psychopathy. This is what a defense witness, Alyce LaViolette, fails (or refuses) to recognize and factor in when presenting her conclusions in this high-profile murder case.  Instead, LaViolette has placed all emphasis on describing the verbally abusive behavior pattern of Travis Alexander, the victim in this case, and refused to acknowledge the long-standing psychopathic behavior of the defendant.

LaViolette is a domestic violence expert with over 30 years of experience working with both abusers and victims.  She is not, however, a psychologist, a psychiatrist or a medical doctor licensed to make any clinical diagnosis.  Furthermore, her area of investigation in this case was limited to selected documents provided by the defense team and a series of interviews with the defendant totaling 44 hours -- ample time for bonding to have occurred between an expert and a manipulative defendant.

For instance, LaViolette concluded Arias must have been physically abused because (a) Arias alleges Alexander broke her finger and (b) she has a "broken" finger as proof.  Technically, Jodi has a crooked finger.  Other than the defendant's word, there is no corroborating evidence being offered that the finger was ever broken, let alone when and how it happened.  Conversely, there is state's evidence to suggest she cut the finger (likely severing a tendon) during the brutal knife attack on Alexander: witnesses testified seeing one or two of her fingers bandaged immediately after the killing; her blood mixed with the victim's blood was found on a palm print at the crime scene.

There is plenty of evidence to show Travis Alexander was a user of women.  Reasonable people could disagree on whether or not his "use" rose to the level of "abuse".  LaViolette spent a lot of time on the stand relating how he verbally abused Jodi Arias, citing examples of some of his rants contained in various phone text messages and instant messages.  What confuses me is that LaViolette did not seem concerned about the underlying causes of the rants or any of the specific accusations he expressed.  Travis calls her a sociopath and says if people only knew how sick Arias is they would spit on her.  How on earth is that not a huge red flag?!  One should also take note of the fact that Travis seemed to have had many good friends and was generally liked (a positive indicator) while Jodi has almost no friends and is generally disliked (a negative indicator).

LaViolette's testimony pivots around her extremely narrow conceptions of what defines Deception, Stalking, Manipulation and Narcissism.  She repeatedly testifies she looks for patterns, not merely individual instances of behavior, apparently using a subjective behavior-over-time analysis to assess whether or not a behavior pattern exists.

• Deception:  LaViolette continually asserted seeing no evidence to suggest Jodi is deceptive.  "She only lied about the killing."  On the other hand, she finds Travis was deceptive solely for asserting he was a virgin.  In order for deception to occur, there must be a pattern, i.e. examples over time.  LaViolette only cited the one lie about his virginity but insists it was a pattern over time because he perpetuated the lie for purposes of retaining his priesthood.  Conversely, according to LaViolette, there is no pattern over time with regard to Arias:  she told a multitude of lies but only about the killing (from June 4, 2008 until the present) and only for the purpose of not getting caught.  Is not this a distinction without a difference?
• Stalking:  When confronted with numerous instances which most reasonable people would define as stalking, LaViolette disagrees.  According to her narrow definition, Travis would have had to have taken steps to demonstrate his fear (e.g. making a police report or obtaining a restraining order) in order for Jodi's outrageous behavior to be classified as stalking.  While that is indeed the legal definition, it is certainly not a real-life definition. The prosecution clearly established a real-life pattern of stalking behavior on the part of Arias.  It's a tragedy that, while Alexander expresses his fear of Jodi to several other people, he clearly had not yet had time to fully assess and process the danger he truly was in.
• Manipulation: "I didn't say Ms. Arias wasn't manipulative.  I just said I have no evidence of that.  There was no pattern of manipulation in the evidence I saw."  Arias testified she routinely used sex to "de-stress" Travis.  Alexander wrote in a text message that he felt like he was nothing more than "a dildo with a heartbeat" to Arias, a strong indication he felt sexually manipulated by her.  A co-worker of Alexander recalled an incident where he invited about 30 out-of-town co-workers to spend the night at his house during a convention.  Arias was not invited, was told not to come, but showed up anyway and spent the night there.  I have conflicted feelings about this incident as to whether it would properly fall under Stalking or Manipulation.  It may be a blend of both: arriving uninvited is stalking; getting Travis to allow her to stay is manipulation.
• Narcissism:  LaViolette makes two memorable, contradictory statements about Arias: (1) that she suffers from low self-esteem and (2) that Arias thinks she may have an IQ up there with Einstein's.  She was unwilling to make a self-esteem judgment about Arias having written and autographed a yet-unpublished Defendant's Manifesto "in case she gets famous".  LaViolette cites Alexander calling Arias a porn star as an example of his verbal abuse escalating to character assassination.  Yet we get the impression from Jodi's testimony that she saw it as a compliment, an affirmation of her sexual prowess.  Wouldn't that remove it from the list of abuse altogether?

I copied and pasted a brief overview of psychopathy (at the end of this post) from an internet reference site; a link to the original source is included in the title.  Court watchers are encouraged to read it over and evaluate whether or not the defendant fits the diagnosis.

Why is this Important?

Jodi Arias is accused of premeditated, first degree murder.  She alleges it was not premeditated but, rather, it was spontaneous self-defense.  If self-defense, she can be convicted of a lesser crime or simply acquitted.  If premeditated, the jury will be asked to hear evidence regarding mitigating and aggravating factors then decide whether or not to impose the death penalty.  If the death penalty is imposed, it should be because no possibilty of rehabilitation is possible.  If the jury believes she is, or is likely to be, a psychopath the death penalty is appropriate as such persons cannot be treated and continue to be a danger so long as they live.

In the words of Judge Judy, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."  Most of Jodi's current "story" doesn't make sense to me.  For example:

• Aside from Jodi's questionable testimony, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that Travis was ever physically abusive toward her.  Furthermore, jurors should ask what would be the more "natural" reaction to someone dropping their new camera:  body slam the person... or yell at the person while grabbing the camera to see if there's any damage to it?
• Jurors should recall the extent of the injuries Arias claims to have sustained on June 4.  All that comes to mind as of this writing is a sore shoulder (probably from stabbing him 29 times).
• Jodi needed an explanation for her crooked finger that does not involve June 4 in order to support her initial "story" of not having been in Mesa on the day of the murder.  The convenient solution to support her current "story" of self-defense is to claim Travis broke it during a previous incident of physical abuse.  A simple x-ray, even one taken this long after the fact, would support her claim yet none has been provided.  The obvious inference is that an x-ray would not support her story that the finger had been broken.  I find it very difficult to believe that Jodi's love-of-self would have allowed a broken finger to go untreated to the ultimate effect of it becoming deformed.  She could have given any excuse for the break to a doctor; she could have (at the very least) told someone that she had a broken finger.  She did not.  Nobody ever saw her finger in a splint.  If she received the injury on June 4, she could not have gone to a doctor and leave evidence behind.  One last point, she told Ryan Burns she cut her fingers on a glass at "Margaritaville" -- a non-existent establishment where she claimed to have been employed -- and she specifically used the word "cut".  I continue to assert the finger does not look broken to me.
• The best self-defense is escape.  If she truly was afraid for her life, she surely would have and certainly could have escaped from a naked, dripping-wet man.  Instead, her first thought for self-defense was to run into a closet, climb shelving and grab a gun she thought wasn't loaded.  This part of the story is further complicated by (a) friends of Alexander saying he did not own a gun, (b) shelving which can't be climbed and (c) no ammunition was ever found in Alexander's home.  If, in fact, a gun was hidden in the closet, Arias most likely put it there herself.
• If Jodi was, in fact, body-slammed (and the intent of Travis was to kill her) she would be dead today.  She would not have been able to immediately get up and run to the closet.
• There is no adequate explanation for where the knife came from.  Arias claims it was used to cut a rope used during a sexcapade earlier in the day.  She thinks she must have taken the rope and thrown it into a "dumpster somewhere".  One difficulty with this story is that people don't generally use knives to cut ropes if scissors are readily available (and in this case they were).  Another is Arias needs to invent a reason for the knife being in the master bedroom area.  The rope is the "excuse" for having the knife.  When a rope wasn't found at the crime scene, Arias postulates she must have disposed of it (although she doesn't really remember).  What evidence did she think was on the rope that prompted her to remove it?

There are many more examples to show that not one of Jodi's stories, to date, can pass the smell test.  If the jury decides this killing was in self-defense, they will do so based solely on her words and not on the myriad circumstantial and physical evidence pointing to premeditation.  I have great empathy for the defense attorneys.  They simply have nothing to work with.

---

How to Spot a Psychopath

What kind of person could be a psychopath?  Professional have highlighted a few warning signs. They include:

• Playing on our sympathy: Psychopaths will use us, will hurt and rip us off – then heartlessly play to our sympathetic feelings - and we blindly believe them and tend to let them off. But if this happens often, it shows a lack of conscience so don’t be fooled by their cheap and empty words.
• Being manipulative: Psychopaths, in general, love to play with your emotions. They want you to jump, squirm, feel anxious or afraid.
• Being a parasite: The psychopath will use their charm and persuasion to get you to pay, or to meet their various needs. There’s rarely any benefit or payoff for you. You’re just being exploited – you’re a pawn in their hands. 
• Being deceitful: They’re con men who’ll trick you and lie constantly. Their life is a deception; you can’t trust a word. But if you point to a snag in their tangled web of lies they’ll vehemently deny it, and jump to their defence. 
• Highly charming: Psychopaths are usually charismatic characters. That is, they’re often mesmerizing, can pull in a crowd, and make a person feel like they’re a famous movie star. But it won’t last forever … they drop you and move on.
• Conceited: Psychopaths are caught up with themselves and their importance. They’re boastful, proud, haughty, heartless, arrogant – and like to undermine, criticise and put you down.
• Are never to blame: The psychopath believes that they are never to blame - and they won’t accept any culpability.
• Being highly reactive: Although psychopaths can quickly cover up their anger, they will overreact to perceived slights and offences … or to insufficient deference, recognition and respect.
• Risk-takers: These types of individuals are extreme risk takers who draw in others to their games, schemes and plans. They’re hungry for power and they seek control – regardless of the risks or the danger this entails.

Note: Research indicates that psychopaths cannot be treated.  So put up your guard and keep a healthy distance – and don’t ever form a relationship with them.