Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 2/10 - Break

[wendiesan]

Becky Sharp: Can someone please explain the juror question about: can a body's reaction to certain stimuli trigger suppressed memories/feelings (or words to that effect)?

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, Becky, but it might be of some value.

When dealing with supposedly repressed or suppressed memories (there is debate over this), the stimuli that bring forward those memories are popularly (not scientifically) referred to as trauma triggers when dealing with PTSD. Some schools of thought connect the label of trauma trigger to certain words or phrases, although there is such variety of triggers, that there is no guarantee that announcing the supposed presence of trauma triggers (ie. trauma trigger warnings) will be of any value to the general population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/ptsd-triggers
http://ptsd.about.com/od/selfhelp/a/CopingTriggers.htm

In fact, the body's senses can be linked to memories. In my experience, and those of my acquaintances, memories that have been dormant for years may come back unbidden when a person smells the fragrance of fresh-baked cookies (grandma's house), wax crayons (first day of school), new car smell (father's last car), Chanel No. 5 (ahh). A phrase of music can remind a person of an occasion, or an emotion. Prima ballerinas have been known to want to throw up when they hear the Overture to Swan Lake as the emotion of stage fright automatically kicks in. People are reminded of a parent's funeral when a certain hymn is played. The taste of oranges can recall a place and time and the people with whom a person has shared an event. So, I think in this question is asking if there was scientific backing to the popular understanding that if a body's senses, in experiencing a particular stimulus, can trigger a repressed memory could it's senses similarly trigger a suppressed memory or feeling.

Dr. D's answer to this question, if I remember correctly, was yes.

[Sidebar re repression/suppression.

Repression is another well-known defense mechanism. Repression acts to keep information out of conscious awareness. However, these memories don't just disappear; they continue to influence our behavior. For example, a person who has repressed memories of abuse suffered as a child may later have difficulty forming relationships. Sometimes we do this consciously by forcing the unwanted information out of our awareness, which is known as suppression. In most cases, however, this removal of anxiety-provoking memories from our awareness is believed to occur unconsciously.

http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_4.htm]

The senses, for example the sense of smell, have developed over eons, as I understand it, to allow human beings to survive in a variety of situations.

At the International Symposium on Olfaction and Taste held in San Francisco late last month, Dr. Herz and other researchers discussed the many ways our sense of smell stands alone. Olfaction is an ancient sense, the key by which our earliest forebears learned to approach or slink off...Yet olfaction is our quickest sense. Whereas new signals detected by our eyes and our ears must first be assimilated by a structural way station called the thalamus before reaching the brain’s interpretive regions, odiferous messages barrel along dedicated pathways straight from the nose and right into the brain’s olfactory cortex, for instant processing.

Importantly, the olfactory cortex is embedded within the brain’s limbic system and amygdala, where emotions are born and emotional memories stored. That’s why smells, feelings and memories become so easily and intimately entangled, and why the simple act of washing dishes recently made Dr. Herz’s cousin break down and cry. “The smell of the dish soap reminded her of her grandmother,” said Dr. Herz, author of “The Scent of Desire.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/science/05angier.html?_r=0

In another presentation, Maria Larsson, an associate professor of psychology at Stockholm University, described the power of smell to serve as an almost magical time machine, with potential for treating dementia, depression, the grim fog of age. Johan Willander and others in her lab have sought to give firm empirical foundation to the old Proustian hypothesis, the idea that smells and aromas, like the famed taste of a madeleine dipped in tea, can help disinter the past.

Studying groups of Swedes whose average age was 75, the researchers offered three different sets of the same 20 memory cues — the cue as a word, as a picture and as a smell. The scientists found that while the word and visual cues elicited associations largely from subjects’ adolescence and young adulthood, the smell cues evoked thoughts of early childhood, under the age of 10.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/science/05angier.html?_r=0

So perhaps suppressed memories of events in childhood may be more often triggered by the sense of smell than other senses. It may be worth looking into as the questions become more clear from court records.

 

[ElleElle]

Anyone happen to have a link to the newest "motion for mistrial"? TIA

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByBlLbpcgb3wd3pkN2tsRllTMUk/view?pli=1

ETA ~ :lol:

"As was pointed out in her original motion Dr. Geffner, due to the fact that Ms. Arias’

mental impairments prevent her from testifying in open court, is one of only three

witnesses that Ms. Arias called during her case. Furthermore, given Ms. Arias’ inability

to testify, Dr. Geffner can fully expound upon the domestic violence Ms. Arias suffered

during her relationship with Mr. Alexander it is hard to imagine how he could not be

considered as a key witness."

:lol: :lol:

 

[wenwe4]

I'm having trouble following the BPD stuff.

If you have BPD do you intentionally do this manipulative stuff or do you think that what you're doing is normal.

An example would be: Did JA think ALL people have the right to check their significant others SM accounts if they thought they were being cheated on?

From the beginning I have thought that JA truly believed that if a jury heard just how much TA "put her through" they would totally understand why she killed him.

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, but with BPD do they know they are being manipulative and don't care as long as it gets them what they want, or do they not realize what they're doing and just think everyone manipulates like that?

TIA...hope I made sense.

I will try and answer from my experience growing up with someone who has Borderline Personality D/O.

1) Yes I saw her intentionally manipulate stuff and there was proof of it over the years. (ie: She turned the hose on in her boyfriend's basement window when she was angry with him. She turned someone into LEO for a crime they did not commit after she had been spreading rumors and lies of the so called "offenses".)

2) She doesn't believe she is "normal" she believes she is "entitled". She would sneak into letters, bank statements, accounts and follow/stalk/confront/harass husbands/boyfriends/lovers and random "identified victims" (ie: the other woman) who threaten(ed) her image/status. (especially when feeling cheated on - they are always in fear of being abandoned).

3) She has convinced herself of so many untruths that she really can't recall the actual events. She never accepts guilt or admits any type of remorse for her actions if it is a big thing. It is always the other person's fault, or a faulty situation, or a random event. She will admit fault for dropping something or something minor.

4) She couldn't see the world through the other person's eyes. The empathy for others is not the prevalent emotion when she is being manipulative. Rather, she delights in her manipulations and was quite proud of herself but would admit it to few if anyone. She would be at her peak when trying to dig up dirt on someone, spread lies, or stalk someone.

She also would idolize someone who was wealthy or had some sort of status or fame. She would brag about closely knowing so-and-so and hinted she always received special treatment. She truly believed she deserved special treatment.

But you could go from idolized to devalued in a quick hurry. A threat (real or imagined) to her image or leaving her and go on without her would devastate her. The manipulations started and some lasted for years. She was always a monkey on a branch with her relationships - never let go of one until you have another safely in hand.

HTH

 

[Frigga]

Thank you so much ElleElle and MyVice too- much appreciated! I'll be back!

 

[geevee]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByBlLbpcgb3wd3pkN2tsRllTMUk/view?pli=1

ETA ~ :lol:

"As was pointed out in her original motion Dr. Geffner, due to the fact that Ms. Arias’

mental impairments prevent her from testifying in open court, is one of only three

witnesses that Ms. Arias called during her case. Furthermore, given Ms. Arias’ inability

to testify, Dr. Geffner can fully expound upon the domestic violence Ms. Arias suffered

during her relationship with Mr. Alexander it is hard to imagine how he could not be

considered as a key witness."

:lol: :lol:

Nurmi makes me sigh so heavily.

 

[Frigga]

Wenwe, That must have been so difficult for you. It makes me really feel for my niece and nephew, your mom sounds a lot like one of my sisters. You really rose above being raised by someone like that- I suppose it was in spite of her. Good for you!

 

[bettybaby00]

So, how can Jodi have PTSD if she lied about the murder and the events surrounding it? Also, if someone has PTSD they would not want back to the trigger. Jodi did want to go to Travis' house during the memorial. That is not PTSD, IMO.

For example, I was a in bad motorbike accident overseas and to this I despise motorbikes and actually got all shaky and nervous the other day when a friend was talking about buying one in the Spring.

Bear attack vs tiger attack LOL

As for knowingly being manipulative, it's my understanding that many do know they are being manipulative. This was further confirmed for me by the NYT article someone posted a few weeks back (the one about the kids having these types of disorders)

I think it's all about "getting what they want" By whatever means necessary, or put another way, the end justifies the means.

MOO

 

[bettybaby00]

I will try and answer from my experience growing up with someone who has Borderline Personality D/O.

1) Yes I saw her intentionally manipulate stuff and there was proof of it over the years. (ie: She turned the hose on in her boyfriend's basement window when she was angry with him. She turned someone into LEO for a crime they did not commit after she had been spreading rumors and lies of the so called "offenses".)

2) She doesn't believe she is "normal" she believes she is "entitled". She would sneak into letters, bank statements, accounts and follow/stalk/confront/harass husbands/boyfriends/lovers and random "identified victims" (ie: the other woman) who threaten(ed) her image/status. (especially when feeling cheated on - they are always in fear of being abandoned).

3) She has convinced herself of so many untruths that she really can't recall the actual events. She never accepts guilt or admits any type of remorse for her actions if it is a big thing. It is always the other person's fault, or a faulty situation, or a random event. She will admit fault for dropping something or something minor.

4) She couldn't see the world through the other person's eyes. The empathy for others is not the prevalent emotion when she is being manipulative. Rather, she delights in her manipulations and was quite proud of herself but would admit it to few if anyone. She would be at her peak when trying to dig up dirt on someone, spread lies, or stalk someone.

She also would idolize someone who was wealthy or had some sort of status or fame. She would brag about closely knowing so-and-so and hinted she always received special treatment. She truly believed she deserved special treatment.

But you could go from idolized to devalued in a quick hurry. A threat (real or imagined) to her image or leaving her and go on without her would devastate her. The manipulations started and some lasted for years. She was always a monkey on a branch with her relationships - never let go of one until you have another safely in hand.

HTH

Thanks for giving us your perspective

And the BBM, the murderess to a T

 

[Frigga]

Nurmi et al, RIDICULOUS. I wonder how JSS keeps a straight face when addressing these motions.

No doubt that every.time.Nurmi.writes.one.of.these he is raking in the dough!

 

[Myvice]

I will try and answer from my experience growing up with someone who has Borderline Personality D/O.

1) Yes I saw her intentionally manipulate stuff and there was proof of it over the years. (ie: She turned the hose on in her boyfriend's basement window when she was angry with him. She turned someone into LEO for a crime they did not commit after she had been spreading rumors and lies of the so called "offenses".)

2) She doesn't believe she is "normal" she believes she is "entitled". She would sneak into letters, bank statements, accounts and follow/stalk/confront/harass husbands/boyfriends/lovers and random "identified victims" (ie: the other woman) who threaten(ed) her image/status. (especially when feeling cheated on - they are always in fear of being abandoned).

3) She has convinced herself of so many untruths that she really can't recall the actual events. She never accepts guilt or admits any type of remorse for her actions if it is a big thing. It is always the other person's fault, or a faulty situation, or a random event. She will admit fault for dropping something or something minor.

4) She couldn't see the world through the other person's eyes. The empathy for others is not the prevalent emotion when she is being manipulative. Rather, she delights in her manipulations and was quite proud of herself but would admit it to few if anyone. She would be at her peak when trying to dig up dirt on someone, spread lies, or stalk someone.

She also would idolize someone who was wealthy or had some sort of status or fame. She would brag about closely knowing so-and-so and hinted she always received special treatment. She truly believed she deserved special treatment.

But you could go from idolized to devalued in a quick hurry. A threat (real or imagined) to her image or leaving her and go on without her would devastate her. The manipulations started and some lasted for years. She was always a monkey on a branch with her relationships - never let go of one until you have another safely in hand.

HTH

Thanks so much for sharing this. It helps so much.

 

[bettybaby00]

Nurmi et al, RIDICULOUS. I wonder how JSS keeps a straight face when addressing these motions.

No doubt that every.time.Nurmi.writes.one.of.these he is raking in the dough!

I finally read it...

I guess this explains the Nurmster's vile behavior to DeMarte. He must have figured, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. :facepalm:

Nurmi and the high road aren't well aquatinted

 

[LinasK]

I'm having trouble following the BPD stuff.

If you have BPD do you intentionally do this manipulative stuff or do you think that what you're doing is normal.

An example would be: Did JA think ALL people have the right to check their significant others SM accounts if they thought they were being cheated on?

From the beginning I have thought that JA truly believed that if a jury heard just how much TA "put her through" they would totally understand why she killed him.

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, but with BPD do they know they are being manipulative and don't care as long as it gets them what they want, or do they not realize what they're doing and just think everyone manipulates like that?

TIA...hope I made sense.

I think she had to know it was manipulative to be snooping his emails, intercepting them, hacking his Facebook page. I think that's why she readily volunteering to Det. Flores that Travis had given her his passwords, and her excuse was a trust issue.

 

[Myvice]

I think she had to know it was manipulative to be snooping his emails, intercepting them, hacking his Facebook page. I think that's why she readily volunteering to Det. Flores that Travis had given her his passwords, and her excuse was a trust issue.

I agree, but it also made me wonder if she thought that other people do this kind of thing too.

IIRC, she even told Sky that she did that which I found very strange.

I'm sure it raised huge red flags for Sky.

 

[KPinMN]

I think she had to know it was manipulative to be snooping his emails, intercepting them, hacking his Facebook page. I think that's why she readily volunteering to Det. Flores that Travis had given her his passwords, and her excuse was a trust issue.

Exactly! They (People with BPD) know their behavior is manipulative, they just believe the same rules don't apply to them because they have a "good" reason.

 

[Diggin]

Juror Questions from today...

Thanks, ElleElle!!!

When I was following these questions as they were being sent out from the court room, several commentors on JMPSP were saying they did not like these questions and others were saying Dr. D's replies to the questions were making them nervous. But I think the jurors asked good questions and I'm not worried about the Dr.s replies. I think she was educating the jurors. They already have heard in testimonies how Arias stalked Travis for a year, peeped into his windows when he was with other girls, showed up in his house uninvited, even showed up and cut the lights out at the circuit breakers in the basement. Travis found her there. He was even warning girls about her, telling them they may get strange emails, but it would be Arias sending them. He had his tires slashed and his personal online accounts broke into, even when he'd change his password, she'd figure out the new one.

I think Juan will not fail in putting this all in order for them, so they will understand. I do have one question though, and it is: If Fonseca and Geffner DO come back, how can they possibly reconcile Nurmi's NOW embracing BPD since they were adamant that Arias has PTSD and NOT BPD? I think they may be very hesitant to get back on that witness stand and CHANGE their original 'opinion'. (Remember, they both said they are not 'diagnosing' her, but I think they were analyzing the relationship.) They also said, especially Fonseca, that she has PTSD due to 'domestic violence'.

Even if she does have that, then wouldn't it be the result of her brutal ambush and slaughtering of Travis? If so, she was never diagnosed with it BEFORE she killed him. So that would not be a mitigating factor, if it came on as a result of the murder.

But how can they possibly change their 'analysis' since they've already testified a different way, and insisted that she did not have BPD?

 

[Myvice]

When I was following these questions as they were being sent out from the court room, several commentors on JMPSP were saying they did not like these questions and others were saying Dr. D's replies to the questions were making them nervous. But I think the jurors asked good questions and I'm not worried about the Dr.s replies. I think she was educating the jurors. They already have heard in testimonies how Arias stalked Travis for a year, peeped into his windows when he was with other girls, showed up in his house uninvited, even showed up and cut the lights out at the circuit breakers in the basement. Travis found her there. He was even warning girls about her, telling them they may get strange emails, but it would be Arias sending them. He had his tires slashed and his personal online accounts broke into, even when he'd change his password, she'd figure out the new one.

I think Juan will not fail in putting this all in order for them, so they will understand. I do have one question though, and it is: If Fonseca and Geffner DO come back, how can they possibly reconcile Nurmi's NOW embracing BPD since they were adamant that Arias has PTSD and NOT BPD? I think they may be very hesitant to get back on that witness stand and CHANGE their original 'opinion'. (Remember, they both said they are not 'diagnosing' her, but I think they were analyzing the relationship.) They also said, especially Fonseca, that she has PTSD due to 'domestic violence'.

Even if she does have that, then wouldn't it be the result of her brutal ambush and slaughtering of Travis? If so, she was never diagnosed with it BEFORE she killed him. So that would not be a mitigating factor, if it came on as a result of the murder.

But how can they possibly change their 'analysis' since they've already testified a different way, and insisted that she did not have BPD?

I agree and I wonder how they can reconcile all the T-Dog crap now that Nurmi had Dr De establish that JA had BPD before she met TA. There just doesn't seem to be any cohesion in their story.

 

[atthelake]

Came in late, still catching up.... but I just :giggle: thinking about Nurmi and his future private practice.

Who in Hades would hire him as a defense attorney knowing how he likes to milk the coffers for billable hours and on the money train!

The defense attys in my area that are well known in their fields.... they don't drone on and on and on and on and on... just saying Nurmi. Your last gravy train, and that you are milking it for all it's worth huh?

Just a last thought before fftobed: as no one to chat with :wink:

 

[Mindmatters]

I have a question for AZL if she stops in:

Is there any legal reason that would prevent JM from stating in his summation that on the one hand KN embraced Dr. DeMarte's diagnosis of BPD and never called her expertise, diagnostic evaluations, qualifications and years of experience into question while on the other hand dismissed the very same expertise, evaluative practices and results, qualifications, and years of experience when it came to her lack of diagnosis in regard to PTSD. Once again, you can't have it both ways, and this is just another example of a pattern on the part of the DT in which anyone who disagrees with them are subject to personal attacks and name calling rather than on matters of law and substance. Because essentially the DT has treated this witness as a credible expert when it benefited their case and devalued this witness when her expertise hurt their case.

 

[wenwe4]

What is really interesting to me is that 1) JA did have Borderline Personality traits prior to meeting Travis but there is no requirement that JA was pristine before meeting him. He still did not deserve to be brutally murdered. 2) JA may have PTSD now that she committed this horrific act but it shouldn't be a mitigating factor if they have no evidence of this prior to Travis death. 3) JA was 28 (nearly) when she killed him - if she were a male would this be as big of a mitigating factor? IIRC most felons are about that age when they go to prison for a long time. 4) JA has not shown remorse except to say she wishes his family and friends weren't feeling grief (because if they felt like she did - they would feel nothing). 5) She doesn't have a criminal history but that isn't required to sentence her for her guilt in the crime itself.

I know many will not agree with me but I would accept LWOP (because there is no parole in AZ). As long as she doesn't get out then society will be safe from the likes of JA. MOO

 

[Val1]

Still, it was unclear from the tweets whether Willmott came back to court after the noon recess. Does anyone know?

That's when they had that sudden recess but she was there when the Alexanders came out of chambers just before court ended for the day and KN gave her that case law everyone was asking about(I think the spelling is incorrect below). No idea what was going on with JA unless she left direct from the chamber meeting.

"Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ 3m3 minutes ago
I left...#jodiarias

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 1m1 minute ago
TA's family exits courtroom. #jodiarias

Lara Martinez ‏@liebenlaramutti 1m1 minute ago Judge on bench, Nurmi is citing Seacrest case law...JM not there, nor is JA #jodiarias

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 2m2 minutes ago
Stephens takes the bench. Nurmi gives her a case law cite.

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 3m3 minutes ago
Flores, Martinez and the Alexander sisters came out of chambers first. Then Nurmi, Willmott and Maria De la Rosa. No Judge, no Jodi.

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 3m3 minutes ago
Nurmi, Willmott, & Maria return from chambers. Maria looking at her phone. Probably reading this.#jodiarias

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 4m4 minutes ago
Juan, Flores, & Alexander sisters return from chambers. Sisters look somber. #jodiarias

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 11m11 minutes ago
We are sitting in the courtroom wondering if we will see anything else today.

Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ 5m5 minutes ago Phoenix, AZ
We are waiting in the courtroom to see what's up...we may get kicked out #jodiarias #3tvarias

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 6m6 minutes ago
Flores looks like he's lost weight. 💔😕

Wild About Trial ‏@WildAboutTrial 47s48 seconds ago
I misunderstood initial answer from De or maybe that was the intention. #JodiArias did have

BPD b4 murder. Nurmi cleared it up.

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 18s18 seconds ago
Stephens leaves the bench.

Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 31s31 seconds ago
DeMarte finishes off a can of soda as she crosses the courtroom, drops it in the wastebasket and pushes through the door.

Steve Krafft ‏@SKrafftFox10 39s39 seconds ago
No #jodiarias trial tomorrow. Judge says she will question each juror separately in chambers this afternoon. #Fox10Phoenix"