Why Are Criminal Defendants like Jodi Arias Allowed to Trash Their Victims Without Evidence?

Trends Point to Victim Bashing

Dawn Dix, Yahoo! Contributor Network

In murder trials, it seems to be an up and coming trend to 'blame the victim.' For instance, look at the infamous Jodi Arias case, where she has eclipsed Casey Anthony as the most-hated woman in America. Who ever thought that was possible?

Allegations made that were never proven - just on the word of the defendant, who by all accounts, is an habitual liar. Mormonism was one focus. Now, in every other religion, there's probably a creed that you shouldn't be having sexual intercourse before marriage; however, with this case, Mormonism was front and center, as though it were the only religion that forbids it.

Next, we had allegations of sexual peodphilia, which were also unproven. Not a single trace of emails, pictures, or any form of downloads on the computer of the victim.

What was the draw in this twisted case? A combination of what some called a pretty defendant, and sex of course - that sells after all, doesn't it? Sexual recordings, which in all likelihood she made without his knowledge - to possibly blackmail him at some point. Plenty of nude photos of both parties. If he were to dump her, she'd ruin his life in the Mormon community.

Let's not forget the physical abuse allegations as well - also unfounded. No pictures, no police reports, no friends coming forward to say she was abused. Nothing but the 'word' of an admitted killer. So I guess - anything goes, huh?


It's like a train wreck, where you can't take your eyes away, even though you know you should. Every day, there was yet another new revelation. Eighteen excruciating days of a defendant on the stand - feeding off the spotlight. She seems to crave attention, like a child, where even if it's negative attention, it's SOME attention, which gives her validation she's obviously missing in her life.

Something about Travis Alexander became an obsession for her - and a deadly one at that. So what does it get you at the end of the day? A very dangerous, lying, unemotional defendant who will take out anyone in her way to get what she wants - and what she wanted was him. Cliche, I know, but if she couldn't have him, nobody else could.

She still makes the news by being allowed to actually tweet from her jail cell! Why this hasn't been sanctioned is beyond me. Social media has made trials very different these days, having been used even in the Casey Anthony trial. Her attorneys would go onto Facebook and Twitter - see what they should and shouldn't be doing - and use it as part of their strategy.

What other criminal has taken to the airwaves not five minutes after being convicted of Murder One in which she could possibly face a death sentence? It was like some surreal version of a celebrity going on a PR tour for their latest movie or an acclaimed author going on book tour. Pure insanity.

I'd love to - and every shrink out there, no doubt - get half an hour with her to actually pick her brain to see what's in there. Of course, it would take a highly skilled therapist, who wasn't manipulated and fooled - to see through her. If she'd allow someone to help her, even though it won't change her new lot in life, it might give us a glimpse into her brain and what deep-seated problems she has.

Not only was Travis brutally slaughtered, but his name and reputation were dragged through the mud. In essence, she's killing him a second time, and loving every minute of it. We need to re-think this 'blame the victim' defense. Unless there is HARD PROOF of allegations, they should never be allowed into a court of law.

'PSYCH 101' .....

Since I write about psychopathic killers, I’ve decided to read several books on the subject.  My current one is “Without Conscience” by Robert D. Hare.  The first thing I learned is that ‘sociopaths’ and ‘psychopaths’ are really the same thing.  There’s no distinction.  Researchers and clinicians use the term interchangeably.  Sometimes sociopathy is used because it’s less likely than ‘psychopathy’ to be confused with psychoticism or insanity.  For believe me, sociopaths/psychopaths are NOT insane.  They know exactly what they’re doing and just don’t care.  They're not all killers, though.  They are serious con artists.

Let’s start with one of the traits and continue the subject in another post.   The first one is Glibness and Superficiality.  They can be witty and quite articulate.  They can be funny and great conversationalists.  They can weave stories that cast themselves in a good light.  They’re very often likeable (i.e. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey MacDonald).  You may already know they prey on the weak...those that may not see through their guise.  Others may view them as too slick or smooth and won’t fall for what they’re ‘selling.’  They can hone in on those that won’t question them, bilking them out of money, house, and home, and not even flinch.

Jeffrey MacDonald, the military doctor who killed his entire family, still proclaims his innocence.  Yet, the biggest twist in his tale was the fact that his own biographer, who came to write about HIS side of things, had his eyes opened by the callousness and disregard he gave to his dead wife and three daughters.  All he did was talk about himself.  When he spoke of the murders, he was glib and utterly detached – devoid of emotion or  empathy.  That author wound up writing a book that portrayed MacDonald as he truly is – a cold-blooded killer.  (Joe McGinniss, “Fatal Vision”).

Next time, we’ll talk about another sociopathic trait – Egocentricity & Grandiosity.

Do Serial Killers KNOW What They Are?

As I've mentioned before, I write about serial killers, but mine don't even realize they're serial killers.  In one novel, the killer does it for a distorted view of love.  In another, the killer does it for revenge, and also to rid the world of animal abusers...a noble thing, but I digress.

I wonder how many serial killers don't realize what they are either.  People like Ted Bundy must have known, because he was way too smart and crafty NOT to.  Others actually DO it for the notoriety, like the Zodiac killer, who was never caught, even managing to taunt the authorities for decades.   

Another one that comes to mind is the diabolical Henry H. Holmes, who  built a hotel specifically for his murderous deeds, if you can believe it. (Henry H. Holmes)  

This guy knew exactly what he was doing, even taking some of his own employees as victims.

Do YOU think most serial killers know exactly what they are?

Let's Play "Analyst Armchair"....

Are we fascinated with serial killers?   I know I am...I write about them.  Granted, mine are fictional, but still.  They've been around since the 1800's, starting with Jack the Ripper.  In truth, they were probably around even earlier than that, but it wasn't widely known or reported to the public.

They kill with wanton abandon...without consequence...without mercy.   Perhaps we envy their ability to have no conscience?  They stalk their prey, always for their own twisted reasons, but still we wonder.  We want to know how they tick.  Did they have a dysfunctional childhood?  Is that really an acceptable fallback anymore?  Honestly, to some degree, we all have those.

Has it grown worse in the last few decades?  Are we "producing" more?  Or does it merely appear that way, thanks to 24/7 news coverage?

Hollywood even gets into the act with movies about them..."American Psycho," "Silence of the Lambs," "Seven," and the popular franchise, "Saw."

Do we sympathize or vilify?   Maybe we do both...we try to understand the all important question...WHY do they do it?  Is it compulsion?  A need they're trying to fulfill?  Two examples would be Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy.

My 'analyst armchair' says Dahmer had a need for people not to leave him.  Was it due to his parents' divorce?  He didn't want his victims to leave...he kept their hearts (and other body parts) in his freezer.

Ted Bundy was cunning and shrewd.  He was the 'everyman.'  The guy that appeared honest...who needed help since he pretended to have broken limbs in order to gain the trust of his victims.  He had a sense of entitlement.  He was smart and outwitted police for some time.

Sit in the 'analyst armchair' and tell me YOUR thoughts and diagnosis.....

.