Originally Posted by blighted star
Please feel free to say "Good morning" or whatever it is where you are when you come on!. Some of us are night-owls or insomniacs. Don't assume we're all asleep on this side of the pond - or world.
[QUOTE=Wishmich;3397107
I had a long discussion about PTSD regarding diagnosis and symptoms with the Chief of Staff of Behavioral Health at a very large hospital. It was related to my job, but I won't bore you with the details. Anyway, there is a deeper reasoning in diagnosing PTSD than just a traumatic event and the anxiety that is caused afterward. It is very specific. I gave an example which to the lay person (me) would think it's considered PTSD, but he gave very specific reasons that it would not be diagnosed as PTSD. He said people can confuse anxiety for PTSD. With that said, I think we could all give an example of our own lives thinking that it's PTSD, but in reality it is much more complicated than that. He gave specifics, but since i'm not a doctor, there's no way I'd be able to explain it the way he did.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree re giving examples. I left out a lot of detail that might've explained things better, including the information that I didn't self-diagnose. I was assessed twice. The first time by a psychologist, the second a forensic psychiatrist. The group I referred to were patients with diagnosed ptsd & also (I think) chronic ptsd. They'd been referred by different Dr's, so hadn't all been incorrectly assessed by one practioner applying the label loosely. I don't understand why this study has such a limited view of triggers, because it seems contrary to the experience of at least some diagnosed patients. Maybe it makes a difference if it's chronic ptsd? Someone here might be able to tell us if that could cause a wider set of triggers? If so, that might explain the difference?
My only point was, that if there IS a jury member who either has had experience of ptsd, or knows someone who has (&yes, or even just THINKS they do) & they HAVE experienced a wider range of triggers, they may find that answer less than credible. Studies are always being updated or expanded upon. Results vary from study to study depending on the questions asked, who's providing funding etc. I don't understand why it doesn't show what I've heard many say. I'm hoping one of our members in this field can let us know if a chronic ptsd diagnosis would change everything? If not, then I suspect that one day there might be another study that does show a wider range of triggers is possible. Til then, people will be told it can't really be happening to them.
ETA - this is an apology to everyone who reads this thread. I wish I hadn't posted at all. It's too complicated to deal with here & I've ended up sounding like an idiot & completely hijacking the thread. I posted later in this thread that I also don't believe Jodi's claims are valid & that the question would be asked in the first place is a bigger problem than any answer given to it. If I could delete my post to stop the thread hijack I've caused, I would, but it's been quoted so many times I'm stuck with it. If anyone really wants to talk about it, I guess we could take it to another thread.
I'm really not obsessed with convincing everyone I'm right though, so I'm just as happy to either pretend I never said anything or accept that most people think I'm full of shit & just like arguing. It's all good. If anyone does pm me, either to agree or tell me I'm a clueless idiot, don't be offended if I take ages to get back to you. My tablet throws me out of desktop to mobile all day long & I can't access most of my profile stuff. Apologies for the hijack & if you really still want to tell me I'm wrong/right, I'm happy to talk to you out of this thread.
Last edited by blighted star; 04-21-2013 at 06:57 PM. Reason: see post
Perfect! but you gotta throw a ma'am in there
i think this would be amazing if it's true! Most likely a hoax but if not, honestly which one of you guys or girls went out there with a metal detector?!
Someone in this thread did threaten to do that with their kids metal detector a few days ago....
God help us if the inappropriate, "nasty", critical stuff we write to our loved ones in electric form, can be used, third party, and out of context, against them in a court of law when they are brutally murdered!
This is a travesty of misrepresentation, as is most of the defense argument!
And tweeting? Is that wise? Hope he's not on the rebuttal list!
I hope Martinez can clean this mess up!
Found a snippet about it, sounds like a fake post. It supposedly found a year ago, wrapped in paper by a cactus. A comment was made it was turned over March 27.
If it really was, it would have been all over the news.
It's 8am here in PA, and it seems I'm all alone on this thread.
I have a simple real life experience with PTSD, may clear up some confusion.
My best friend married a Viet Nam vet shortly after he came home from Nam. One night, my friend, her hubby, his combat buddy from VN and I were going to a concert in Central Park, NY.
As we were walking down the park paths to the concert, the buddy suddenly had a flashback. He grabbed me (a practical stranger) so that I had to duck down with him, as he yelled, "Someone's down, it's a hit!" Then he calmed down, and said, "No, it's okay, it's okay."
The park path made him think he was in the jungle. There was no noise, no fireworks, only the sounds of crickets and other insects.
So, that's just a simple example of a PTSD flashback. All the guys in that unit had issues, God bless them.
I think the juror who asked that bear/tiger problem is really mixed up. If a person was attacked by a bear and thinks he was attacked by a tiger, I don't think PTSD is his problem, but I'm not a psychiatrist.
Yeah, I know, it was another one of those moments where, if I hadn't been so far behind I wouldn't have posted at all. There were a bunch of posts that dealt with it sufficiently as it related to the trial. The discussions I've had since about my (premature) post are irrelevant as far as the trial goes, because if there is a juror thinking that way (& I'm the first to admit I don't know what anyone in that courtroom is thinking - maybe there's a juror who's obsessed with zoo animals, maybe they dared each other to ask whacky questions to break the monotony), he/she/they aren't going to have the benefit of our discussions here to change their point of view. If that's the way they see things after asking that question, then that's the way they'll see it when they begin deliberations. What I think doesn't make any difference.
& thanks for the other reading material link - it has bucketloads of good stuff! Ta!!
The following is a statement Jeff Hughes made on March 29, as it was posted on
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Tra...xander?fref=tsIf Chris has started twittering again, does it mean that he's been cleared as a witness and Sky will be testifying?Lets all hope that Sky Hughes gets called to testify for defense. She will tear them up! Trust the Hughes never liked Jodi. We all disliked her and feared her influence. Chris and Sky kicked her out of their house when she came once with TA and she was never permitted to come again. The encouragement to Travis from the Hughes's was to stay away for the B as she was bad news. We all knew she was evil and was trying to take TA to hell. She was a creepy disgusting presence in our circle of friends and associates. We all wanted her to crawl back into the hole she came out of and leave TA and our friends alone. I wish Travis had never met her. He was a pure. kind and good man who spent his days and night serving and doing good. To know him was to love him. JA was always just as you see her--- a manipulative, lying, sick B. Talking to her was just like when JM tries to pin her down. She is slippery like a snake and much more dangerous.
Today, from that same page
Chris Hughes
"JA lied to us. We confronted TA. JA lied to TA. We kicked JA out of the house. DT desperate. It's that simple" Justice is coming soon Team Travis. Keep the faith.
Last edited by I doubt it; 04-21-2013 at 04:59 AM. Reason: addition
Can we all agree (like Justice 11 said) that there is no ptsd if there was no traumatizing experience? In the US, because of decades of war, there's tons of research on PTSD. Tons! And yes, there's new work on a beast called complex trauma. (not trying to be us-centric, honest) But it seems to me, we are lost in the weeds.
Jodi chose to lie about the traumatic event. Her responses on the test are about 2 intruders who threatened her life and killed Travis. Can we all agree that event (exposure) never freaking happened? If the juror who asked the bear/tiger question ends up on the jury, it highly likely the others will say the intruders/ninjas didnt traumatize Jodi cause they were not there.
Is this the one supposedly found wrapped in toilet paper, stuffed in a cactus? By a guy whose $20 bill blew out of his hand, into the cactus? Someone on topix claims the guy works with her family member, that he found this .25 a year ago & only realised it's significance because his wife was watching the trial. The topix post was march 27?, she claims it was handed over to police a week & a half before that & they're waiting on tests. So how long would ballistics take on something this urgent & high profile? Or is the reporter referring to a second .25 "found" at Hoover Dam? 'cos nothing for 5 years, then 2 in 3 weeks is AMAZING good luck!!! Hell, one's good enough.
ETA sorry freethinker, you totally beat me to it!!!
Last edited by blighted star; 04-21-2013 at 05:26 AM.
Absolutely agree. It's gone completely off topic & doesn't have relevence to the thread anymore (if it ever did). I edited the original post straight after I posted it, & I've said it in the last one. Rest assured I wouldn't be bothering if the thread was moving at it's usual speed. It's a discussion that could go for days, hours & weeks - in another thread.
Last edited by blighted star; 04-22-2013 at 04:56 AM. Reason: embarassing (to me) spelling -releVANCE fixed. I think? shite, still looks wrong.
I share this viewpoint! I can't see where folks are coming from when they say TA looks fearful, shocked, frozen, or otherwise.
I perceive that he is enjoying the attention, and posing! He's showing off his back, arms up, he's sitting down, he's crossing his arms, he's not washing himself with shower gel or soap! And IMO, the shots were bad, unlit and accidental looking, because Jodi had her mind on getting him into a vulnerable position and killing him!
This lends all the more credence to the theory that the attack was sudden, and unexpected, IMO!
I never could get how Samuels and Lavatory could come to the conclusions they did in their assessments of Hodi knowing that she lied to them when they were gathering data. If I were the professional doing the assessment I would pretty much be looking at the big pile of notes and and say to myself, "Well shit, I gotta do this whole thing over with this goofy lying bitch!" Just my opinion as average person. Maybe some professionals have another way of looking at it.
I still think its ridiculous that she had a gun on him when she was taking pics. It would have been totally awkward not to mention, it would have given TA the opportunity to rush her while she was looking thru the viewfinder even with the gun on him.
Interesting theory. I think the back stab wounds happened at the sink where all the blood is spewed but there was obviously some sort of struggle or he wouldn't have the cuts on his hands etc. I like your theory, especially about her having all the tme in the world to get the gun as he was incapacitated. I never really thought about that.
I watched the misconduct hearing again from back in Feb this morning. JM won't be calling the Hughes, he made that statement to the judge. It was really neat to go back . Def gave Sky a subpeona that day but we know they'll never call her. And Chris has never been under one. Really, they just aren't important outside of their own minds though. Not saying that to be snarky, they just aren't important to the case. Good Dr Drew material is about all.
We have known all along JA is batshit crazy, they can't add much to that except salacious details of more batshit crazy. Travis wasn't a saint like some tried to hold him up to. He was a guy, he had faults and strengths, had sex and exhanged love and arguments with a gal. It wasn't all JA's contact, Travis worked that rollcoaster too. There is no way Hughes' or anyone could know she would literally kill him. Hindsight is all people run to the media with now for 15 mins. I had to laugh, that hearing I watched was the one where Gus was told go away, remember that? Ok, not in those words but that he wasn't needed. lol
Hi Free, appears its and old msg board someone posted the story of like it was a relative that found it. Garbage JAII trolls if you ask me. They put it out March 27 and no one bit until now. Glad it happened to the JM basher reporter. :) If you think about it for 2 seconds, gun in the desert for years and still had paper and toilet paper wrapped on it? Sounds like JA made up this story too, its at her level of farfetched. lol
I get a little nervous about jurors too. I've read that juries tend not to give the DP to people with any dx of mental illnesses. All we can do it wait and hope this jury doesn't disappoint. Guilty life is my guess.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
Funny 'did I ask you..." and 'its a yes or no question' will be in my head forever now.Perfect! but you gotta throw a ma'am in there
i think this would be amazing if it's true! Most likely a hoax but if not, honestly which one of you guys or girls went out there with a metal detector?!
BTW, I finally figured out the May 26 blow up! It's been right before us! JM had JD read it to herself and then "walk me through it" Stalking Stabby was "invading his privacy." Even though she doesn't say specifically, this fits with the FB one his friend talked about.
May 26 1:34:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...-B6OOI#t=5692s
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are" --- Benjamin Franklin
I was diagnosed with PTSD from one specific event. It is usually diagnosed following some sort of violent trauma. Victims of violent assault, catastrophic natural disasters, witnessing a homicide, suicide, etc. There can be a wide range of triggers, but they all connect you with that one event. Personally, I have a wide array of triggers, and I am sure that my brain will find more. I think that many people get confused with what PTSD actually is. Jodi does NOT have it, that I am certain.
I'm only asking this because the threads so slow, but loonywop's post & quite a few before it mention the "linebacker style" tackle Jodi claims she was subjected to. I am sorry to say I have no idea what this looks like. I assumed it was a gridiron thing & searched some games so I would understand, but I'm still just as confused. What position on the field am I looking for? All the vids that came up showed something like a Rugby Union ruck & then lots of players seemed to suddenly get knocked to the ground all at once? I don't know where to look?
I agree. It's from one specific event; the reaction at the time of the event and following symptoms. Nightmares; flashbacks, etc. Jodi was stupid enough to come up with a reason for her "fog" which we all know is horseshit. However, she never bothered to check in depth how she should answer her questions for a proper diagnosis.
Wow, that's weird. Why would she tell Darryl she was going to Mesa when she hid it from everyone else? She either didn't, and Darryl is either just going along with JM (Darryl himself doesn't say "Mesa", he is agreeing with JM) or she thought she had enough hold over him to keep him from talking to authorities. Or Darryl is lying. Or something else I haven't thought of yet.
Oh I realized you were playing devil's advocate. I was just responding.
Why in the world would she worry about stopping at a gas station when, as you say, it would be difficult to look through all those tapes? Well, we are not talking about reality here, we are talking about what Jodi thought. Yes, the reality is that she could have bought the gas with cash and thrown away the receipts and nobody would be the wiser, most likely. However, that is not what she did. Instead, she borrowed/bought and filled gas cans (there are receipts).
We know that she thought that cameras at intersections took pictures of cars randomly (she suggests to Flores that he look through those tapes for her car - most likely knowing that if they did take pics, hers wouldn't show up because the license plate was upside down). So it is not far fetched to think that she believed she might get caught on video if she stopped for gas in AZ. Keep in mind that she had no idea when Travis's body would be found. It could have been found the same day, for all she knew.
She claimed on the stand that she wanted the gas cans to buy gas in Arizona/Utah to save money on gas. But receipts show that she filled the gas cans in California, where gas is more expensive. So that explanation makes no sense. She is lying about that.
Why would she do that? And why did she need not one, not two, but three gas cans?
It seems pretty obvious that she wanted to get all the way across Arizona without stopping for gas. Why? To hide the fact that she was in Arizona at all - not from her friends (who would take what she said at face value and not paw through receipts for gas stations in AZ) but from authorities. Add in the fact that her cell phone was turned off while she was in AZ. Yes, that could be explained. Maybe her cell died and she could not find the charger. It's possible. But add the two together and it's looking pretty suspicious.
Add in the stolen gun which is the same caliber used on Travis, the dye job and the rental car - all of which can be explained - but you know what? That is a lot of fucking explaining.
"...Jeffrey Dahmer... actually confessed and accepted his punishment. Had real remorse for the sick things he did. It's pretty bad when Jeffrey Dahmer is a better person than you are." ~Justice11 (re: Jodi Arias)
A linebacker is a position in US football. This guy is a linebacker,
and I assume that's the "pose" Jodi was trying to imitate
- except he's not running.
Actually, why in the world would she need to hide the fact from authorities that she was in AZ at all? Even if she did stop at gas stations and pay with cash (which, as JM showed while she was on the stand, she had very little of), why would she throw away the receipts? She kept aaaalllll of the other receipts from the other states. The only reason would be to hide the fact from authorities that she was there. Either way, gas cans or paying with cash, it suggests premeditation.
"...Jeffrey Dahmer... actually confessed and accepted his punishment. Had real remorse for the sick things he did. It's pretty bad when Jeffrey Dahmer is a better person than you are." ~Justice11 (re: Jodi Arias)
Wow, that's weird. Why would she tell Darryl she was going to Mesa when she hid it from everyone else? She either didn't, and Darryl is either just going along with JM (Darryl himself doesn't say "Mesa", he is agreeing with JM) or she thought she had enough hold over him to keep him from talking to authorities. Or Darryl is lying. Or something else I haven't thought of yet.
Oh I realized you were playing devil's advocate. I was just responding.
Why in the world would she worry about stopping at a gas station when, as you say, it would be difficult to look through all those tapes? Well, we are not talking about reality here, we are talking about what Jodi thought. Yes, the reality is that she could have bought the gas with cash and thrown away the receipts and nobody would be the wiser, most likely. However, that is not what she did. Instead, she borrowed/bought and filled gas cans (there are receipts).
We know that she thought that cameras at intersections took pictures of cars randomly (she suggests to Flores that he look through those tapes for her car - most likely knowing that if they did take pics, hers wouldn't show up because the license plate was upside down). So it is not far fetched to think that she believed she might get caught on video if she stopped for gas in AZ. Keep in mind that she had no idea when Travis's body would be found. It could have been found the same day, for all she knew.
She claimed on the stand that she wanted the gas cans to buy gas in Arizona/Utah to save money on gas. But receipts show that she filled the gas cans in California, where gas is more expensive. So that explanation makes no sense. She is lying about that.
Why would she do that? And why did she need not one, not two, but three gas cans?
It seems pretty obvious that she wanted to get all the way across Arizona without stopping for gas. Why? To hide the fact that she was in Arizona at all - not from her friends (who would take what she said at face value and not paw through receipts for gas stations in AZ) but from authorities. Add in the fact that her cell phone was turned off while she was in AZ. Yes, that could be explained. Maybe her cell died and she could not find the charger. It's possible. But add the two together and it's looking pretty suspicious.
Add in the stolen gun which is the same caliber used on Travis, the dye job and the rental car - all of which can be explained - but you know what? That is a lot of fucking explaining.She had no idea that TA wouldn't be found for days so it makes sense that she would not stop for gas in AZ for fear of being caught on video cameras. Her mistakes were in keeping the receipts that showed she filled not only the rental car but three gas cans (simple math proved that) before leaving CA and then using her debit card to fill all three cans upon leaving Salt Lake.
As for Darryl Brewer, JM was referring to his original police statement when he was trying to refresh Brewer's memory. It was like pulling teeth to even get him to admit that she asked for the gas cans at all. Brewer was trying to avoid testifying to anything that looked incriminating to her.
Dear person who says "yous are everywhere" sic in response to my post regarding Chris Hughes tweeting, Twitter is hardly "everywhere". Nor am I attempting to communicate with Hughes on Twitter. I'm content to watch the proceedings and goings on from a distance.
There are currently 304 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 304 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
