The real story of the Jodi Arias murder case was the pursuit of false social status, and domestic violence myths

Since the jury in the Jodi Arias murder case in Arizona failed to reach a unanimous decision on Arias’ final date with destiny—a majority saw through her false and manipulative act during her plea for life speech, but others were unable to get past her femininity—it appears that unless prosecutor Juan Martinez decides to drop the death penalty as an option, it will be many more months before the case is finally put to rest. Of course in the meantime there is the George Zimmerman trial soon for CNN to “entertain” the masses with. I’ll talk about that media-poisoned, hypocrisy-laden case again in due time, but I think that we can look back on the Arias case and make a few observations about the trial that the media has overlooked. In my mind, there were two important themes played out in the Arias case that had nothing to do with the media “circus” or the public’s “fascination” with it: The pursuit of social status, and the continuing hypocrisy of how society regards the issue the domestic violence.

First the social implications of the case. Arias is a Latina who seems to have been forever attempting to ingratiate herself in Anglo society. All of her friends appear to be non-Hispanic whites, as were all of her various boyfriends. In order to insinuate herself into this set as an “accepted” member, she dyed her hair blonde, had breast augmentation, and appears to have had a “nose job” to make her look more “white.” She even converted to the Mormon faith in this quest; who knew that doing so gives one a free pass into the wonderful world of non-stop premarital sex. 

All this in itself isn’t particularly “surprising,” given the way society is structured; it is perfectly understandable that someone would attempt to improve their social standing by, say, marrying a white man. Of course, that doesn’t change who they are, and their children would likely inherit their less “desirable” physical characteristics, and thus face the same social “issues.” The problem here is that many women like Arias need something to “sell” themselves to their would-be Anglo "benefactors," and that apparently is often the promise of easy sex. And let’s not quibble about details here; right up to the day of the murder, Arias did everything she could to portray herself as a sex addict in the mind of Travis Alexander. How could he possibly refuse her?

In the 1940s and 50s, films often portrayed dark-haired Latinas as “spitfires” and sex objects who tempted  temporarily weak-willed white men, who in the end would see “sense” and  reject them in favor  the “pure-hearted” blonde white woman. I would not doubt that there is at least the suspicion that this dynamic is still in play in the minds of some—like Arias and her would-be mate, the deceased  Alexander. That Arias tried to change her appearance to resemble an Anglo white female would suggest that she felt threatened by the potential of Alexander preferring the “real” thing. If reports are true that Alexander was soon leaving on his Cancun business trip in the company of another female “friend,” the failure of Arias’ efforts to recreate herself in what she presumed would be sufficient enticement to “keep” Alexander must have been an extreme shock to her ambitions, not to mention her ego.

I must confess that I feel very little but contempt for people who choose to degrade themselves by buying false status, especially through the use of sex.  It has been easier for me than most in my situation to see the futility of pursuing the unattainable, and move on with life; since I don’t go out of my way to mingle with the masses it doesn’t matter so much to me what people think. Maybe I’m not as “ambitious” or as greedy as some. I don’t look at myself in the mirror every day and wish I looked like something else. I can’t change my physical reality. 

That being said, what some people can’t seem to get through their thick skulls (or preconceived notions) is that other than those possessed by demons, human beings regardless of race or ethnicity go through life motivated by the same things, and have the same basic wants and desires; “differences” are generally a matter of degree. Abraham Lincoln, whatever his true attitudes on race, drew the line in accepting popular prejudices of the time in stating that in the right to earn a living, the black man was his or any other white man’s equal. This seems perfectly reasonable, unless of course it means stepping on some "privileged" toes.   Republicans prefer that other groups simply “assimilate” into their "culture,"  meaning that the “assimilated” group must subordinate itself, be submissive and take what they are given; it also means that to be fully “accepted,” they must “accept” and disseminate (see Michelle Malkin) the uglier stereotypes and prejudices of their own or other national scapegoats. 

Nevertheless, I can locate elements of self-worth, if I look hard enough, that does not require confirmation from the majority group. I might not have any money or have adequate housing, but my large collection of classic films—I recently added Criterion’s Josef von Sternberg silent film collection (I particularly like The Docks of New York)—tells me that I am probably more culturally in tuned than, say, bigots like Pat Buchanan and Lynn Cheney.  Fortunately, the Internet has provided me a forum for which to tell you all that; otherwise, I’d merely be wallowing in Stone Age ignorance—or such would be the opinion of most people I encounter on the street.

I’m not like Jodi Arias and others like her. I'm a social and political "soldier"--not a strumpet. I never let questions of “status” bother me overmuch, because that is determined by ignorant, bigoted people who were simply unworthy of my time or patience. Arias was clearly more desperate and single-minded in her efforts to achieve purchased status. She had no money or job-defined social position; she was referred to as a “photographer” by some in the media, but this was just a ploy to puff her up as something more than a pathetic strumpet. She wasn’t alone in this, of course. Lorena Bobbitt confessed that she came to America to pursue her “dream”—to snag a white Anglo husband; to John Bobbitt, of course, she was a trouble-free sex receptacle, at least for a while. Many black professional athletes see a white wife as emblematic of their new social status. Of course, when their careers are over and the money runs out, questions of social “status” tend to shift. 

*************************************************************

The second theme of the trial was domestic violence. Arias claimed—after first denying that she even knew of the crime—that her actions were the last resort of a relationship in which she was the victim of repeated violence. Indeed, the savage violence of the murder would make “sense” if she was the victim of a sustained pattern of domestic violence. She also complained that she was abused as a child. You can find plenty of people on the Internet who believed her claim and seemed blithely unfazed by the brutality of the crime, and Arias' lies and fabrications from the very beginning. Even seemingly trivial matters were the subject of confident lying, and Arias' contempt for the intelligence of the jury doubtless went far to insure her conviction; the episode concerning the alleged purchase and return of the third gasoline, when Martinez proved that she actually used it for the purchase of gasoline, demonstrated that no detail was beyond Arias' deceptiveness. Why should she be believed about her claims of domestic violence? Consider the following:

Arias’ demeanor during her trial was for the most part egotistical, self-confident, unemotional and calculating. She never acted like she was a “victim” of anything save a bruised ego. Except during her testimony when she was caught in yet another falsehood, her behavior suggested that she was not only unharmed emotionally by the alleged abuse, but her attitude about the killing seemed to be matter-of-fact, something that everyone would do in her place—if they also had, as a prosecution expert testified, a “borderline personality disorder.”

Arias and Alexander were only a “couple” for less than five months, from February to June 2007. The murder occurred almost a year later. 

Arias repeatedly attempted to entice Alexander with sex, even after they broke-up. 

Alexander’s text messages and other communications with Arias in regard to their relationship suggested that she was insufferably paranoid about the state of their relationship and his feelings toward her.

Communications between the two after their break-up indicate that Arias continued to try to get back together with Alexander. When these efforts failed, she was accused of stalking him, hacking into his Facebook account, and slashing the tires of his car. 

Arias never told anyone about domestic violence at the hands of Alexander until after her arrest.

During her plea for her life, Arias used photographs of happy scenes with her family—which would contradict her claim that she was abused as a child. 

The prosecution proved that Arias’ version of the killing had almost no relation with the physical evidence or the time line indicated by photographs from the camera Arias used before, during and after the murder.

More importantly, Arias told a seemingly endless parade of deceptions and fabrications with remarkable ease, and yet was so certain that people would believe her that she confidently predicted before the trial that “no jury would convict me,” and after the verdict that she felt “betrayed” by the jury. 

What does all this tell us? For one thing, if Arias really was the victim of domestic violence, why would she repeatedly attempt to reestablish her relationship with Alexander? Does this not indicate an aberrant obsession? This was the biggest hole in her defense argument. She had already found a new Anglo boyfriend in the interim—and yet she contacted Alexander with yet another enticement for sex. Was it an obsession that she was unable to control that drove her to give him one more “chance”—and having failed to persuade him, acted on “Plan B”  in revenge for rejecting her, despite offering her body to him yet again? 

One observer who is a forensic psychiatrist, Sheila Wendler, thought that Arias’ behavior was suggestive of “unstable interpersonal relationships and intense fear of abandonment or rejection by their partner. They may react in extreme ways to avoid abandonment, including becoming suicidal, self-mutilate or react with intense anger, which they may have difficulty to control. These women can become cruelly punitive toward whom they perceive as rejecting them."

If Arias’ claim that she acted out of “self-defense” after repeated physical abuse rings false, one thing that we can also reject is the myth of the “passive” female victim, and the suggestion that physical differences between the sexes really matters in how the public and law enforcement should regard domestic violence. Physical strength can be neutralized by factors such as a male’s passive personality, taking advantage of circumstances of weakness, or employing superior force. It was clear that this murder was perpetrated when Alexander was in a vulnerable position in his tiny shower cubicle; Arias had persuaded him to squeeze himself in a sitting position by claiming that she wanted a photograph of him like this for her portfolio. Alexander never suspected what Arias was about to do to him, and he had no means to defend himself but with his hands. 

The defense tried to claim that Arias shot him first, but the wounds on Alexander’s hands and the fact that the blood trail led into his bedroom indicated that he was still alive at least in the first minute of the attack. Alexander apparently died in the hallway outside the bathroom, where Arias apparently slit his throat after knifing him almost thirty times and then shooting him in the head; a demonstration on ABC News showed that a female the same build as Arias could easily drag someone the size of Alexander back into the shower cubicle where he was subsequently found. 

Defense “expert” on domestic violence, Alyce LaViolette,  also did Arias no favors; her testimony had all the credibility of a biased advocate. Under cross examination, LaViolette—who was repeatedly admonished by the judge for giving evasive or non-responsive answers—was forced to admit that despite Arias' many false statements and fabrications, and the lack of any corroborating evidence or testimony that Arias was the victim of domestic violence by the hand of Alexander, she chose to believe Arias’ latest story without the slightest reservation. On the other hand, LaViolette chose to dismiss out-of-hand Alexander’s statement that he was being stalked by Arias and was fearful of her—as it turned out, with some justification. LaViolette’s house of toothpicks was subsequently demolished seemingly within minutes by prosecution witness Janeen DeMarte, whose clinical, objective appraisal of Arias was that her past and present behavior exhibited none of the variables associated with victims of domestic abuse, but that of extreme jealousy.

What then are we to make of this case? Of course, the media has made the case out to be whether Arias’ claim to be abused both physically and personally (i.e. feelings of being a “prostitute,” a circumstance which she alone is to blame) was to be believed to justify that savageness of the crime. But for me, this case is about the desperate lengths a person of a “lower” social status tries to enter the world of a “higher” status, and how it causes those persons to degrade themselves even as they believe they are “improving” their social “status.” This case also demonstrated the limits of using “domestic violence” as defense for murder; without any actual evidence that it occurred, using it as a defense to explain an act of a seeming psychopath seems particularly cynical and opportunistic. More importantly—and unfortunately no doubt going over the heads of just about everyone—this case should demonstrate that women are just as capable of domestic violence, and sometimes of a kind that even the most violent of men would shrink from committing on their intimate partner.