Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Highly Profiled Criminal Case Swayed By A Narcissist?
As I have preparing for the 10th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference in May, where I will be presenting a workshop on Narcissism, Domestic Violence and my book, “…Until You Die”: The Narcissist’s Promise, I have been lax in my blog. During this time, I have been consumed, obsessed, fixated, et al on the Jodi Arias trial. As I’ve written about this trial in a prior blog (“Trials on Television Vs. Reality” 2-13-13), appalled that she is using domestic abuse and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) as her defense for killing her former boyfriend Travis Alexander. This alleged defense is the reason she shot Travis in the face, stabbed him 29 times and slit his throat back to his spine. Obviously, utilizing this defense is sickening – especially for actual victims of batterers who, in their attempt to leave their abuser, ended up losing everything; their home and their children, only because our family courts do not fully understand the many components of domestic violence. Could this really be happening in our criminal courts as well?
To date, on the witness stand is a Dr. Samuels, a psychologist for the defense, brought in to confirm Jodi Arias is indeed suffering from PTSD; and her alleged “memory loss” of the damage she inflicted with the knife to Travis is not uncommon with an individual in the throes of a traumatic event – supporting Jodi’s claim of “self-defense”.
In the past, Dr. Samuels has incurred sanctions because of inappropriate conduct with a former client. It is becoming apparent that Dr. Samuels has crossed the line of appropriateness with Jodi, and his appearance in court is slanted for her benefit and not as an objective evaluator.
This struck me with the sickening familiarity of how narcissists have the ability to charm a professional assessor to the point of disregarding the reason for the assignment.
The same captivation occurred in my own custody trial, where my former spouse charmed the guardian ad litem to the point of writing a report full of contradictions. So enamored was she, that she testified that she did not feel certain exhibits or investigations “were necessary”. Chillingly ironic, these were the same words used by Dr. Samuels in the trial of Jodi Arias.
The GAL in my case ignored the 50 pages of journal entries I gave her in support of my sole care of my children and an abusive husband. She deemed them “unnecessary”. Also needless was knowledge about the woman my ex was living with, even though she would be caring for my children. The crux in her report was a statement, “Robin’s friends had nothing to say about J, as he was never home.” This followed his claim that he was always home and the only caregiver for my children. My journal entries were filled with pages of how upset I was when he chose to spend time with his friends away from the house. How could she deem this unimportant? This is how a professional can get reeled in by the compelling act of the narcissistic sociopath.
Dr. Samuels has seen the gruesome pictures from the murder of Travis. I have seen them as well. Looking at Jodi Arias and hearing her soft voice, it seems impossible that she bears that kind of evil. But the pictures alleviate any doubt of the sociopathic core this woman possesses. Dr. Samuels has the same quandary as the GAL in my custody case. He is torn between a charming, attractive woman and the unforgivable result of her actions. But, he has allowed his attraction for the narcissistic sociopath to cloud all logic, enabling him to twist the facts enough, turning this villain into a victim.
In contrast, when a GAL, judge or family worker are ignorant of the allure of a narcissistic sociopath, they routinely turn the victims into villains; doling out the punishment of losing custody of their children.
I am hoping my workshop at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference will bring attention to these injustices in our judicial system, and ultimately stop the victims from being punished just for seeking justice.