Why the prosecution has done a great job proving Jodi Arias is innocent
The Jodi Arias defense team will soon present its case and evidence and among other things, there is a lot of speculation about whether Jodi Arias herself will testify. But despite the fact that Ms. Arias has yet to testify, or even certain if she will, that has not stopped people from all over America, the world even, from have already come to the conclusion that Ms. Arias is in fact not just a murderer and a liar, but a psychopathic killer. For example, see "Inside The Mind Of Accused Murderer Jodi Arias" by David Lohr.
...women like Arias often meet the criteria for both sociopathy or psychopathy, according to Wendler.
"The characteristics of psychopathy include disregard and violation of other people's feelings, wishes and rights," Wendler told HuffPost. "These individuals use deceitfulness and manipulation to obtain what they want (pleasure, profit, etc.). They are often called pathological liars. They are self-centered and show reckless disregard for the safety of others; they lack empathy towards their victims and have little or no remorse about their criminal actions."
What entitles anyone to conclude Ms. Arias is a psychopathic killer is beyond me. She may very well be a killer, a liar, and a psychopath, but the evidence of that last label is pitifully weak. For one thing, psychopaths are very rare, maybe something like 1 to 5% percent of the general population. One study found that only about 1.9% of women fall into the anti-social psychopath group ("Psychopathy among prisoners in England and Wales"). Keep in mind we are not talking about psychopaths in general but the much smaller subgroup of criminal or anti-social psychopaths. Second, the crowning definition of a psychopath is not just their willingness to lie, but their singular talent in being able to do so convincingly.
So far, the prosecution has presented a lot of evidence that Ms. Arias is not just a liar, but a terrible liar at that. The difference between between Ms. Arias' statements and demeanor with, for example Scott Peterson, is striking. According to the prosecution Ms. Arias has consistently changed her story from one version to the next, each seeming more impossible than the other. If in fact that is the case, that sounds like someone who is trying to get away from trouble and is terrible at doing so. That does not sound like a anti-social psychopath at all.
Lying is something everyone does, especially to the police "officer, I was not driving that fast; officer, I stopped at that stop sign, I swear; officer, I only had two beers, etc...". People even lie to their doctor, risking their life for nothing more than not revealing an embarrassing secret. You are probably asking yourself so what? So what if Ms. Arias is lying, but is not a psychopath? The distinction is important because the fact that Ms. Arias may have lied to the police about what happened is very weak evidence she is guilty of murder, certainly very weak evidence of premeditated murder.
Most people, even completely innocent people, when confronted with the stress of a hostile police investigation will not be completely truthful and will say things that are inconsistent, just like Ms. Arias has done so far. If, however, she is not just a liar but is in fact a psychopath, then the prosecution theory of premeditated first degree murder makes a whole lot more sense. Then the prosecution theory is not just "she's lying" but "but she is lying to cover up the premeditated murder and not just because she is scared and confused". If she was an anti-social psychopath, the story she told the police would have been much more convincing and rehearsed. But she is nothing more than an amatuer liar, hardly a criminal mastermind.
The fact that Ms. Arias may have lied to the police is evidence she lied to the police, not of first degree murder. Up to now, the State of Arizona has done of very good of proving she is guilty of the first accusation and innocent of the second.