Skip to main content

Jury Continues To Question LaViolette's Assessment Of Jodi Arias

Domestic abuse expert and defense witness Alyce LaViolette returned to the stand this morning to continue answering jury questions in the Jodi Arias murder trial. Yesterday, LaViolette was asked numerous juror questions in her ninth day of testimony. In general, the jury questions had a tone of skepticism over LaViolette's absolute belief in everything Jodi Arias told her, her lack of communication with Travis Alexander's family and friends and her methods in general for coming to the conclusion that Travis Alexander and Jodi Arias were in a domestically abusive relationship.

LaViolette's testimony has been heavily tilted in Arias's favor and the jury seems to have picked up on what could be viewed as an unfair and unbalanced report. LaViolette seems to have done very little face to face research with people who knew Travis and those who had relationships with him in the past. She relied heavily on the 44 hours of interview time she had with the defendant in jail, text messages, IM's, e-mails and journals. Using her "Continuum Of Aggression and Abuse" as a guideline, LaViolette described Travis Alexander's behavior as controlling and abusive - and she believes that Travis held power over Jodi as her "spiritual advisor" and he used that power to have his way sexually with Arias.


LaViolette's absolute belief in what Jodi Arias told her has remained unshaken, even when confronted with facts that LaViolette was previously unaware of. For example, Jodi Arias told Alyce LaViolette that she shot Travis Alexander in the closet. When Arias finally admitted to police that she killed Travis, she said the gun "went off" during a struggle in the bathroom. There's quite a difference in the two scenarios. The jury wants to know if LaViolette may have reached another conclusion if she knew Arias was lying about the physical abuse and the January 21, 2008 allegation about Travis being caught in a compromising position with a photo of a young boy. LaViolette said that based on the journals, text messages and other collateral data her opinion that abuse occurred would likely not have changed.

This is the problem with Alyce LaViolette's testimony. She's been told about Arias's lies, but discounts them. The jury said "you have said that Jodi didn't lie before the murder of Travis Alexander. How could you possible know this?" It's a really simple question. Her answer was that she would have no way of knowing. Instead, she relied on what information was provided to her and history told her that Arias wasn't necessarily a liar. The jury seemed unsatisfied with Alyce's response to a jury question yesterday about Arias being manipulative and hitting her mother as a teenager. They asked her again if this type of behavior from a teenager could potentially carry over into adulthood. Another excellent question. LaViolette seemed to back petal, saying that she didn't condone that type of behavior but she didn't see a pattern of violence from Jodi Arias.

She cited her "collateral sources" as Matt McCartney and Darryl Brewer in deciding that Arias had no history of manipulating, abusing or stalking men in previous relationships. Does Alyce know that Jodi allegedly tried to have Matt alter his testimony to include knowledge of the January 21, 2008 "masturbation incident"? Isn't that the definition of manipulation? In an awkward moment, the jury questioned whether Alyce LaViolette had ever had any physical contact with the defendant, citing "hugging" or anything of that nature. LaViolette paused and said "I don't think so, I may have touched her arm at one point". She said the plexiglass barriers at the jail complex prevent people from much physical contact. But the question was telling. Does somebody on that jury believe Alyce has fallen under the spell of Jodi Arias?

The jury compared Travis Alexander's alleged abuse (choking, slapping and mean text messages) to stabbing, shooting and slicing a persons throat and asked "isn't the perpetrator of the greatest amount of domestic violence Jodi Arias"? LaViolette began to answer, calling his death horrific before Juan Martinez objected. The jury asked if LaViolette's definition of domestic violence could be wrong, she said "sure". LaViolette is sticking to her story, her assessment seems to be written in stone and regardless of how many inconsistencies are brought forward she insists she sees abuse in the relationship. I think her unwillingness to bend, or to admit she could be wrong is hurting her credibility to the point where the jury may disregard her testimony entirely. It's possible to make mistakes in assessments of people, people can be fooled regardless of how many years of experience LaViolette has. But she is SO SURE Jodi is being truthful that she seems to be willing to bet her career on it.

The jury also questioned LaViolette's overall views on men, asking how many men she has testified FOR in criminal trials. LaViolette admitted having limited criminal court experience involving men, citing one or two cases. 

Jennifer Willmott is up now, attempting to rehabilitate the testimony of LaViolette and she seems very fired up today. More so than I've seen her over the course of the trial. 

She just brought up the fact that the alleged choking, slapping and kicking Jodi Arias experienced at the hands of Travis Alexander would be "something memorable", and just because she didn't write it down doesn't mean it didn't happen.  LaViolette said "absolutely, those things would be memorable". Does she even understand the implication of what she just said? She just pointed out that this type of violence would be very memorable to Jodi Arias, yet Jodi Arias doesn't remember putting a knife into the body of another person 29 times and cutting his throat? It's another example of the double standards that have plagued this defense throughout this trial. Arias would absolutely remember the violence AGAINST her but not the violence PERPETRATED by her? They can't have it both ways, not a brilliant point by Willmott - that observation did more harm to their case than good. 

LaViolette and Willmott discussed the violence that occurred on June 4, 2008 and LaViolette said "when somebody is defending their life, I think sometimes people do more than they need to do". Does LaViolette know the law around self defense? Can she really sit up there and tell this jury that Arias's actions were that of a reasonable person in response to a lunge that may or may not have happened? The law does not allow a person to use the amount of force that Jodi Arias used against Travis Alexander. This was a consensual intimate relationship between two people, they had verbal fights and they made up. They broke up but continued to see one another. Travis Alexander may have introduced Jodi Arias to the Mormon faith, but she should take responsibility for her own sexual behavior instead of blaming Travis as her spiritual advisor. She knew what the laws of chastity were about, she is just as culpable as he was in ignoring them. And given the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of any physical abuse, I just don't see how LaViolette came to her conclusions. 

She has made so many assumptions, ignored too many facts and interpreted things the way she wanted to. That is the problem with Alyce LaViolette's testimony.  How could she NOT talk to Travis's family and call this a complete assessment? There was nothing stopping her from contacting them. She certainly would have been paid for her time as "research", so why didn't she seek the people out who knew Travis and get their input? At least then we would be left with the feeling that she tried to get accurate information independent of Arias who has so much to lose in this case. Willmott & LaViolette have both talked about how much Travis Alexander had to lose if details of his private life were exposed by Jodi Arias, yet doesn't Jodi Arias have her life to lose? Doesn't that give her motive to lie? It's something she should have considered. The fact that it appears that she didn't is very concerning.

Do you think the jury believes what Alyce LaViolette has told them about this being a domestically abusive relationship? Will the jury believe that Travis was physically abusive based on what you have heard? Will LaViolette's testimony effect the outcome of this trial, and how will she feel if she finds out she has been lied to and duped by Ms. Arias?  Juan Martinez is doing his follow up now with LaViolette, and he started out bringing out an inconsistency in one of LaViolette's answers to a jury question in which the jury asked how many times LaViolette testified in criminal court on behalf of a man. LaViolette answered "once or twice". Martinez asked her to name those criminal cases where she testified on behalf of a man. LaViolette said she didn't recall the case names, but she wrote a report on behalf of a police officer who was a male - Martinez said "the question was how many times did you testify, not write a report", he pointed out that she didn't give the jury an accurate answer. He asked her to name the second case, she could not and said "I said one or two Mr. Martinez".

Juan Martinez went on to discuss lies, and how she seems to have discounted Jodi Arias's lies in this case. He asked her to show the court, if she was able to, where the evidence was of physical abuse that she is so sure occurred in this case. "Show me the journal entry that refers to abuse", he asked. As we all well know, there are no journal entries or any written references to physical violence anywhere in this case. There is a lot of back and forth between LaViolette and Martinez today and Jennifer Willmott is objecting to just about every question. They are exhausting to watch! Court is in recess. Will Alyce LaViolette finally be excused from the stand, so we can move on to the next phase of this trial? The jurors should have a good feel for Alyce's assessment, her methods, the things she considered and the things she didn't consider. I don't think further questioning of this witness is going to make much difference at this point in the trial. What do you think?

I for one am so looking forward to the State's rebuttal case. I hope Juan Martinez takes as much time as he needs to hammer home the facts about this murder. Travis Alexander IS the victim in this trial, although after hearing three months of testimony about the phantom abuse, you'd never know Arias was the one on trial.

Comments

  1. One thing I am sure I remember about one of the interrogation videos of JA she mentions that the Book of Mormon doesn't say anything about fornication (Whatever the word used I understood that she meant if she didn't have vaginal sex she wasn't doing anything against The Book of Mormon.) She kind of giggled. I truly believe she told Travis the same thing and manipulated him into having anal sex. He eventually felt his sins and wanted to go back to a better life and find a more decent woman than JA. I also believe she wanted him to talk dirty to her because it turned her on and she taped him after asking him to talk dirty so she could replay it and masturbate to his voice and words. Alyce LaViolette has read too many books. Life and ones's own experiences is a better education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Boomerbaby, I know what you are talking about, but Jodi was talking about The Ten Commandments. She said she follows them, alluding to the Thou Shall Not Kill commandment and therefore suggesting that she would not have killed Travis, but she says, as she makes hand quotation marks, that there is no commandment "Thou Shall Not Fornicate." Bottom line, she is a smart ass, and it has never served her well.

      Delete
    2. Boomerbaby (4/12/13),
      Well said. Arias acted as if she really looked to Travis as her spiritual advisor, like she couldn't interpret the Book of Mormon and their views on premarital sex? Come on, they believe Arias is so intelligent she should know what the definition of "sex" is! She was going to use that tape against him, like her "Jane Doe" e-mails to Lisa Andrews where she talked about sinning and letting Travis sleep under her roof. She was going to use it to blackmail him or slander him in some way. No doubt in my mind about it. Thanks for posting!

      Delete
    3. Opal Bailey,
      Thankfully the jury has seen some of the interrogation videos and the 48 Hours Mystery and other media pieces. It's a shame they didn't have access to other videos of Arias and of her parents discussing what she was like as an untruthful teenager. But from the general tone of their questions to defense witnesses, I suspect they are coming to similar conclusions as we are. Hoping the rebuttal case just blows the defense case out of the water. Time to focus on the premeditation factors, forget about the alleged abuse for now! Thanks so much for your comments.

      Delete
    4. Hey Everyone,

      My Forte, I absolutely think she was going to use that tape against Travis. I wonder if she already had. In that last (?) correspondence with her he was furious. When he called her a sociopath. I have a feeling she threatened to play it for his friends or something unconscionable. And he, rightly, was incredibly upset.

      Sue

      Delete
    5. You make many great points that I miss listening to testimony. I totally agree with your assessment of ALV. By law she is not allowed to contact or interview TA's family, she stated that in one of her answer's which begs one to answer why knowing this she approached Samantha in court. She should have talked to TA's friends and old girlfriends, BIanca and JA"s co workers. She continually stated "what I was given and limited information". So you are the kind of person who will in a DP trial knowingly make an assessment knowing you do not have all the information?? Wow, no talking your way out of this one ALV. you read some mean tests/emails TA sent to Jodi and it was a done deal, he was an abuser.

      Delete
  2. I too cannot wait for the rebuttal to start. I am really "disliking" ALV and all her self "righteousness". I figure the defense lawyers looked all over the country for "expert" witnesses and these two jokers are all they could come up with. I don't think any "expert" witness with any integrity would get on the witness stand for the world to see and say what they have said about JA. Maybe I am just biased, because I believe in my heart and sole, JA is a vicious, manipulating, stalking, narssasitic (SP) phsycopathic (SP) cold blooded killer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheryl,
      Thank you for y our comments. ALV's absolute unwillingness to admit her evaluation of this case may be flawed really exposes the weaknesses in her entire assessment. I think the jury knows, just like we know. Her combative replies to the prosecutor, and addressing Judge Stephens directly was highly inappropriate and unprofessional. I believe the backlash towards LaViolette will be much more severe than she anticipated and her career will suffer. Another "Anonymous" comment from someone who had their brother incarcerated due to fabricated domestic violence claims was telling. She said that LaViolette was in the courtroom testifying in the case against her brother. He lost his job and was locked up! Same thing, no police reports, a lying wife that ALV believed. Her comments are on another post from today. Thanks for writing!

      Delete
    2. She should be charged with perjury!

      Delete
    3. Wow! I need to to find those comments. LaViolette is destroying lives. Either this will be a much needed learning experience (if she really is that blind or naive) or she is just a despicable, greedy liar. (Sorry, I am getting hot under the collar)

      Sue

      Delete
    4. I think LaViolette is too stupid to do anything purposeful. Likewise, her brain lacks the capacity to evolve from making mistakes. She is a simple woman who heard about other people's ideas decades ago. She lacks the imagination and intelligence needed to assimilate these ideas into her consciousness to make realistic sense of them. They are merely memorized - like a multiplication table - as are all the ideas and facts she has heard about throughout her life.

      The problem with LaViolette is her ignorance. A stupid person with a college degree and a platform is never a good thing. When she is hired to do something, she makes certain she completes the mission. She has the ethics of a seven-year-old who will snatch a toy from her one-year-old brother because mommy said to put her toys away. LaViolette is simply completing a task. And like a seven-year-old, she will try to force a round peg into a square hole until someone tells her to stop or nap time comes along.

      Stupid people are endearing - at first - and we all thought LaViolette was endearing - at first. But the longer they stay... and talk... and talk... and talk, the more we wish they would just go away.

      She has done a despicable thing because she didn't know how to clean up Arias' mess without hurting murder victim Travis Alexander and the people who love him. She made a lot of money in that process. But none of it was done on purpose.

      Ignorance will not be blissful for this simpleton. Her career is destroyed. When she notices that she doesn't have enough green paper to trade for pretty, shiny things at her local Walmart, she will not know why. She will only remember that her luck went bad and people got really mean after she went to Phoenix in 2013.

      Peace,
      Doe

      Delete
    5. Doe,
      I had to chuckle at your last paragraph, about not having enough green paper to trade for pretty things at WalMart! I too was surprised that a person that looks so credible on paper (her resume, "CV") and has so much experience working in the field of domestic abuse could be so inflexible that she would't admit her theories could be flawed. She never gave an inch, which called her entire testimony into question. A person so inflexible or SO sure what somebody else was like based on a series of text messages and 44 hours of interviewing a liar trying to escape the death penalty should be at least big enough to admit Arias may have lied to her! Even so, she testified that Arias lying would not have altered her opinion that Travis Alexander was abusive. Her decades of experience doesn't equal the common sense of these jurors. Thank you for your comments!

      Delete
    6. Do you think ALV was coached by the defense attorneys to be evasive when answering JM questions? I was amazed at how much ALV's demeanor reminded me of JA when she was on the stand being questioned by JM.

      Delete
  3. In interested to see what the judge imposes on alv

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/12/13 at 7:11PM),
      I am also curious as to why the Judge instructed ALV to be back in the court room on Tuesday to discuss an issue that was not disclosed in open court. Very curious. We may or may not find out what the issue is next week. Wondering why the issue was not addressed in open court once the jury had been dismissed. I think ALV's behavior in court bordered on contempt of court. Not answering questions posed by the prosecutor, looking to the defense table before responding in many instances and speaking directly to Judge Stephens to argue her points! You just don't act that way in a court of law.

      Delete
  4. Great commentary and well written. Wish I could find a transcript of the questions the jury has asked this witness. I can't watch live coverage due to work schedule. Do you know if there is anything online like that? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/12/13 at 11:24PM),
      I do believe at least some of the jury questions are documented online. I thought I saw some of the early jury questions (to Jodi Arias) posted on HLN's website. They have quite a bit of info posted there on this case. I don't currently have a DVR, so I'm unable to keep up with the Q & A's when I'm taking notes on the trial. I'll try to find the info and if I find it, I'll post it. Thanks for commenting@!

      Delete
    2. You can watch the trial "episodes" on YouTube

      Delete
    3. I listen/watch what I miss during the day on YouTube. I actually like it better because if I miss something or don't understand a question or answer I can go back and listen again.

      Delete
    4. You can also go to wildabouttrial.com and click on the live stream

      Delete
  5. Thank you for your thoughts - well said. Can you possibly clear something up for me? I am under the impression that Jodi and Travis did not live together (or if they did, it was a very brief situation). I dislike nasty comments and ugly slurs, and I believe that words do wound – but unless those words come on the heels on YEARS of severe violence perpetrated on someone who has no way to get out of the situation...I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/13/13 at 12:11AM),
      Jodi and Travis did not live together, although Arias often did sleep at his house and spent a good deal of time there. Arias lived out of state for a good part of their relationship, only moving to Mesa AFTER they broke up. When she moved there, it's my understanding that she rented a place in a neighborhood nearby Travis Alexander's place. But they never officially lived together to my knowledge. She stayed with him when she would visit from out of state. Thanks for your comments!

      Delete
  6. And there lies the flaw at the crux of the defense's argument: they dated for about a minute & a half! The cases of Domestic Violence occur in "the domicile". They didn't live together, have a home, children or a business together. Jodi stated to Juan Martinez, during cross, that she "could leave anytime she wanted," rendering her claims of D.V. as invalid, as real victims of D.V. can't leave because of ties to home, family & finances. She had alternatives that real victims don't have, readily available. He wasn't her main means of financial support. I wish the jury had asked ALV how many women were in her "perpetrators" group. She mentioned women as perps usually as an afterthought. Does she not remember Tawny Kittain (sp)? We've all seen women who are shrews. As for her "expert" testimony, she took pot-shots at the real victim, Travis & revealed her bias when she made mention of Jodi claiming Travis was "like her father... a Republican," & saying Travis called one of Jodi's male suitors "an old, bald, Jew," in an e-mail, in an effort to depict Travis as not only a sex fiend, an abuser & a televangelical minister w/ sinister leanings, but also a bigot. Talk about character assassination...! And from an "expert" whose information came from Jodi's diary (the machinations & musings of disturbed individual), text messages, e-mails & 2nd hand interviews she read, from a 3rd rate shrink (Samuel), who fudged the facts & figures of his tests. By the way, the MCI test he gave Jodi is a test given after the "patient" has been diagnosed with mental illness. The MMPI3 is given to assess if the patient is mentally ill, in the first place; then the MCI. This leads me to believe he was on to Jodi's pathology, as falling w/in Cluster B personality disorder, but didn't want to open that can of worms. There's a LAW & ORDER episode called, "Expert" in which the defendant tries to use "dissociative amnesia" as a defense. Worth watching, as the woman goes into a fog after the gun goes off. Sound familiar? If this wasn't so tragic, this case would border on the ridiculous. I've had 2 family members & a good friend brutally murdered. I understand all too well, what Travis' family is going through. ALV should know that character assassination does not given anyone the right to become an assasin. I always thought that Jodi's choice of words, when she claimed "2 ninjas did it" was very telling, as ninjas are, in fact, assassins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous (4/13/13 at 4:07AM),
      Great observations! I haven't seen that Law & Order episode, do you know how new it is? I love how they do the "ripped from the headlines" type episodes. You made some excellent points about how two people who live in different states effecting claims of domestic violence! Arias seems to be the one who was willing to travel to see her "abuser". Yet the defense would have us all believe he was controlling Aris, pressuring her to drive a thousand miles to fulfill his sexual fantasies. They have painted a very flawed picture of this relationship. I just don't believe that the crime scene, Arias's inconsistent stories and the cover up support self defense in any stretch of the imagination. It was like a horror scene in that bathroom and bedroom. And LaViolette said "sometimes abused women don't know when to stop" when they finally fight back? Are you kidding me?

      Delete
    2. Yes, My Forte. This was my thinking, too, when I posted to you at 4 am. "Don't know when to stop." Was ALV trying to pawn off that line to the jury as justification? "I've heard some whoppers from the stand, but this one beggars the imagination!" Quoting from Sam Waterston's D.A. McCoy. It was an older episode, from '98, w/ Jerry Orbach & Benjamin Bratt. The episodes after Orbach's death were never worth watching. I also posted to you about tenosynovitis on her forth digit (ring finger) @ 2am. An "expert" witness is not supposed to justify the crime or advocate on behalf of the defendant (in this case), but rather form a conclusion based upon expertise in said field, supported by evidence to render an objective opinion. AVL, like Samuel, became cheerleaders for their cause. Look up www.forensic-healthcare.com/expert-role.php. Opinions must be unbiased & the expert must state that when researching, if data is insufficient or unavailable, a conclusion cannot be completed. Full cooperation must be given to all parties involved, & if facts fall beyond expert's scope of knowledge, expert must state so. These 2 experts were basically nullified. Thanks for such a great blog.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous (4/13/13 at 10:37AM),
      I have to agree with you on the Law & Order cast, those two were always my favorite detectives too! Do you think the attorneys on either side read any of the comments that are made online? They really should, because I am constantly amazed at all of the points people raise in these types of forums. If people like us are thinking these things, the jury may have similar thoughts/questions. The finger was a hot topic for sure, not only did Arias tell more stories about the origin of the injury - it would be great to have a physician's report on a likely cause. I am disgusted w/paid expert witnesses after watching this trial. I think some serious reform needs to happen in this area! Like you said, the expert is supposed render an objective opinion, not take huge leaps as in this case! Thanks for your comments!

      Delete
    4. I too, like Briscoe & Curtis, but my fav episodes are w/ Dann Florek, George Dzunda, Chris Noth, Richard Brooks, Mike Moriarty & Steven Hill, as the world-weary D.A. Adam Schiff. Oh, I forgot to mention on my 2am tenosynovitis post, that trigger finger (to your previous finger post) is diffrentiated from mallet finger by occurring on the intermediate phalanges, not the distal phalanges. It creates a white scar "banding", which is clearly presents in Jodi's left ring finger, if you look closely at a photo of her 4th digit, compared to the others. Unfortunately, x-rays are not conclusive as to date but an ultra-sound would give a more definitive diagnostic picture. I agree w/ your assessment of these experts. Jodi's gloating over having a high IQ is a reach. Einstein's IQ was "guesstimated" around 160, though he never took the test. My postman's (I knew him from grade school) was 172. I suppose it's what you do w/ it that counts. Jodi & her experts are no Charles Krauthammer! I'd love to hear what his diagnosis would be.

      Delete
  7. They had a hard time finding anyone that would be so biased to sway the jury Arias way. Remember Arais is sooo smart.. Here is one of the questions that stuck with me, Q: Have any of the women with whom Travis had a relationship,
    other than Jodi, stated that Travis abused them
    psychologically, verbally, physically?
    Q: Could a female abuse, batter or terrorize a man
    to the point of killing him? these were great questions, you can see where the jury is
    on alot of things, and the defense team knows too. Alyce was hired to put doubt in jury's minds. But from the jury's questions you can see the jury not buying it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On day 46 part 1 @39.06 the most transparent facial expression displayed by Arias when confronting an empty water bottle. Youtube/croaker queen. Chilling!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I so badly wanted them to ask her: Is it rare for someone who states that they are afraid for their lives then end up dead at the hands of the person they were afraid of? Would have liked to see her squirm and try to answer that question. Oh well, maybe I will ask her this question if she's ever on a talk show or whatever. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I really enjoy reading your commentary. Are u a writer by profession?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I believe the Huges told Jodi Travis was a 'user' to make Jodi take off and leave Travis for his own sake and make him out to be a 'cad' for his sake with his full knowledge and encouragement.

    Like when u tell someone to make you out as a bad guy just to get rid of some-one etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do u think they will be recalled in rebuttal. That testimony is a little confusing although I don't believe Travis was physically abusive. I believe the relationship was abusive to both of them. I don't think he hit her unless she worked hard to insight him which I believe she did. I don't think she was being defensive but offensive. As to y crime scene was messy it went afoul maybe gun jammed more than likely. Ill never believe she planned to leave so much evidence. And is it a little ironic for AL to sat JA is not a skilled liar. This was a pretty big feat. Her plans just didn't go right. Everything's not perfect sometimes guns jam and people fight to stay alive. Travis had a strong will to live obviously. Doesn't the fact that he was butchered and she had a couple of minor cuts on fingers speak for n e thing?

    ReplyDelete
  13. You wrote "The jury compared Travis Alexander's alleged abuse (choking, slapping and mean text messages) to stabbing, shooting and slicing a persons throat and asked "isn't the perpetrator of the greatest amount of domestic violence Jodi Arias"? LaViolette began to answer, calling his death horrific before Juan Martinez objected". I think you misstated the result. Alice said "NO". This, in my opinion did her in as far as credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The problem with this women is she did not use scientific method nor diagnostic criteria not professional standards or conduct- she was disaster- very embarrassing for all the mater-level practitioners out there.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting!

Most popular posts

Dr. Janeen DeMarte - A Look At The Prosecution's Expert Witness

Dr. Janeen DeMarte is expected to take the stand in the Jodi Arias murder trial as a key witness for the prosecution. Think of DeMarte as the State's response to Dr. Richard Samuels and potentially Alyce LaViolette. It's unclear when DeMarte will testify, but with Alyce LaViolette's testimony wrapping up, I thought it would be helpful to take a look at who the State's expert witness is.




Dr. Janeen DeMarte is a licensed clinical psychologist who has a private practice in the Phoenix area. She holds a master's degree and PhD in clinical psychology. with a concentration on forensics - and graduated from Michigan State University and fulfilled her doctoral residency at Arizona State Hospital.  Her clinical training was done at outpatient clinics, correctional facilities and inpatient unit settings. She has served as the Clinical Director of a large outpatient behavior health clinic in Phoenix and "oversaw the practice of numerous multidisciplinary treatment provide…

Is Alyce LaViolette Cashing In On Murder Trial?

As the defense finishes questioning their star witness, domestic abuse expert Alyce LaViolette, many are disillusioned by her choice to take the stand to portray murder defendant Jodi Arias as a battered and abused woman.  Maybe I'm the one who's crazy, but wasn't Travis Alexander the one who had the life stabbed, slashed and shot out of him at the hands of Jodi Arias? Who battered whom here?  Are Travis Alexander's not-so-kind text messages to Jodi Arias PROOF that he was a womanizing batterer and bully who held all the power in the relationship between Arias and Alexander?

Alyce LaViolette seems to think so. Does she have any idea the feelings of outrage she is bringing out in the hearts and minds of the real victims of domestic abuse all over the country? Before LaViolette began testifying, I kept asking myself "why would a woman who is so well respected in her field choose THIS case, defend THIS woman?"  Could it be the money? I suppose $250-$300 an hour c…

Was Trip to Cancun Catalyst to Murder? Jodi Arias Murder Trial

Marie "Mimi" Hall was the first prosecution witness to take the stand in the Jodi Arias Murder trial. She took the stand on January 3, 2013. Hall told jurors that she met Travis Alexander through the Mormon Church. Although they initially went on a date, it was quickly recognized that they were a great match as friends, and they remained such good friends that Alexander invited Hall to accompany him on a work retreat to Cancun, Mexico. The trip was to begin on June 10, 2008. Travis wouldn't live to see that day. Friends found him murdered in his home in Mesa, AZ on June 9, 2008. Coincidence, or catalyst? Travis's close friends have told investigators that Arias had been engaging in stalker-like behavior in the months preceding the murder. Twice, Alexander had his tires slashed after going out with other women. He told close friends his Facebook account had been hacked into. Arias even reportedly would use the doggie door to gain entry to Alexander's home. …

A Look At Alyce LaViolette And More Strange Video Footage of Arias Arrest

Yesterday, as Dr. Richard Samuels finished up his testimony the Jodi Arias defense team called their next expert witness to the stand, Alyce LaViolette. LaViolette is a very legitimate expert on the subject of domestic violence, having been one of the early leaders back in the 1970's when this was not a topic that was spoke of often. Jennifer Willmott had LaViolette introduce herself and her educational background, and list her many accomplishments helping battered women and even helping the men who battered them, hoping to return these women to a safer environment. She is likable, and she is a legitimate voice on this topic. The prosecution should not expect this witness to be as sloppy in the trial casework and reporting as Dr. Samuels was. 

While it's unknown exactly how far out on a limb LaViolette will go for Jodi Arias, she is expected to testify about some of the characteristics of battered women, why they return to their abusers - and what some of characteristics are of…

"Cold Justice" Heats Up Unsolved Murder Cases

This is my third blog post on TNT's new reality show, "Cold Justice".  Cold Justice pairs former Texas prosecutor Kelly Siegler with former Las Vegas CSI Yolanda McClary, who travel to small rural towns across America to look at unsolved murder cases.  Their first episode which aired Tuesday has already delivered results - the arrest of Ronnie Hendricks (see yesterdays post for details) for the murder of Pam Shelley. TNT lists an episode guide online, and 
I couldn't resist taking a peek and looking for details on those cases.  I was astonished at what they have accomplished in their first season.  This is more than just another crime drama, these ladies are committed and determined to bringing justice to those who may have escaped it previously in small towns that may lack the resources to bring a suspect to trial.

You can see the episode guide on their website. They give a brief description of the victims and circumstances of their deaths. Here is a list of this seas…