The Jodi Arias murder trial is turning into one long "Twilight Zone" episode....After a scouring cross examination yesterday by veteran Arizona prosecutor Juan Martinez, LaViolette welcomed questions from defense attorney Jennifer Willmott and theme was the same. Jodi Arias was a victim of domestic violence and abuse, and Travis Alexander was a controlling and abusive man who dominated Arias and according to LaViolette, was not in fear of Arias despite his telling people so.
I'm wondering if LaViolette is clairvoyant, in addition being an expert in domestic violence. I don't recall seeing that on her resume. I continue to be stunned, amazed and outraged that LaViolette has taken these leaps, to walk into a court of law and testify how somebody else felt. Nobody is qualified to testify as to the way Travis Alexander may or may not have felt about Jodi Arias, except for Travis himself - if Jodi Arias hadn't killed him, perhaps he could set the record straight for Ms. LaViolette?
The double standards and hypocrisy of the defense team tactics are blatant. According to their expert, it's perfectly understandable, appropriate and almost expected for a battered woman to return to her abuser and not to tell family, friends, an anonymous hot line for battered woman or law enforcement about the abuse. Yet the (male) murder victim could not have been afraid of Arias, despite saying he was because he continued to see her. Doesn't that sound a bit hypocritical? Isn't LaViolette applying a double standard in this manner? She actually talked about the lack of corroborating evidence as the basis for forming the opinion that Travis didn't fear Jodi. Wow, do they really want to talk about the lack of corroborating evidence in this trial? 95% of what Arias has said hasn't been corroborated and cannot be corroborated since the only person who could tell us the truth is dead.
LaViolette seems to be unwilling to say anything negative about Jodi Arias. I find that strange and suspicious. Maybe Jodi gave her a copy of "The Law of Attraction". An unbiased third party evaluating a case such as this should problems with relying only on the words of a criminal defendant.
An unbiased third party expert should take issue with inconsistencies in the information as told by a criminal defendant. After all, the defendant has much to lose and therefore a higher standard should be given in seeking out the truth. They would want to get as much independent information from sources close to both parties, people with nothing to gain or lose. Why didn't Alyce seek these type of people out? I think she was afraid of what she would find, and that would mess with her assessment of Jodi Arias.
I know I'm being tough on Alyce LaViolette, but I was open minded going in. I was impressed by her credentials and respected her for taking on the topic of domestic abuse in an era where it was not a popular topic. I believed a woman with her background would do more research outside of the defendant, and it certainly would have been helpful for her to get a sense of who Travis Alexander was before rendering her opinion. A truly unbiased expert would have been more interested in the truth, and look at both sides of the story. An unbiased person doesn't arbitrarily decide which statements to believe. I guess I'm disappointed that LaViolette isn't the "pioneer" I thought she would be. I'm disappointed that testimony can be bought.
No ruling from the Judge yet on the defense's motion for a mistrial from last weekend. They continues to pound the table for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct and excessive media coverage. Have they checked out Arias's jailhouse activity, including a Twitter account and online art auctions? In a recent tweet by Arias, she said HLN is that it's an acronym for "Haters Love Negativity". Must be another "Law of Attraction" thing. Using former jailhouse buddy Donavan Bering, Arias has been tweeting her "followers", as if she's a celebrity. Bering was an early supporter of Jodi Arias, speaking out often on the "Hater's Love Negativity" network Arias is so fond of! Look who's taking advantage of the media coverage now.
It really feels like they have forgotten who's on trial here. I wonder how Ms. LaViolette would feel if Travis Alexander were her son. Would her opinion be different? Does she feel like Jodi Arias was justified in the action she took against Travis Alexander? What about the effect her testimony may have on MEN who may be victims of stalking? LaViolette completely discounted Travis's own words, that he felt like a "dildo with a heartbeat", and that he was fearful of the stalking behavior of his ex-girlfriend. She doesn't believe him. Why would any man watching this trial (or woman for that matter) ever seek out this woman's advice?
I missed the last hour of trial coverage, but am looking forward to the jury questions. It will be interesting to see if they appear to be buying what LaViolette's selling. Have a great day!