Jodi Arias #3

From what I can tell, the witness on Monday may be Grace Wong, a producer for InSessions/CNN/HLN. Will post more if I can find out anything else.

Just popping in to post what I found thus far.

A spectator in the courtroom who was sitting behind the Alexander family was a guest on one of the HLN shows. I have watched so many, I have forgotten which one of the shows she was on. However, she personally observed Alyce La Violette come over to the Alexander family in the spectator section of the courtroom and quietly make a comment to Travis' sister, Samantha. This spectator was unable to hear what the "expert witness" said to Samantha. This spectator was aware that this was in violation of courtroom protocol.

There was some type of distraction in the back of the courtroom or possibly in the hallway, and most of the people in the courtroom were focused on the distraction. Therefore, few individuals saw La Violette speak to Samantha Alexander. A little later, this spectator make a point of talking to Samantha and told her she did not have to endure talking to La Violette. She said Samantha looked at her and softly said, the Prosecutor is already on it.

In all probability, this action by Alyce La Violette is why she was summoned to Judge Sherry Stevens chambers this morning and what is the topic of Monday's hearing. Most likely, Ms. Wong is the "spectator" mentioned.

I will see if I can find some legal authority on improper conduct of expert witness and if I find anything, I will post it.

Ms Wong was not the spectator who saw A. LaV. talking to Samantha. It was Kathy Monkman AKA KatieCooLady from WS. She appeared on Dr Drew's show and I believe a local Az. station on this subject.
Ms Wong AKA Grace Wong is from the In Session show from TruTV.

ETA: Sorry CP, you beat me as to who Ms Wong is.
A thought has crossed my mind concerning her.
I wonder if any of the camera's in the court room recorded A. LaV. as she made her BIG NoNO by approching Samantha.

CherokeeNative wrote:Just popping in to post what I found thus far.

A spectator in the courtroom who was sitting behind the Alexander family was a guest on one of the HLN shows. I have watched so many, I have forgotten which one of the shows she was on. However, she personally observed Alyce La Violette come over to the Alexander family in the spectator section of the courtroom and quietly make a comment to Travis' sister, Samantha. This spectator was unable to hear what the "expert witness" said to Samantha. This spectator was aware that this was in violation of courtroom protocol.

There was some type of distraction in the back of the courtroom or possibly in the hallway, and most of the people in the courtroom were focused on the distraction. Therefore, few individuals saw La Violette speak to Samantha Alexander. A little later, this spectator make a point of talking to Samantha and told her she did not have to endure talking to La Violette. She said Samantha looked at her and softly said, the Prosecutor is already on it.

In all probability, this action by Alyce La Violette is why she was summoned to Judge Sherry Stevens chambers this morning and what is the topic of Monday's hearing. Most likely, Ms. Wong is the "spectator" mentioned.

I will see if I can find some legal authority on improper conduct of expert witness and if I find anything, I will post it.

As I recall HLN did cover this indiscretion by Ms LaViolette and it's more than a violation of courtroom protocol; supposedly it's a violation of the Arizona Victims Rights Law. They too said that JM is on it and I bet he is!

So if LaV violated the AZ Victim Rights Laws, what happens to her? To her testimony? Does she just get a slap on the wrist? A fine? Vacating her testimony? I am way to lazy to look that up tonite...lol

Chickenbutt wrote:So if LaV violated the AZ Victim Rights Laws, what happens to her? To her testimony? Does she just get a slap on the wrist? A fine? Vacating her testimony? I am way to lazy to look that up tonite...lol

I'm sure it'll be a slap on the wrist and a quiet one at that. Oh well. I think her career as an expert witness is shot after this trial anyway. I understand that JM is tough and all but how do you explain her self inflicted wounds?

Case in point:

Jury asks her why she's smiling at Jodi and the defense team and we all know she did. In fact at one point JM made sure the jury noted it by saying to her "I'm over here; not over there" (while pointing to the defense table).

A smart witness would have answered something like this:

"Well I certainly hope you noticed me smiling at all sorts of people in the courtroom including each of you. I think that's the polite way to behave in public so if I didn't do enough of it, I apologize." But instead she denies doing it and makes up another unbelievable story for the jury about looking at people in the gallery

I hope Ms Lav has her retirement all planned out. She may continue to counsel, speak and "consult" on trials, but I have $5.00 that says she never testifies again.

She should have just been honest. "I was looking at the defense team and smiling at the absurdity of Mr. Martinez's behavior and questions"

I am hoping this was not already posted. I found a very interesting article about what may be going on Monday morning concerning impeachment of AL.

JM was asking some very interesting questions today about "liars" and he seemed particularly delighted. It will be interesting to see what Monday brings to fruition.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sea Ray wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:There was a lawyer on yesterday that was up against Martinez in court in another high profile case. He was asked if he was in favor of the juror's asking questions. He said that he was, that it gives heads up as to how the jurors are thinking and "which juror is thinking what", which made me believe what I had been thinking all along, that juror 5 was outed because she was probably asking too many questions against the defense.

I'm sure it will come out eventually, but I haven't heard one thing about her going against her duties as a juror. So it leads me to believe that it could very well be that she was, too state and her questions showed it and Nurmi thought that she wouldn't be open minded. Just a thought.

A couple problems with that theory. #1 do we know for a fact which jurors are asking which questions? I doubt they can put names on their questions.

#2 asking a lot of questions would not be grounds for dismissal. The judge would need more

The defense may be pleased that they got a pro prosecution juror kicked off but I have news for them. Unfortunately any juror they get kicked off is most likely pro prosecution

I've been thinking, you are right. But, could it be that maybe Juror 5 asked a question about something that may not have been from the court room but something that showed on the media? Which would show that she had been watching TV about the case. It seems right after that Nurmi tried to get the jurors sequestered. I can't wait to find out why she was booted.

If HLN stop covering trials, I hope they know they will lose a lot of sponsers. Majority of people watch due to the trial coverage. And if they do end it I hope another station picks it up.

When tha CA trial was on, many stations covered it. But for some reason HLN has the exclusive here, I wonder why?

I also agree that Bet C. should have her own show and get rid of JVM (whom hasn't a clue) I usually turn off, I just can't stand her. As for NG, she is rude, I get embarrassed for her guests and if it wasn't that I wanted to hear about the case, I wouldn't watch herat all.

What do you all think? Have certain people abused Social Media, and taken things too far? According to what I have read it seems things have gotten out of hand with what I equate with cyber bullying. Now you all know I am not a fan of Ms. Lav, and her character assassination of Mr. Alexander, and I still dis-like this woman very much. But how much is too much? How far is too far? Or do any of you think the following is fair?
So I have been reading around the internet, different sites, and apparently Ms. Lav had to go to the hospital because of anxiety and palpitations. Ms. Lav is also receiving threatening phone calls, emails and voicemails from trial watchers as well as not so nice responses, such as threats etc, in the review section of her book on Amazon. Some legal analyst are equating this to witness tampering/intimidation. I just found a link that sums up most of what I have read on the other sites. Video and article @ link. The video and article are different, I found the article much more informative. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

angiefly2 wrote:What do you all think? Have certain people abused Social Media, and taken things too far? According to what I have read it seems things have gotten out of hand with what I equate with cyber bullying. Now you all know I am not a fan of Ms. Lav, and her character assassination of Mr. Alexander, and I still dis-like this woman very much. But how much is too much? How far is too far? Or do any of you think the following is fair?
So I have been reading around the internet, different sites, and apparently Ms. Lav had to go to the hospital because of anxiety and palpitations. Ms. Lav is also receiving threatening phone calls, emails and voicemails from trial watchers as well as not so nice responses, such as threats etc, in the review section of her book on Amazon. Some legal analyst are equating this to witness tampering/intimidation. I just found a link that sums up most of what I have read on the other sites. Video and article @ link. The video and article are different, I found the article much more informative. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hi, Ang!

I've been debating these questions with myself since last night.

What LaViolette did to the character of a man who was brutally murdered is unacceptable to society--and she did it to protect the one who slaughtered him.

People are bound to have something to say, and good for them for doing so. Of course, bullying behavior is unacceptable, but to politely express your feelings should be allowed.

Personally, I think LaViolette is exaggerating. She could have ulterior motives for doing so. I saw the picture of Willmott, the mitigation specialist, and LaViolette all out for their 'lunching.' I heard on HLN that the defense was not supposed to 'prepare' LaViolette--what do you suppose they were 'really' doing over their lunch?

I guess I am just rambling here, but I have no sympathy and no respect for LaViolette. If she were worth the salt in her porridge--as an 'expert witness' she would have found a way to respect the victim while trying to explain the murderous rage of the one who wielded the knife and finally sated her desires by placing a bullet in the victim's head.

We have Arias 'tweeting' her sassy disrespect and selling her artwork for thousands of dollars--surely free, law abiding citizens should have the right to politely say a few things.

imo

angiefly2 wrote:What do you all think? Have certain people abused Social Media, and taken things too far? According to what I have read it seems things have gotten out of hand with what I equate with cyber bullying. Now you all know I am not a fan of Ms. Lav, and her character assassination of Mr. Alexander, and I still dis-like this woman very much. But how much is too much? How far is too far? Or do any of you think the following is fair?
So I have been reading around the internet, different sites, and apparently Ms. Lav had to go to the hospital because of anxiety and palpitations. Ms. Lav is also receiving threatening phone calls, emails and voicemails from trial watchers as well as not so nice responses, such as threats etc, in the review section of her book on Amazon. Some legal analyst are equating this to witness tampering/intimidation. I just found a link that sums up most of what I have read on the other sites. Video and article @ link. The video and article are different, I found the article much more informative. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That is horrible and I hate to see that. There are so many losers out there. I don't do any social media such as FB or My Space and I feel sorry for those who judge their popularity by how many cyber friends they have. I didn't realize she was going through all that. She hasn't come across well on the stand but that doesn't mean that any of this is justified in any way.

I do wonder why HLN guests say that she's likeable and for that reason JM should not badger her. She's not likeable as this stuff shows but again I want to emphasize, if you take to social media and Amazon.com to take her down, you are a despicable loser!

Altho I am not a fan of what Ms LaV has done in this trial, I'm sure she has done some good, some where at some time. No one deserves (like Sea said) to be bullied.

The "hiding behind the computer screen" bully of today is going to only get worse as technology advances more and more everyday. People have to take some responsibility for their words and behaviors, but unfortunately, the kind of people who spew this kind of nonsense, will be the last to own it and will certainly not apologize for it.

I could easily go off on a rant about parenting, personal responsibility, moral and societal responsibility, but I won't.

Suffice it to say, Ms. LaV does not deserve this.

I am not Ms. Lav #1 fan by any stretch of the imagination but there are people out there trying to destroy this woman. Everything from her livelihood to her personal life. I have made jokes about her in chat... but we clear chat and the whole world doesn't read it. I have also been angry at some of the things she has said but cyber bullying is so horrible. I would really love Justice for Travis... but his family and Juan have that covered. Ms. Lav is on the side of a murderous sociopath but I really think she didn't expect what is happening to her, to happen. I agree with you, CB that the people who hide behind a computer to bully people will only get worse. I am afraid the justice system will either have to remove all media from the courtrooms (which I know none of us want that) or they are going to have to do something about this bullying and harassment. I honestly get that people care and want justice for Travis, we all do, but this kind of stuff does nothing to ensure that justice will be done. I guess I just don't understand why people who probably didn't even know Travis are ready to hurt a defense witness/ because of what she said... it's what she was hired to do whether we like it or not. I admit I take this trial stuff really seriously, most of the time, but this article made me take a couple of steps back and realize that I don't need to be so emotionally invested. I enjoy watching the trial but at the end of the day, those people who are out there bullying need to learn how to check their anger at the door. MOO

Madara200 wrote:I am hoping this was not already posted. I found a very interesting article about what may be going on Monday morning concerning impeachment of AL.

JM was asking some very interesting questions today about "liars" and he seemed particularly delighted. It will be interesting to see what Monday brings to fruition.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It looks like the thing in question is when the jury asked her if she'd ever testified on behalf of a male abuse victim. She stammered and finally blurted out "one or two". I think we could all see through that (including the jury), but Juan isn't going to let it lay. He brought it up again on cross and got her to admit that she'd never testified for a man in court:

...Martinez zeroed in on LaViolette's response to a question about how many men she has testified on behalf of in criminal court. She had told the jury she thought she had done so once or twice. When she was unable to remember the name of either man, she relented and said she had wrote a report in one of the cases and did not actually testify in court.

"So you misrepresented something to the jury, didn't you?" Martinez asked.

"I did not testify, I wrote a report on his behalf to go to criminal court," LaViolette replied.

"That's different than testifying in court, isn't it?" asked Martinez.

"Yes, it's different than testifying in court," said LaViolette.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He also got her to admit that there was never a "second" man at all that she testified for.

I hope Juan lets it go on Monday and doesn't pursue perjury charges. This gal has suffered enough. He's more than succeeded in diminishing her in the eyes of the jury. Let her go home and cry her eyes out. Pummeling people should be reserved for those who shoot and stab ex-boyfriends; not this woman.

angiefly2 wrote: I am not Ms. Lav #1 fan by any stretch of the imagination but there are people out there trying to destroy this woman. Everything from her livelihood to her personal life. I have made jokes about her in chat... but we clear chat and the whole world doesn't read it. I have also been angry at some of the things she has said but cyber bullying is so horrible. I would really love Justice for Travis... but his family and Juan have that covered. Ms. Lav is on the side of a murderous sociopath but I really think she didn't expect what is happening to her, to happen. I agree with you, CB that the people who hide behind a computer to bully people will only get worse. I am afraid the justice system will either have to remove all media from the courtrooms (which I know none of us want that) or they are going to have to do something about this bullying and harassment. I honestly get that people care and want justice for Travis, we all do, but this kind of stuff does nothing to ensure that justice will be done. I guess I just don't understand why people who probably didn't even know Travis are ready to hurt a defense witness/ because of what she said... it's what she was hired to do whether we like it or not. I admit I take this trial stuff really seriously, most of the time, but this article made me take a couple of steps back and realize that I don't need to be so emotionally invested. I enjoy watching the trial but at the end of the day, those people who are out there bullying need to learn how to check their anger at the door. MOO

Can newbies like me nominate posts for:

?

If so, this one gets my vote. I know it's only noon on the east coast but I wish I'd written it...Good job Angie

newbie my Chickenbutt....you are one of us now whether you like it or not!

When a person sells their soul for a dollar, they are the dispicable ones. People will vent when they see an injustice being done, especially to a man who is dead and who died a horific death. Travis must have been terrified the last minutes of his life, he must have seen his death coming, infact he did see his death coming. Jodi is an obvious liar, no doubt about that, and idiot can see that. LaV wants the world to believe her as she defends a murderer. How can she not expect some feedback. Did she actually think that she was that good that she would convince all the public that Jodi was an abused woman?

LaV is downing every woman out here that has ever been abused by comparing this murderer to an abused woman. If she didn't expect a harsh feedback, than she should have not agreed to get on the stand and lie like Jodi.

I'm sorry, but the only one that I have any feelings for is Travis and his family that have to sit there and listen to their brother be dogged by this woman on the stand. Jodi and with the help of LaV are killing Travis all over again. I find LaV a big liar like Jodi, and if someone will lie to defend such a person than I put them in the same catagory as the one they are defending.

This is a post that CN left on the GZ thread....I found it very interesting as it applies to all defense attorneys. Thought you might enjoy reading it.


Here is an article that I recently received in a CLE. Pretty interesting, if you ask me:

What do you do when your guilty client wants to claim he’s innocent in the witness chair, under oath?

Anyone who approaches this topic should do so knowing he or she will make no dents in the issue, which has bedeviled lawyers, philosophers, professors and theorists for centuries. It is a good example of what some people hate about ethics, and why they prefer rules and morality: there is no clear solution, only a collection of alternate, flawed solutions with half-good arguments behind them. So just make a rule, already, and stick to it!

The problem with that approach, however, is that no rule makes sense in every case.

The reason the Lying Defendant poses such an ethical conundrum arises from a perfect storm of factors:

■Anyone accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a defense.

■ Because the burden of proof in the United States is on the prosecution to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the job of the defense attorney is to challenge and test the prosecution’s theory of guilt even when the accused is in fact guilty of the crime. The defendant not only has to be found guilty, he or she has to be found guilty for the right reasons, of the correct crime, using legally acquired evidence, with all the defendant’s rights as a citizen respected and protected, in a fair trial.

■A criminal defendant has a the guaranteed right to testify in his or her own defense. No one else does. A lawyer who knowingly allows a civil defendant or any witness to give false testimony can be disciplined and even lose the right to practice law. A lawyer who doesn’t allow a criminal defendant who insists on lying under oath to claim his or her innocence will be disciplined.

■An attorney is absolutely prohibited by the legal profession’s ethics rules from knowingly assisting a client, including a criminal client, in illegal or fraudulent conduct.

■Everything a criminal client tells an attorney in confidence for the purpose of developing a legal defense is privileged, which means it may not be divulged in court or anywhere else. This includes the words, “I am guilty as hell.” The lawyer may not say or do anything that reveals the privileged information.

■Lying under oath in one’s own defense is illegal.

Got all that? Put them all together, and this is what a defense attorney faces when his client, who has admitted to his attorney that he is guilty as charged, insists on testifying falsely that he is innocent:

The attorney must allow the defendant to testify, but the attorney cannot “assist” him in testifying. If the attorney refuses to examine the defendant on the stand, which is assisting him, then the attorney signals to the judge and the jury that the defendant is lying. If the attorney acts in a manner that shows that the client is lying about his innocence, than the attorney has revealed the substance of the client’s confidential communication that he is, in fact guilty, a violation of the attorney’s duty of confidentiality, the foundation of the attorney-client relationship.

In other words, whatever a lawyer in this situation does, it will violate the ethics rules, the rights of the defendant, or the United States Constitution.

The profession, filled as it has always been with clever people capable of making words and concepts do tricks, has devised various schemes to deal with this.

One of the most popular is to imagine it away. The attorney only has a problem if he or she “knows” the defendant is guilty, so many lawyers employ an extreme version of the word “know” that would be alien to any other profession. These lawyers argue that they never can “know” that a client is guilty, even if he confesses. False confessions are common, they argue. Who knows if the client is confused, or only partially telling the truth?

The definitions in the American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct say that “know” means actual knowledge. Well, we only have “actual knowledge” about what we have personally witnessed, right?

Lawyers who get in the habit of reasoning this way thoroughly corrupt themselves; indeed, one of the dangers of the Lying Defendant problem is that many of the “solutions” lay the foundation of other unequivocally unethical practices. This definition of “know” would mean that we don’t know that the world is made up of atoms, that the Civil War was fought or that the sun will rise tomorrow. It’s a useless definition, except in the unique circumstance where it is inconvenient to behave as if you know what you really do know. Furthermore, the Rules also say that “actual knowledge” can be inferred from the circumstances. Playing Clintonian games with the word “know” (and where do you think lawyers Bill and Hillary learned this?) is not the solution.

Another popular, and related, way to try to avoid the issue is for the lawyer to make sure a criminal client never tells him or her whether or not he is guilty. This theory is that a lawyer who is never told, never will “know.” In a memorable episode of the old TV drama “L.A. Law,” a defense attorney who is suspicious of a criminal defendant client that appears to be as sinister and guilty as they come, warily asks him if he intends to lie when he takes the witness stand to proclaim his innocence. The wily defendant answers that everyone would be better off if the lawyer doesn’t know the answer to that question.

Gee, I guess the lawyer was completely in the dark after that answer, right? It is ridiculous: there is no chance at all that an innocent client not intending to lie on the stand would ever give that answer. Under the circumstances, it is indistinguishable from, “Yes, I will lie my head off.” It is much the same with telling a guilty defendant, “Don’t tell me!” If the client is innocent, he will want to tell his attorney, he has the right to tell his attorney, and he should tell his attorney. If the client agrees that “everyone will be better off if I don’t tell you,” well, he’s guilty, and the attorney knows it.

It gets worse. Clients are supposed to tell their attorneys everything relevant to their representation. It defies logic to pretend that a criminal client benefits from not telling his attorney the most relevant information of all—whether or not he actually committed the crime he is accused of—unless the attorney is intentionally making it possible for him to lie in trial. If that is why the attorney doesn’t want to “know,” then the attorney is “assisting” his client in committing the crime of perjury.

You just can’t get there from here: a lawyer is going to know whether his or her defendant is guilty unless the client consistently proclaims his innocence, has a plausible story to tell on the stand, and his lawyer has reasonable doubts about his guilt as a result. In that case, the defendant’s attorney really won’t “know” that the defendant is lying, and there is no problem.

When the lawyer does know, the accepted options are few. First of all, the attorney is required to explain in the most emphatic terms how risky and stupid lying on the stand is. This includes telling the client one of the two “remedies” lawyers with lying criminal clients have to follow, depending on the jurisdiction. The first is telling the judge that the lawyer has to withdraw from the representation, without saying why because saying why would violate the attorney-client privilege. This, of course, has the result of letting the judge know that 1) the defendant will be lying, and that this means that 2) he’s guilty, and thus the “solution” violates the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality anyway. The other option, favored by New York, California and Washington, D.C., requires the attorney to let his or her client testify in narrative fashion, asking the defendant to tell his (fictional, perjurious) story without the assistance of questions, prodding or framing by the attorney. Then the attorney cannot use the defendant’s lies in the closing argument. Since attorneys only behave like this when their criminal defendant clients insist on lying under oath, this “solution,” like the first, also has the effect of alerting everyone that defendant is guilty of both the crime being tries and perjury.

Good plan!

The writings of legal ethicist Monroe Freedman were used by ethics professors to illustrate what they believed was the “dark side” of the law. Freedman took the controversial position that of the options available to the defense attorney in the Lying Client scenario, an unexpected one was, all things considered, the most ethical of a bad lot: go ahead and treat the lying client as you would a truthful one, and examine him on the stand like any other. His argument: if an ethical obligation has to be surrendered, better to leave intact the core duties of zealous representation and protecting confidences, as well as the right of a defendant in a criminal trial to testify, and sacrifice the duty of honesty to the court. At the time, Freedman’s argument seemed to endorse unethical conduct, but I am beginning to see the wisdom in his approach.

I would argue that a lawyer still must not coach a client in how best to present a false story, and I think there is no way the lawyer should use perjury in his or her argument to the jury. However, examining a lying client like any other holds more integrity, perhaps, than the lawyer pretending not to “know” what he or she does know, or pretending not be revealing the fact that the client confessed his guilt when using the narrative approach does exactly that.

And yet…

A consequence of the terrible options faced by the attorney with a criminal defendant who wants to lie on the stand is that the lawyer’s warnings that it won’t work are usually persuasive. Not many guilty clients take the stand to lie. Freedman’s solution may be more ethically direct, but it has the disadvantage of making defendant perjury more effective, and thus harder to discourage.

By: Jack Marshall, the primary writer of Ethics Alarms, is president and founder of ProEthics.

But in this case I firmly believe that Nurmi and Wollmott are helping Jodi's lies. They are going to great lengths to try and get her off (not just form the DS) but to actually get her off by reason of 'self defense". They came across two very unethical witnesses that were willing to sell their soul and make business for themselves in future cases, Dr. Samuels and LaV are suddenly turning the tables on the abused to fit an abuser. The defense is going along with this because they want to make a name for themselves. For a lawyer to get hold of a high profile case is a dream come true. These witnesses to get in on a high profile case is very profitable for them.

I call it all selling their souls. There is no way LaV believes that Jodi was abused. Jodi shows absolutely no signs of abuse. She stabbed an ex 29 times, slit his throat and shot him in the head to make sure he was dead. She did this out of jealousy not fear. They all are now murdering this poor man all over again by accusing him of very low things. There should be laws against this kind of behavior by so called professionals. Being a lawyer is a profession, being a Doctor is a profession, being a psychologist is a profession, and yet they use their profession to go to extremes to try and get such an obvious psychopath murderer off to go out there and do it again. I just can't figure that without thinking that they are all selling their soul and should be prepared to accept the consequences for this. JMO

Sea Ray wrote:

angiefly2 wrote: I am not Ms. Lav #1 fan by any stretch of the imagination but there are people out there trying to destroy this woman. Everything from her livelihood to her personal life. I have made jokes about her in chat... but we clear chat and the whole world doesn't read it. I have also been angry at some of the things she has said but cyber bullying is so horrible. I would really love Justice for Travis... but his family and Juan have that covered. Ms. Lav is on the side of a murderous sociopath but I really think she didn't expect what is happening to her, to happen. I agree with you, CB that the people who hide behind a computer to bully people will only get worse. I am afraid the justice system will either have to remove all media from the courtrooms (which I know none of us want that) or they are going to have to do something about this bullying and harassment. I honestly get that people care and want justice for Travis, we all do, but this kind of stuff does nothing to ensure that justice will be done. I guess I just don't understand why people who probably didn't even know Travis are ready to hurt a defense witness/ because of what she said... it's what she was hired to do whether we like it or not. I admit I take this trial stuff really seriously, most of the time, but this article made me take a couple of steps back and realize that I don't need to be so emotionally invested. I enjoy watching the trial but at the end of the day, those people who are out there bullying need to learn how to check their anger at the door. MOO

Can newbies like me nominate posts for:

?

If so, this one gets my vote. I know it's only noon on the east coast but I wish I'd written it...Good job Angie

Thank you Sea Ray I have never been nominated before, you made my day! :)

Gizmo711 wrote:
I call it all selling their souls. There is no way LaV believes that Jodi was abused. Jodi shows absolutely no signs of abuse.

This is where we disagree. I think this so called expert is so looney herself that she really does believe what she's spouting. There are a lot of loons in the psychology field and the defense found one. It's the hammer and nail theory that I've mentioned before. If your training is limited to using a hammer, then everything you see looks like a nail. AL sees men abusing women in all sorts of places and I agree with you that it's doing the industry of abused women more harm than good.

I also agree with you on the ivory tower attitude that she brings to the stand and that's been her biggest miscalculation. What made her think that the jury and America overall would believe the crap she's spouting? It's that these psychologists think that when they tell us something, we accept it as gospel because they're the experts and they've been studying it for 30 yrs, blah, blah...Well we're the people and while you've been in your office studying life, we've been out living it. We're not going to just sit there and nod our heads when you say that a woman who did all the things Jodi did, including that day in june 2008, was not guilty of abuse. Don't try to tell us that Travis calling her a three holed wonder is an example of his abusing her. We're just not buying it. Rather than accusing Travis of abuse for calling her a sociopath, this expert should have called him a prophet!

Sea Ray wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:
I call it all selling their souls. There is no way LaV believes that Jodi was abused. Jodi shows absolutely no signs of abuse.

This is where we disagree. I think this so called expert is so looney herself that she really does believe what she's spouting. There are a lot of loons in the psychology field and the defense found one. It's the hammer and nail theory that I've mentioned before. If your training is limited to using a hammer, then everything you see looks like a nail. AL sees men abusing women in all sorts of places and I agree with you that it's doing the industry of abused women more harm than good.

I also agree with you on the ivory tower attitude that she brings to the stand and that's been her biggest miscalculation. What made her think that the jury and America overall would believe the crap she's spouting? It's that these psychologists think that when they tell us something, we accept it as gospel because they're the experts and they've been studying it for 30 yrs, blah, blah...Well we're the people and while you've been in your office studying life, we've been out living it. We're not going to just sit there and nod our heads when you say that a woman who did all the things Jodi did, including that day in june 2008, was not guilty of abuse. Don't try to tell us that Travis calling her a three holed wonder is an example of his abusing her. We're just not buying it. Rather than accusing Travis of abuse for calling her a sociopath, this expert should have called him a prophet!

That's what troubles me the most, she is comparing name calling to a horrible murder. Also, that taped sex conversation was going to be used to blackmail Travis.