Jodi Arias #3

I don't know if Jodi is mentally ill or not. One would think she would have to be to do what she did. But if she had enough wits about her to premeditate and then cover up what she did, than she isn't that crazy. She deserves to pay for this. She couldn't take the rejection and sure as hell wasn't going to see him go away with another woman.

Everything so far that all the witnesses total together showed, that they were two consenting adults in everything they did. Just because some shrink says that Jodi didn't enjoy it but was just doing it to please Travis and considers that to be abuse than 99% of married women can be considered abused at one time or another during their marriage. If this is what 30 years of experience shows her, she could have gotten that information in about a week or two by just taking a poll.

I wish I knew what this hearing concerning LaV on tuesday is about.

Did LaV. consider,

The taped phone sex
The stolen 25 calaper gun stolen from Jodi's grandfathers house just a week before the murder.
The breaking into Travis' house.
The breaking into Travis phone message and e-mail account.
The peeking into Travis' window when he had company.

There are alot more, but with these alone would be cause to show that it was Jodi that was stalking Travis.

Chickenbutt wrote: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.
{snipped for space}

I've been wondering about this whole concept from the beginning of this trial, so thanks, CB, for posting this here. Very interesting read.

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!

I agree, Sea Ray. That's what I was trying to say earlier about her looking at this case through her DV filter. And keep in mind that she's probably only seen, what, 10-20% of the evidence in this case? 25% tops? Her "bigger picture" is much smaller than we or the jury have seen, because she hasn't seen nearly as much of the evidence as we have. And since she appears to have a double standard with men vs. women, I'm not surprised that she came to the conclusion that she did, based on the information she was provided. The defense team didn't ask her to evaluate if JA was a stalker, or if JA was the abuser. She was only asked to look for domestic violence, and due to her double standard of seeing men as the perpetrator, that's exactly what she found.

That being said, I believe that the backlash she's receiving, to some degree, is fair game, and should have been expected. I don't see anything wrong with people writing reviews for her book without even having read it, expressing that she isn't qualified to write books as an authority on the subject, when she was so easily duped and manipulated by a pathological liar to see something that is totally not there. Freedom of speech, and all. However, I do agree that any kind of true cyber-bullying, where she is being threatened, is not OK, and should not be tolerated or allowed.

Gizmo711 wrote:Did LaV. consider,

The taped phone sex
The stolen 25 calaper gun stolen from Jodi's grandfathers house just a week before the murder.
The breaking into Travis' house.
The breaking into Travis phone message and e-mail account.
The peeking into Travis' window when he had company.

There are alot more, but with these alone would be cause to show that it was Jodi that was stalking Travis.

Gizmo, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption that she's seen all the evidence that we have seen presented in court, and that's just not the case. She admitted that she was given very limited information, and as a witness, she was not allowed to watch the trial, so she most likely is not aware of a lot of the evidence that we have been privy to. But the jury has seen all the evidence, and they are doing exactly what you are; looking at all of it, and seeing that her smaller perspective just doesn't fit in the true bigger picture.

Alyce’s Mad Hatter Kool Aid Party

Snipped:
-----
-Down the Rabbit Hole and 3 Red Mushrooms to the Left, Arizona

Professional victim Alyce LaViolette has spent the last two days tripping balls in Wonderland, trying to field questions from skeptical (and sober) jurors in the Jodi Arias trial. And judging by the tone of the queries, the eleventh hour “domestic abuse excuse” pitched by Stabby and her band of merry enablers is flying like a lead balloon in the courtroom. But domestic violence expert Alyce will still not budge from her seat at The Mad Hatter Kool Aid Party. She chugged it down in five gallon buckets, and is still trying to serve it to the jury.
-----

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

CuriousPortlander wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:Did LaV. consider,

The taped phone sex
The stolen 25 calaper gun stolen from Jodi's grandfathers house just a week before the murder.
The breaking into Travis' house.
The breaking into Travis phone message and e-mail account.
The peeking into Travis' window when he had company.

There are alot more, but with these alone would be cause to show that it was Jodi that was stalking Travis.

Gizmo, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption that she's seen all the evidence that we have seen presented in court, and that's just not the case. She admitted that she was given very limited information, and as a witness, she was not allowed to watch the trial, so she most likely is not aware of a lot of the evidence that we have been privy to. But the jury has seen all the evidence, and they are doing exactly what you are; looking at all of it, and seeing that her smaller perspective just doesn't fit in the true bigger picture.

Nurmi himself said to believe that the "jury" hasn't been watching the media is a fantasy. Do you really believe that LaViolette hasn't been watching the media? If LaViolette was given the job to decide in such a magnitude of a trial that someone was depending on their life, don't you think that in order to answer questions about abuse that she would "require' some proof from both sides? She solely went by what Jodi said happened, nothing else. Those text messages and e-mails showed an angry Travis, angry for something that Jodi had did to him. No where in those texts or e-mails does it say that he wanted to harm Jodi physically. Therefore she had to have gone totally on everything that Jodi said happened and we all know that Jodi is a liar. Maybe she didn't realize at the beginning that she was such a liar, but the facts were there, she lied about not being there, she lied about the gun, she lied about the "ninja's", I would think that any professional would be a little leary as to what Jodi was saying and request all information on the party who was murdered. She never spoke to any of Travis' friends, not his family or anyone at all, in trying to get some knowledge of Travis.

As for the journals, LaV makes excuses as to why Jodi didn't write negative things. LaV has absolutely no proof that Travis broke Jodi's finger. To believe such a rediculous story that Jodi didn't want to get medical attention to her finger in fear of getting Travis in trouble is BS in the first degree. Jodi is a grown woman and would not need to tell any doctor how she broke a finger, it's ludicrous not to think that it happened while she was murdering Travis and that's the reason she didn't go seek help, because she didn't want it documented as to when she went to the ER.

There is just too much that was totally overlooked and I believe it to be deliberate on LaV's part.

I would think that this would be against her professionalism to get on the stand and swear by what she heard from one side as being gospel. She wont even budge to say "well maybe that could be" or "that's a possibility" etc., or even when she hears what Jodi has done, she is swearing under oath that she believes Jodi to be a truthful person, even after she is shown proof to the contrary. This woman will not budge, and the only conclusion I can come to, as to why, is that she is selling herself on the media for all other potential cases out there in need for her services. She is advertising her intensity and expert background as being something they may need when in trouble. I'm sure that both defense attorney's have enlightened her to this as this is their reason for carrying this case as far as it has been carried. LaV will get paid either way, her money wont be held up if she bends a little by admitting she could have been wrong, therefore I have to believe it is being done for advertising purposes and she couldn't care less about justice.

LaV may be getting stressed out right now, but it's due to her own actions, not Martinez . JMO

Why are they waiting until Tuesday for the hearing on AL? What's going on tomorrow?

I don't think people should write a book review if you haven't read the book. I don't think that's fair. Take a look at her Amazon.com reviews. She has 70 five stars reviews, over a thousand 1 star reviews and only about 25 inbetween. Also almost all of the April reviews were one star.

Here is a review that I thought was very well done:

As a professor, author, and researcher in intimate relationships and sexuality, I feel qualified to assess LaViolette's book.

While some of her discussions are accurate, the difficulty lies in the fact that her thoughts and ideas are left over from the 1970s and are from a radical feminism framework (which is fine for those who adhere to that ideology); in full disclosure, ethical researchers and scholars typically discuss their paradigm (bias), but LaViolette does not. This is important to note, because the radical feminist framework always holds the male accountable for the violence, and holds women innocent; this is in direct contrast with what current research studies indicate. While empirical evidence does indicate that women are typically the victims and men are the perpetrators, this is NOT ALWAYS the case. LaViolette's book fails to note that men are battered, too.

Other problems exist in the research cited in the book--most of her research is QUITE antiquated, dating back as far as the 1950s. This is unfortunate as it does not truly represent what we know about Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Domestic Violence (DV) in our culture today; the research is not current, it is not relevant, and it is NOT representative of the landscape of IPV. Furthermore, LaViolette's interpretation of some of the benchmark studies is skewed. I suspect this is due, in part, to her lack of research experience. After all, she is a clinician, not a researcher. This is evident in her writings.

I knew of LaViolette's work prior to the now-famous murder trial of Travis Alexander and because of her lack of research knowledge chose not to cite her in any of my books. Now that I have watched her testify and have seen how she grossly misrepresents Walker's Cycle of Abuse, I question her knowledge of IPV and DV and her relevancy in today's culture.

This next one, not so much because I don't think it's based on her book but this person is just using Amazon to spout off on the woman. I think it's more fair to do that in forums like this one.

This author is highly suspect in her ethics as is apparent in her "expert testimony" for the Jodi Arias trial. She supports hearsay testimony in support of someone whom has engaged in interpersonal terrorism, stalking, and abuse in many of her previous relationships, ultimately culminating in a rage-filled premeditated brutal slaughtering of an ex-boyfriend. This is evident in that she has agreed to summarize evidence and speaking on behalf of the perpetrator vs. allowing the jury to see the journal entries, text messages, etc. so they may follow along and see for themselves that they are not taken out of context.

As a DV survivor, I caution you to please not spend your money on an author, whom has set back women's rights in DV-related family court cases for years. Please, instead, support Mr. Lundy Bancroft, whose books are based on scientific, as well as anecdotal research. He is truly a DV advocate, who supports women or DV victims in family court and provides many options for healing to perpetrators, DV survivors, DV victims, and children affected by this family dysfunction.

This person is trying to punish AL and I don't think we as observers should be out to do that. I could be wrong and welcome opposing opinions. Does anyone out there think we as followers of the case should make an effort to punish the people we don't like in this trial? I think this woman is a disgrace to the psychology profession (and worse) but I don't think it's my duty to try to influence how many books she sells.

For those that want to checkout her book reviews:

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

Sea, the first quote was very insightful. I have always thought that when Ms. Lav testified, she was doing it from a point of view that was too many years old, or "antiquated" as the poster stated. Ms LaV has herself spoken of her lack of skills in todays technology and I fear that her opinions are also lacking in todays
"landscape". Women, imo, are no longer the little shrinking violets of the 50's, drinking Geritol for their alcohol fix and wearing pearls and high heels to cook dinner. Women of today are capable of violence and unfortunately, some act on it. Ms LaV needs to retire or bone up on the 21st century. Men are abused by women everyday. No longer is the stereo type of only women being abused is valid.

As to trying to intervene in the financial gain of Ms LaV...I could really care less how much money she makes. How does that impact any person that has posted a review of her book? I think as members of society, we can and should watch our legal systems and voice our opinions. But to harass, intimidate, or threaten someone we don't like due to their testimony, is unacceptable to me.

Snapped is on right now....it is the story of Wendy Andriano.....the case that Juan Martinez got the death penalty or a woman who murdered her terminally ill husband. In case anyone is interested.

Chickenbutt wrote:Sea, the first quote was very insightful. I have always thought that when Ms. Lav testified, she was doing it from a point of view that was too many years old, or "antiquated" as the poster stated. Ms LaV has herself spoken of her lack of skills in todays technology and I fear that her opinions are also lacking in todays
"landscape". Women, imo, are no longer the little shrinking violets of the 50's, drinking Geritol for their alcohol fix and wearing pearls and high heels to cook dinner. Women of today are capable of violence and unfortunately, some act on it. Ms LaV needs to retire or bone up on the 21st century. Men are abused by women everyday. No longer is the stereo type of only women being abused is valid.

As to trying to intervene in the financial gain of Ms LaV...I could really care less how much money she makes. How does that impact any person that has posted a review of her book? I think as members of society, we can and should watch our legal systems and voice our opinions. But to harass, intimidate, or threaten someone we don't like due to their testimony, is unacceptable to me.

You are so right, this woman is way behind in times. She is applying her old way of thinking to this modern day killing by an obsessed woman who couldn't bear her ex leaving her. It was premeditated and carried out.

As for any other forums, I'm limited to being on here only. I don't have time to lurk around but I wish I did. I have all to do with keeping up on here.

As for searay, saying that we shouldn't be downing the woman, well that's what message boards are about. You want us to accept opposing opinions yet you are not willing to accept ours. I don't like LaV, I think she is biased, I think she is a disgrace to psychologists and advocates for abused women. She took an obvious abuser and truned her into an abused. A man is dead, died a horrific and torturist death at the hands of Jodi. She admitted the killing and now she wants sympathy. LaV is selling her soul as far as I am concerned for what ever her reasoning may be. If she is a man hater, so be it. Maybe she was mistreated by men in her life but that's neither here nor there, it should not be carried over to a case so horrific at this one. So Travis lied and said he was a virgin, is that the best she can come up with? What has Jodi lied about or hasn't lied about? Does LaV realize she has a son, how would she feel if this was her son that Jodi did this to? How would she want her son dating a woman like this? I bet she wouldn't like it one bit.

I have no sympathy for LaV, none at all.

Just bringing myself up to speed (if that can be done). I've watched the trial since the opening statements forward, and I am still curious about what the issue is involving Ms. LaV. I got the distinct impression that the Judge is not pleased with her by the exchange at the end of Friday's session.

It could be the impeachment issue referenced above, but it could also be that improper conduct of approaching the Victim's family member. I jumped into that late Friday - and thank you for clarifying that Ms. Wong is not the reporter who witnessed the exchange between Samantha and Ms. LaV. Guess it's a wait and see topic.

On another point - I agree with you CB, and others here, who believe that Ms. LaV is behind the times and not looking at women of today in the 21st century. Her refusal to concede even in small measure that Jodi's conduct could be perceived as abusive just demonstrates to me that she is nothing more than a hired gun. I believe some of the juror's questions reveal that they too are seeing this. Although I believe Jodi is guilty of premeditated Murder 1, I would have been alot more willing to give domestic violence consideration as a reason why she did what she did had Ms. LaV pointed out the negative aspects of Jodi's involvement in the relationship as well - but she has held steadfast placing the onus solely on the victim.

Am I right in understanding that the jury is made up of more men than women? I believe most men will acknowledge they are aware of how easily they can be manipulated by a conniving woman. I am sure men also realize that most men will not readily admit to being abused by a woman for fear of being called a wimp, etc. It's in their make-up from the way they are raised to be women-pleasers and how society perceives them as being "the head" of the household or in control of the relationship. That she recorded their intimate phone calls tells me that she was threatening Travis to expose their sexual escapades. I am confident that the jurors are seeing through Ms. LaV's inability or refusal to acknowledge that Jodi was the stalker and abuser in this relationship - and in fact, they may also be recognizing that Jodi is continuing her abuse of Travis posthumously through this trial by trying to manipulate the system into believing she was the abused and punishing him by exposing the dirty little details of their sexual life. JMHO

Chickenbutt wrote:Snapped is on right now....it is the story of Wendy Andriano.....the case that Juan Martinez got the death penalty or a woman who murdered her terminally ill husband. In case anyone is interested.

What channel CB?

So far as Ms. LaV goes personally as an expert witness. From just the little that I have heard, it seems to me that she is in the decline of her career - maybe she expected this to be her involvement in a high profile case that would send her into national fame allowing her to demand high hourly fees as a counselor and open the door to another book or two. I don't think she has had enough exposure in high profile cases that she anticipated that her opinions would be so negatively received by the media and public at large. I suspect that what she expected to get out of this case has exploded before her very eyes and she is mortified that this may be the end of her career. Hence, the mention of her retirement - that is on her mind - over and above the case. Now, to be admonished by the Judge that her personal life's schedule is unimportant and that she WILL be available on Tuesday most likely has her rolled in a ball somewhere at home today. Which, makes me want to mention something - what expert witness has their own little groupie in the audience? Sounds odd to me.

Gizmo711 wrote:

Chickenbutt wrote:Sea, the first quote was very insightful. I have always thought that when Ms. Lav testified, she was doing it from a point of view that was too many years old, or "antiquated" as the poster stated. Ms LaV has herself spoken of her lack of skills in todays technology and I fear that her opinions are also lacking in todays
"landscape". Women, imo, are no longer the little shrinking violets of the 50's, drinking Geritol for their alcohol fix and wearing pearls and high heels to cook dinner. Women of today are capable of violence and unfortunately, some act on it. Ms LaV needs to retire or bone up on the 21st century. Men are abused by women everyday. No longer is the stereo type of only women being abused is valid.

As to trying to intervene in the financial gain of Ms LaV...I could really care less how much money she makes. How does that impact any person that has posted a review of her book? I think as members of society, we can and should watch our legal systems and voice our opinions. But to harass, intimidate, or threaten someone we don't like due to their testimony, is unacceptable to me.

You are so right, this woman is way behind in times. She is applying her old way of thinking to this modern day killing by an obsessed woman who couldn't bear her ex leaving her. It was premeditated and carried out.

As for any other forums, I'm limited to being on here only. I don't have time to lurk around but I wish I did. I have all to do with keeping up on here.

As for searay, saying that we shouldn't be downing the woman, well that's what message boards are about. You want us to accept opposing opinions yet you are not willing to accept ours. I don't like LaV, I think she is biased, I think she is a disgrace to psychologists and advocates for abused women. She took an obvious abuser and truned her into an abused. A man is dead, died a horrific and torturist death at the hands of Jodi. She admitted the killing and now she wants sympathy. LaV is selling her soul as far as I am concerned for what ever her reasoning may be. If she is a man hater, so be it. Maybe she was mistreated by men in her life but that's neither here nor there, it should not be carried over to a case so horrific at this one. So Travis lied and said he was a virgin, is that the best she can come up with? What has Jodi lied about or hasn't lied about? Does LaV realize she has a son, how would she feel if this was her son that Jodi did this to? How would she want her son dating a woman like this? I bet she wouldn't like it one bit.

I have no sympathy for LaV, none at all.

Hey Gizmo :)
Nobody here has sympathy for Lav, that I know of, and I don't think that Sea Ray was saying that we "shouldn't down Ms. Lav." What we have all been discussing is the way some people are out to destroy her life because of her testimony. I don't like her, you don't, and I think it's safe to say nobody here does. BUT we aren't calling her place of work harassing her and we aren't attacking her, personally. It's fine for all of us to rant about her here in the forum, nobody is saying it's not. What some of us believe is, is that others (nobody from this board, and we aren't really talking about message boards being the problem) are harassing her to the point that she had to get the police involved.

CN...probably over now....but it is on Oxygen....whatever number that is for you

angiefly2 wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

Chickenbutt wrote:Sea, the first quote was very insightful. I have always thought that when Ms. Lav testified, she was doing it from a point of view that was too many years old, or "antiquated" as the poster stated. Ms LaV has herself spoken of her lack of skills in todays technology and I fear that her opinions are also lacking in todays
"landscape". Women, imo, are no longer the little shrinking violets of the 50's, drinking Geritol for their alcohol fix and wearing pearls and high heels to cook dinner. Women of today are capable of violence and unfortunately, some act on it. Ms LaV needs to retire or bone up on the 21st century. Men are abused by women everyday. No longer is the stereo type of only women being abused is valid.

As to trying to intervene in the financial gain of Ms LaV...I could really care less how much money she makes. How does that impact any person that has posted a review of her book? I think as members of society, we can and should watch our legal systems and voice our opinions. But to harass, intimidate, or threaten someone we don't like due to their testimony, is unacceptable to me.

You are so right, this woman is way behind in times. She is applying her old way of thinking to this modern day killing by an obsessed woman who couldn't bear her ex leaving her. It was premeditated and carried out.

As for any other forums, I'm limited to being on here only. I don't have time to lurk around but I wish I did. I have all to do with keeping up on here.

As for searay, saying that we shouldn't be downing the woman, well that's what message boards are about. You want us to accept opposing opinions yet you are not willing to accept ours. I don't like LaV, I think she is biased, I think she is a disgrace to psychologists and advocates for abused women. She took an obvious abuser and truned her into an abused. A man is dead, died a horrific and torturist death at the hands of Jodi. She admitted the killing and now she wants sympathy. LaV is selling her soul as far as I am concerned for what ever her reasoning may be. If she is a man hater, so be it. Maybe she was mistreated by men in her life but that's neither here nor there, it should not be carried over to a case so horrific at this one. So Travis lied and said he was a virgin, is that the best she can come up with? What has Jodi lied about or hasn't lied about? Does LaV realize she has a son, how would she feel if this was her son that Jodi did this to? How would she want her son dating a woman like this? I bet she wouldn't like it one bit.

I have no sympathy for LaV, none at all.

Hey Gizmo :)
Nobody here has sympathy for Lav, that I know of, and I don't think that Sea Ray was saying that we "shouldn't down Ms. Lav. What we have all been discussing is the way some people are out to destroy her life because of her testimony. I don't like her, you don't, and I think it's safe to say nobody here does. BUT we aren't calling her place of work harassing her and we aren't attacking her, personally. It's fine for all of us to rant about her here in the forum, nobody is saying it's not. What some of us believe is, is that others (nobody from this board, and we aren't really talking about message boards being the problem) are harassing her to the point that she had to get the police involved.

Absolutely - heck, I curse the entire defense team in the GZ case, but I would never go so far as to call their offices and threaten them or try to destroy their careers and anyone that is doing that is an idiot IMO. For example, I don't have any negative thoughts about Jodi's attorneys - someone had to represent her - and they don't have anything to work with in order to save her life. Yet, even so, you did not see (or at least I didn't) her counsel making accusations in the media that trashed the reputation of the victim and his family. On the other hand, when I look at attorneys like O'Mara & West, who are trying their case in the media and attempting to thugify the victim and outright accusing the victim's family of being money mongers and conspiracy theorists, I have a problem with the ethics of those attorneys doing that and as a result - ridicule them continuously.

Chickenbutt wrote:CN...probably over now....but it is on Oxygen....whatever number that is for you

Thanks - found it - comes on at noon here.

So will Monday's hearing be televised?

You should watch it

I dunno about Monday's hearing, but we will all be tuned in to see...lol

CN, if you watch Snapped.....when they mention and show Casa Grande. That is our town. That is where we will be moving back to. I think they show City Hall.....big old building with fountains in the front. The Andrianos are a very old, founding family in CG.

Chickenbutt wrote:CN, if you watch Snapped.....when they mention and show Casa Grande. That is our town. That is where we will be moving back to. I think they show City Hall.....big old building with fountains in the front. The Andrianos are a very old, founding family in CG.

Okay - looked at the guide and the Andrianos segment doesn't come on until 1pm...I'll be watching. :-) Gotta see where my buddy is going to be living.

Gizmo711 wrote:
Nurmi himself said to believe that the "jury" hasn't been watching the media is a fantasy. Do you really believe that LaViolette hasn't been watching the media? If LaViolette was given the job to decide in such a magnitude of a trial that someone was depending on their life, don't you think that in order to answer questions about abuse that she would "require' some proof from both sides? She solely went by what Jodi said happened, nothing else. Those text messages and e-mails showed an angry Travis, angry for something that Jodi had did to him. No where in those texts or e-mails does it say that he wanted to harm Jodi physically. Therefore she had to have gone totally on everything that Jodi said happened and we all know that Jodi is a liar. Maybe she didn't realize at the beginning that she was such a liar, but the facts were there, she lied about not being there, she lied about the gun, she lied about the "ninja's", I would think that any professional would be a little leary as to what Jodi was saying and request all information on the party who was murdered. She never spoke to any of Travis' friends, not his family or anyone at all, in trying to get some knowledge of Travis.

As for the journals, LaV makes excuses as to why Jodi didn't write negative things. LaV has absolutely no proof that Travis broke Jodi's finger. To believe such a rediculous story that Jodi didn't want to get medical attention to her finger in fear of getting Travis in trouble is BS in the first degree. Jodi is a grown woman and would not need to tell any doctor how she broke a finger, it's ludicrous not to think that it happened while she was murdering Travis and that's the reason she didn't go seek help, because she didn't want it documented as to when she went to the ER.

There is just too much that was totally overlooked and I believe it to be deliberate on LaV's part.

I would think that this would be against her professionalism to get on the stand and swear by what she heard from one side as being gospel. She wont even budge to say "well maybe that could be" or "that's a possibility" etc., or even when she hears what Jodi has done, she is swearing under oath that she believes Jodi to be a truthful person, even after she is shown proof to the contrary. This woman will not budge, and the only conclusion I can come to, as to why, is that she is selling herself on the media for all other potential cases out there in need for her services. She is advertising her intensity and expert background as being something they may need when in trouble. I'm sure that both defense attorney's have enlightened her to this as this is their reason for carrying this case as far as it has been carried. LaV will get paid either way, her money wont be held up if she bends a little by admitting she could have been wrong, therefore I have to believe it is being done for advertising purposes and she couldn't care less about justice.

LaV may be getting stressed out right now, but it's due to her own actions, not Martinez . JMO

Hi, Gizmo,

I understand your point of view, and your level of frustration with this witness. Believe me, I'm not trying to defend Ms. LaViolette, because I find her testimony to be despicable. But, trying to look at this objectively, I see it a little differently. I see the defense attorneys as being responsible for some of the things you are attributing to Ms. LaV.

I firmly believe that Ms. LaV did not watch the media. To do so would have put the entire trial at risk. Even if she had, she couldn't testify to anything she might have seen or learned from the media, especially if it could be proven that she was not provided with such information directly. I would imagine that would minimally be grounds to fully impeach her as a witness, if not possibly risk a mistrial.

By law, she is forbidden to approach the victim's family for interviews, depositions, etc, per the Arizona Victims Rights law: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] This is why it was totally unacceptable for her to approach Samantha Alexander in court.

Although I agree that she should have used corroborating evidence to support her claims, I believe she was not permitted to do so. As for contacting the victim's friends, she's probably only allowed to contact those people that the defense team allowed her to contact. Do you really think the defense attorneys would allow her to contact Travis' friends, when their testimony would probably harm their client?

So I don't think her lack of corroborating evidence was deliberate on her part. I believe that the defense attorneys deliberately showed her only the evidence that would support their defense, and prevented her from seeing evidence to the contrary. That being said, do I believe she should have drawn conclusions without such corroborating evidence? ABSOLUTELY NOT, and for that, I hold her totally accountable. She should have refused to draw conclusions without such.

I do agree that she should have been flexible enough on the stand to acknowledge that if she had additional information that refuted what she was given, that her opinion would be different. But I'm glad she didn't budge, because it proves her bias to Jodi.

I also agree that she brought this on herself by testifying as she did, without having the impartial corroborating evidence to back it up.

I have faith that the prosecutor's expert will have done all the things you think Ms. LaV should have done, and will have been given access to much more information than Ms. LaV to draw their own, unbiased conclusions that do have corroborating evidence to back up their claims.

JMO